PURPOSE: DNA methylation alterations play important roles in initiation and progression of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this study, we attempted to identify differentially methylated mRNA signatures with prognostic value for ccRCC. METHODS: The mRNA methylation and expression profiling data of 306 ccRCC tumors were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to screen differentially methylated lncRNAs and mRNAs (DMLs and DMMs) between bad and good prognosis patients. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses and LASSO Cox-PH regression analysis were used to select prognostic lncRNAs and mRNAs. Corresponding risk scores were calculated and compared for predictive performance in the training set using Kaplan-Meier OS and ROC curve analyses. The optimal risk score was then identified and validated in the validation set. Function enrichment analysis was conducted. RESULTS: This study screened 461 DMMs and 63 DMLs between good prognosis and bad prognosis patients, and furthermore, nine mRNAs and six lncRNAs were identified as potential prognostic molecules. Compared to nine-mRNA status risk score model, six-lncRNA methylation risk score model, and six-lncRNA status risk score model, the nine-mRNA methylation risk score model showed superiority for prognosis stratification of ccRCC patients in the training set. The prognostic ability of the nine-mRNA methylation risk score model was validated in the validation set. The nine prognostic mRNAs were functionally associated with neuroactive ligand receptor interaction and inflammation-related pathways. CONCLUSION: The nine-mRNA methylation signature (DMRTA2, DRGX, FAM167A, FGGY, FOXI2, KRTAP2-1, TCTEX1D1, TTBK1, and UBE2QL1) may be a useful prognostic biomarker and tool for ccRCC patients. The present results would be helpful to elucidate the possible pathogenesis of ccRCC.
PURPOSE: DNA methylation alterations play important roles in initiation and progression of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this study, we attempted to identify differentially methylated mRNA signatures with prognostic value for ccRCC. METHODS: The mRNA methylation and expression profiling data of 306 ccRCC tumors were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to screen differentially methylated lncRNAs and mRNAs (DMLs and DMMs) between bad and good prognosis patients. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses and LASSO Cox-PH regression analysis were used to select prognostic lncRNAs and mRNAs. Corresponding risk scores were calculated and compared for predictive performance in the training set using Kaplan-Meier OS and ROC curve analyses. The optimal risk score was then identified and validated in the validation set. Function enrichment analysis was conducted. RESULTS: This study screened 461 DMMs and 63 DMLs between good prognosis and bad prognosis patients, and furthermore, nine mRNAs and six lncRNAs were identified as potential prognostic molecules. Compared to nine-mRNA status risk score model, six-lncRNA methylation risk score model, and six-lncRNA status risk score model, the nine-mRNA methylation risk score model showed superiority for prognosis stratification of ccRCC patients in the training set. The prognostic ability of the nine-mRNA methylation risk score model was validated in the validation set. The nine prognostic mRNAs were functionally associated with neuroactive ligand receptor interaction and inflammation-related pathways. CONCLUSION: The nine-mRNA methylation signature (DMRTA2, DRGX, FAM167A, FGGY, FOXI2, KRTAP2-1, TCTEX1D1, TTBK1, and UBE2QL1) may be a useful prognostic biomarker and tool for ccRCC patients. The present results would be helpful to elucidate the possible pathogenesis of ccRCC.
Authors: Clare Stirzaker; Elena Zotenko; Jenny Z Song; Wenjia Qu; Shalima S Nair; Warwick J Locke; Andrew Stone; Nicola J Armstong; Mark D Robinson; Alexander Dobrovic; Kelly A Avery-Kiejda; Kate M Peters; Juliet D French; Sandra Stein; Darren J Korbie; Matt Trau; John F Forbes; Rodney J Scott; Melissa A Brown; Glenn D Francis; Susan J Clark Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Matthew E Ritchie; Belinda Phipson; Di Wu; Yifang Hu; Charity W Law; Wei Shi; Gordon K Smyth Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: William Yang; Kenji Yoshigoe; Xiang Qin; Jun S Liu; Jack Y Yang; Andrzej Niemierko; Youping Deng; Yunlong Liu; A Dunker; Zhongxue Chen; Liangjiang Wang; Dong Xu; Hamid R Arabnia; Weida Tong; Mary Yang Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.169