| Literature DB >> 33273831 |
Zuo Tao1, Huandan Suo1, Lei Zhang1, Zining Jin1, Zhen Wang1, Danyu Wang1, Ming Wu1, Nanxi Peng1, Yujie Zhao1, Bo Chen1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the expression of MRPL13 in breast cancer tissues using TCGA database, analyze the correlation between the expression and clinicopathological characteristics of patients, and explore the role of MRPL13 in the development of breast cancer (BC).Entities:
Keywords: MRPL13; breast cancer; cancer genome map; clinical significance
Year: 2020 PMID: 33273831 PMCID: PMC7708783 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S263998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1(A–C) Expression of MRPL13between normal and tumor tissues from the UALCAN website and TCGA database. (D) Levels of MRPL13 mRNA expression and overall survival based on data obtained from TCGA. (E). Multivariate Cox analysis of MRPL13 expression and other clinicopathological variables. (F–G) The expression of MRPL13 protein was visualized using immunohistochemistry via HPA and analyzed by Western blotting.
Correlation Between Overall Survival and Multivariable Characteristics in TCGA Patients via (a) Cox Regression (b) Multivariate Survival Model
| (a) Cox Regression | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H | P value | ||||
| Age | 1.034 | 1.019 | 1.049 | 7.11E-06* | ||||
| Gender | 0.886 | 0.123 | 6.362 | 0.904518 | ||||
| Stage | 2.114 | 1.662 | 2.688 | 1.03E-09* | ||||
| T | 1.456 | 1.165 | 1.821 | 0.000955* | ||||
| M | 6.523 | 3.651 | 11.65 | 2.38E-10* | ||||
| N | 1.700 | 1.405 | 2.056 | 4.66E-08* | ||||
| 1.040 | 1.019 | 1.061 | 0.000143* | |||||
| ID | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H | P value | ||||
| Age | 1.033 | 1.017 | 1.049 | 2.13E-05* | ||||
| Gender | 0.455 | 0.062 | 3.351 | 0.440 | ||||
| Stage | 1.440 | 0.853 | 2.429 | 0.17188 | ||||
| T | 1.005 | 0.741 | 1.362 | 0.973314 | ||||
| M | 1.734 | 0.744 | 4.041 | 0.201902 | ||||
| N | 1.303 | 0.964 | 1.760 | 0.084406 | ||||
| 1.034 | 1.013 | 1.057 | 0.00165* | |||||
Note: *P<0.05.
Figure 2(A) MRPL13 expression is correlated significantly with cancer stage, (B) cancer subclass histological grade (C) and nodal metastasis status. (D) The KEGG pathway showed five positively correlated groups and five negatively correlated groups. (E) GO term analysis revealed five positively correlated groups and five negatively correlated groups. (F) Immunologic signatures pathway showed five positively correlated groups and five negatively correlated groups.
Association Between MRPL13 Expression and Clinicopathological Characteristics from UALCAN Website
| Comparison | Statistical Significance |
|---|---|
| Normal-vs-N0 | 1.62E-12 |
| Normal-vs-N1 | 1.62E-12 |
| Normal-vs-N2 | 4.38E-07 |
| Normal-vs-N3 | 2.95E-12 |
| N0-vs-N1 | 9.77E-01 |
| N0-vs-N2 | 4.72E-02 |
| N0-vs-N3 | 8.68E-01 |
| N1-vs-N2 | 4.78E-02 |
| Normal-vs-Luminal | <1E-12 |
| Normal-vs-HER2 Positive | 3.42E-07 |
| Normal-vs-TNBC | <1E-12 |
| Normal-vs-Stage1 | 1.62E-12 |
| Normal-vs-Stage2 | <1E-12 |
| Normal-vs-Stage3 | 2.74E-14 |
| Normal-vs-Stage4 | 2.24E-03 |
| Stage1-vs-Stage3 | 3.83E-02 |
Signaling Pathways (KEGG, GO, Immunologic Signatures) Most Significantly Correlated with MRPL13 Expression Based on Their Normalized Enrichment Score (NES) and p-value
| GO Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val |
| GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF CELL MIGRATION INVOLVED IN SPROUTING ANGIOGENESIS | 2.152 | 0 | 0.046 | |
