Xinyi Xie1, Xinhua Zheng1, Tianhua Xie1, Jiping Cai1, Yong Yao2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Qing Yang Road 299, Wuxi, Jiangsu, 214023, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Qing Yang Road 299, Wuxi, Jiangsu, 214023, China. yaoyongnjmu@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Alternative splicing (AS) events were reportedly associated with the development of multiple cancers. The study was designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of AS events and explore their potential prognostic value in uveal melanoma (UM). METHODS: The prognostic AS events, identified based on the data of 80 UM patients obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas, were further screened and analyzed for construction of prognostic signatures by using LASSO regression and multivariate Cox model. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic value. The AS events-related functional pathways were explored by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). The difference between two subgroups in terms of treatment options was investigated. The regulatory network between prognostic AS events and splicing factors (SFs) was then constructed. RESULTS: A total of 1014 AS events were identified as prognostic AS events. Five prognostic AS events were involved in the construction of prognostic signatures, including AKAP2/87175/AP, RGMA/32575/ES, DNASE1L1/90581/ES, BIN1/55198/ES and ERCC2/50430/AT. UM patients were then divided into two subgroups. Prognostic AS signatures had an excellent performance in predicting the survival of UM patients, with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.962. GSEA results suggested several splicing-associated mechanisms, including cellular metabolic process and apoptosis. Low-risk subgroup could be more sensitive to drugs. A higher expression of immune checkpoint genes was observed in high-risk group than in low-risk group. SFs-AS regulatory network also revealed significant association between AS events and SFs. CONCLUSIONS: Aberrant AS events in UM patients might serve as prognostic predictors.
PURPOSE: Alternative splicing (AS) events were reportedly associated with the development of multiple cancers. The study was designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of AS events and explore their potential prognostic value in uveal melanoma (UM). METHODS: The prognostic AS events, identified based on the data of 80 UM patients obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas, were further screened and analyzed for construction of prognostic signatures by using LASSO regression and multivariate Cox model. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic value. The AS events-related functional pathways were explored by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). The difference between two subgroups in terms of treatment options was investigated. The regulatory network between prognostic AS events and splicing factors (SFs) was then constructed. RESULTS: A total of 1014 AS events were identified as prognostic AS events. Five prognostic AS events were involved in the construction of prognostic signatures, including AKAP2/87175/AP, RGMA/32575/ES, DNASE1L1/90581/ES, BIN1/55198/ES and ERCC2/50430/AT. UM patients were then divided into two subgroups. Prognostic AS signatures had an excellent performance in predicting the survival of UM patients, with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.962. GSEA results suggested several splicing-associated mechanisms, including cellular metabolic process and apoptosis. Low-risk subgroup could be more sensitive to drugs. A higher expression of immune checkpoint genes was observed in high-risk group than in low-risk group. SFs-AS regulatory network also revealed significant association between AS events and SFs. CONCLUSIONS: Aberrant AS events in UM patients might serve as prognostic predictors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative splicing; Prognosis; Splicing factors; TCGA; Uveal melanoma
Authors: Thomas van den Bosch; Jackelien G M van Beek; Jolanda Vaarwater; Robert M Verdijk; Nicole C Naus; Dion Paridaens; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kiliç Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: L Khoja; E G Atenafu; S Suciu; S Leyvraz; T Sato; E Marshall; U Keilholz; L Zimmer; S P Patel; S Piperno-Neumann; J Piulats; T T Kivelä; C Pfoehler; S Bhatia; P Huppert; L B J Van Iersel; I J M De Vries; N Penel; T Vogl; T Cheng; G Fiorentini; F Mouriaux; A Tarhini; P M Patel; R Carvajal; A M Joshua Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Carol L Shields; Minoru Furuta; Archana Thangappan; Saya Nagori; Arman Mashayekhi; David R Lally; Cecilia C Kelly; Danielle S Rudich; Anand V Nagori; Oojwala A Wakade; Sonul Mehta; Lauren Forte; Andrew Long; Elaina F Dellacava; Bonnie Kaplan; Jerry A Shields Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-08
Authors: Marc-Henri Stern; Richard Marais; Simon J Furney; Malin Pedersen; David Gentien; Amaury G Dumont; Audrey Rapinat; Laurence Desjardins; Samra Turajlic; Sophie Piperno-Neumann; Pierre de la Grange; Sergio Roman-Roman Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 39.397