Yongchun Song1, Kui Yang2, Tuanhe Sun1, Ruixiang Tang3. 1. Department of Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, 277 West Yanta Road, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China. 3. Department of Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, 277 West Yanta Road, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China. caitang0613@xjtu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In sarcomas, the DNA copy number and DNA methylation exhibit genomic aberrations. Transcriptome imbalances play a driving role in the heterogeneous progression of sarcomas. However, it is still unclear whether abnormalities of DNA copy numbers are systematically related to epigenetic DNA methylation, thus, a comprehensive analysis of sarcoma occurrence and development from the perspective of epigenetic and genomics is required. METHODS: RNASeq, copy number variation (CNV), methylation data, clinical follow-up information were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and GEO database. The association between methylation and CNV was analyzed to further identify methylation-related genes (MET-Gs) and CNV abnormality-related genes (CNV-Gs). Subsequently DNA copy number, methylation, and gene expression data associated with the MET-Gs and CNV-Gs were integrated to determine molecular subtypes and clinical and molecular characteristics of molecular subtypes. Finally, key biomarkers were determined and validated in independent validation sets. RESULTS: A total of 5354 CNV-Gs and 4042 MET-Gs were screened and showed a high degree of consistency. Four molecular subtypes (iC1, iC2, iC3, and iC4) with different prognostic significances were identified by multiomics cluster analysis, specifically, iC2 had the worst prognosis and iC4 indicated an immune-enhancing state. Three potential prognostic markers (ENO1, ACVRL1 and APBB1IP) were determined after comparing the molecular characteristics of the four molecular subtypes. The expression of ENO1 gene was significantly correlated with CNV, and was noticeably higher in iC2 subtype with the worst prognosis than any other subtypes. The expressions of ACVRL1 and APBB1IP were negatively correlated with methylation, and were high-expressed in the iC4 subtype with the most favorable prognosis. In addition, the number of silent/nonsilent mutations and neoantigens in iC2 subtype were significantly more than those in iC1/iC3/iC4 subtype, and the same trend was also observed in CNV Gain/Loss. CONCLUSION: The current comprehensive analysis of genomic and epigenomic regulation provides new insights into multilayered pathobiology of sarcomas. Four molecular subtypes and three prognostic markers developed in this study improve the current understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying sarcoma.
BACKGROUND: In sarcomas, the DNA copy number and DNA methylation exhibit genomic aberrations. Transcriptome imbalances play a driving role in the heterogeneous progression of sarcomas. However, it is still unclear whether abnormalities of DNA copy numbers are systematically related to epigenetic DNA methylation, thus, a comprehensive analysis of sarcoma occurrence and development from the perspective of epigenetic and genomics is required. METHODS: RNASeq, copy number variation (CNV), methylation data, clinical follow-up information were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and GEO database. The association between methylation and CNV was analyzed to further identify methylation-related genes (MET-Gs) and CNV abnormality-related genes (CNV-Gs). Subsequently DNA copy number, methylation, and gene expression data associated with the MET-Gs and CNV-Gs were integrated to determine molecular subtypes and clinical and molecular characteristics of molecular subtypes. Finally, key biomarkers were determined and validated in independent validation sets. RESULTS: A total of 5354 CNV-Gs and 4042 MET-Gs were screened and showed a high degree of consistency. Four molecular subtypes (iC1, iC2, iC3, and iC4) with different prognostic significances were identified by multiomics cluster analysis, specifically, iC2 had the worst prognosis and iC4 indicated an immune-enhancing state. Three potential prognostic markers (ENO1, ACVRL1 and APBB1IP) were determined after comparing the molecular characteristics of the four molecular subtypes. The expression of ENO1 gene was significantly correlated with CNV, and was noticeably higher in iC2 subtype with the worst prognosis than any other subtypes. The expressions of ACVRL1 and APBB1IP were negatively correlated with methylation, and were high-expressed in the iC4 subtype with the most favorable prognosis. In addition, the number of silent/nonsilent mutations and neoantigens in iC2 subtype were significantly more than those in iC1/iC3/iC4 subtype, and the same trend was also observed in CNV Gain/Loss. CONCLUSION: The current comprehensive analysis of genomic and epigenomic regulation provides new insights into multilayered pathobiology of sarcomas. Four molecular subtypes and three prognostic markers developed in this study improve the current understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying sarcoma.
Authors: Margaret von Mehren; R Lor Randall; Robert S Benjamin; Sarah Boles; Marilyn M Bui; Ephraim S Casper; Ernest U Conrad; Thomas F Delaney; Kristen N Ganjoo; Suzanne George; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Martin J Heslin; John M Kane; Joel Mayerson; Sean V McGarry; Christian Meyer; Richard J O'Donnell; Alberto S Pappo; I Benjamin Paz; John D Pfeifer; Richard F Riedel; Scott Schuetze; Karen D Schupak; Herbert S Schwartz; Brian A Van Tine; Jeffrey D Wayne; Mary Anne Bergman; Hema Sundar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Bo Li; Eric Severson; Jean-Christophe Pignon; Haoquan Zhao; Taiwen Li; Jesse Novak; Peng Jiang; Hui Shen; Jon C Aster; Scott Rodig; Sabina Signoretti; Jun S Liu; X Shirley Liu Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Rewati Tappu; Jan Haas; David H Lehmann; Farbod Sedaghat-Hamedani; Elham Kayvanpour; Andreas Keller; Hugo A Katus; Norbert Frey; Benjamin Meder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Miguel Esperança-Martins; Iola F Duarte; Mara Rodrigues; Joaquim Soares do Brito; Dolores López-Presa; Luís Costa; Isabel Fernandes; Sérgio Dias Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 6.208