| GO REGULATION OF SMOOTHENED SIGNALING PATHWAY | 2.132 | 0.0019 | 0.043 | |
| GO CELLULAR RESPONSE TO VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR STIMULUS | 2.096 | 0.0018 | 0.039 | |
| GO SMOOTH MUSCLE CELL MIGRATION | 2.081 | 0 | 0.042 | |
| GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF ENDOTHELIAL CELL MIGRATION | 2.065 | 0 | 0.042 | |
| NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val | |
| Negative | GO MEIOTIC CELL CYCLE PROCESS | −2.617 | 0 | 0 |
| GO MITOCHONDRIAL TRANSLATION | −2.582 | 0 | 0 | |
| GO NEGATIVE REGULATION OF CELL CYCLE G2 M PHASE TRANSITION | −2.518 | 0 | 5.84E-05 | |
| GO RIBOSOMAL SMALL SUBUNIT BIOGENESIS | −2.501 | 0 | 3.55E-05 | |
| GO NEGATIVE REGULATION OF NUCLEAR DIVISION | −2.495 | 0 | 3.31E-05 | |
| Positive | NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val |
| KEGG ECM RECEPTOR INTERACTION | 1.961 | 0.0039 | 0.201 | |
| KEGG VASCULAR SMOOTH MUSCLE CONTRACTION | 1.614 | 0.0152 | 0.252 | |
| KEGG NOTCH SIGNALING PATHWAY | 1.712 | 0.0165 | 0.346 | |
| KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY | 1.583 | 0.0168 | 0.230 | |
| KEGG HEDGEHOG SIGNALING PATHWAY | 1.639 | 0.0205 | 0.314 | |
| Negative | NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val |
| KEGG CELL CYCLE | −2.438 | 0 | 0 | |
| KEGG RNA DEGRADATION | −2.405 | 0 | 0 | |
| KEGG RNA POLYMERASE | −2.231 | 0 | 9.78E-04 | |
| KEGG DNA REPLICATION | −2.235 | 0 | 0.001 | |
| KEGG BASAL TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS | −2.187 | 0.0019 | 0.001 | |
| Positive | NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val |
| GSE2770 IL12 AND TGFB ACT VS ACT CD4 TCELL 6H UP | 2.276 | 0 | 0.028 | |
| GSE22886 UNSTIM VS IL15 STIM NKCELL UP | 2.274 | 0 | 0.019 | |
| GSE3982 CENT MEMORY CD4 TCELL VS TH1 UP | 2.194 | 0 | 0.044 | |
| GSE7509 UNSTIM VS FCGRIIB STIM MONOCYTE DN | 2.192 | 0 | 0.036 | |
| GSE3982 MEMORY CD4 TCELL VS TH1 UP | 2.130 | 0 | 0.0312 | |
| Negative | NAME | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val |
| GSE15930 NAIVE VS 24H IN VITRO STIM INFAB CD8 TCELL DN | −2.747 | 0 | 0 | |
| GSE18804 BRAIN VS COLON TUMORAL MACROPHAGE DN | −2.732 | 0 | 0 | |
| GSE369 SOCS3 KO VS WT LIVER UP | −2.722 | 0 | 0 | |
| GSE17974 CTRL VS ACT IL4 AND ANTI IL12 24H CD4 TCELL DN | −2.703 | 0 | 0 | |
| GSE17974 CTRL VS ACT IL4 AND ANTI IL12 12H CD4 TCELL DN | −2.701 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 3Invasion assays of MCF-10A and MCF-7 cells transfected with Neg. siRNA and MRPL13 siRNA. The MRPL13 siRNA group showed a measurable blocking effect on cell invasion in both cell lines. The numbers of cells invading into the lower surface of the filter were counted, and a significant difference was observed (A, B; *P < 0.05). Columns, mean; bars, SD; Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA), matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), and MMP-9in MRPL13-depleted MCF-10A and MCF-7 cells. (C) Western blotting and (D) real-time PCR analysis showed the expression changes after silencing MRPL13 in MCF-10A and MCF-7 cells. The expression levels of VEGFA, MMP-2, and MMP-9 were explored. (Columns, mean; bars, SD. *P < 0.05).
Figure 4(A) Correlation between MRPL13 expression and immune infiltration levels from the TISIDB website (). (B) The correlation between MRPL13 and immune checkpoint molecules (PD-L1, CTLA4, TIM3 and LAG3). (C) Different proportions of 22 subtypes of immune cells in the high and low MRPL13 expression groups in TCGA BC samples. (D) Heatmap of 22 immune infiltration cells in tumor samples.