Literature DB >> 33569302

A prognostic nomogram for lung adenocarcinoma based on immune-infiltrating Treg-related genes: from bench to bedside.

Xiaofei Wang1, Zengtuan Xiao1, Jialin Gong1, Zuo Liu1, Mengzhe Zhang1, Zhenfa Zhang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that lymphocyte infiltration in the tumor microenvironment is positively correlated with tumorigenesis and development, while the role of Tregs (regulatory T cells) has been controversial. Therefore, we attempted to discover the possible value of Tregs for lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD).
METHODS: The gene-sequencing data of LUAD were applied from three Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets-GSE10072, GSE32863 and GSE43458; the corresponding fractions of tumor-infiltrating immune cells were extracted from the CIBERSORTx portal. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis were conducted to identify the significant module and candidate genes related to Tregs. The role of candidate genes in LUAD was further verified using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Finally, we constructed a nomogram model to predict the prognosis of LUAD by plotting Kaplan-Meier (K-M), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and calibration curves, which elucidated the performance of the nomogram.
RESULTS: In total, 10,047 genes in 333 samples (196 tumor and 137 normal samples) from the GEO database were included. By WGCNA and PPI analysis, we identified a significant black module and 36 candidate genes related to Treg. Next, the candidate genes were verified using TCGA data by Cox regression analysis to screen 13 hub genes that stratified LUAD patients into low- or high-risk groups. Low-risk patients showed a significantly longer overall survival (OS) than high-risk patients (3-year OS: 70.2% vs. 35.2%; 5-year OS: 36.6% vs. 0; P=1.651E-09), and the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) showed good (3-year AUC: 0.733; 5-year AUC: 0.777). Next, we constructed a survival nomogram combining the hub genes and clinical parameters; the low-risk patients still showed a favorable prognosis compared with that of the high-risk patients (P=7.073E-13), and the AUCs were better (3-year AUC: 0.763; 5-year AUC: 0.873).
CONCLUSIONS: We revealed the role of immune-infiltrating Treg-related genes in LUAD and constructed a prognostic nomogram, which may help clinicians make optimal therapeutic decisions and help patients obtain better outcomes. 2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO); TCGA; Tregs (regulatory T cells); WGCNA; lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD)

Year:  2021        PMID: 33569302      PMCID: PMC7867791          DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res        ISSN: 2218-6751


Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of malignancy-related death worldwide, with approximately 2.2 million new cases and 1.9 million deaths worldwide in 2017 (1), despite great progress in diagnosis and therapeutics over the years. As the most prevailing histological type of lung cancer, lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) always derives from the acinar cells of the lung periphery and has a poor prognosis. This cause may be mainly due to the high heterogeneity of LUAD and advanced stage of patients when diagnosed (2). However, the current TNM (tumor size, lymph nodes and distant metastasis) staging system tends to be insufficient to accurately characterize and stage tumors at an early stage and even after surgery (3,4), features that are necessary to design an optimal initial treatment plan and offer adequate postoperative adjuvant therapy. Therefore, more complementary methods to enhance TNM staging and identify the behavior of LUAD are needed. In recent years, our view of cancer has changed drastically. Tumors are no longer regarded as simple malignant masses or cells but as a complex tumor microenvironment: tumor cells recruit other infiltrating immune cell subpopulations to constitute a self-sufficient biological unit (5). The composition of the tumor microenvironment varies in different patients and even in the same type of cancer, such as different fractions of B cells, NK cells, M1/M2 macrophages, granulocytes, mast cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ helper T cells, and regulatory T cells, which determine tumor characteristics and the patient prognosis (6-8). Previous studies showed that the expansion and accumulation of suppressive Tregs always caused the development, metastasis and recurrence of multiple malignancies including lung cancer (9-12). Some studies found that FoxP3+CD4+Tregs infiltrating correlated negatively with the survival of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (13,14). Other researches on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) revealed that whether in peripheral blood or intratumor, high level of Tregs was associated with high metastasis and low survival rates (15-17). However, a study published in ‘Nature Immunology’ from Ferreira et al., highlighted the role of type 1 Tregs in enhancing the immunity barrier in peripheral tissues, which challenged the classical view of Tregs in immunosuppression (18). Given that the role of Tregs (regulatory T cells) in tumors has been controversial, we attempted to explore the potential value of Tregs for LUAD. In the present study, we integrated three LUAD sequencing datasets, GSE10072, GSE32863, and GSE43458, from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and extracted the relevant fractions of 22 immune-infiltrating cells from the CIBERSORTx portal. Next, weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis were conducted to identify the most significant module and candidate genes related to Tregs. The candidate genes were then further validated using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, and 13 hub genes were screened. The correlation between hub genes and Tregs was tested using Spearman’s method. Finally, we constructed a nomogram model combining the hub genes and clinical parameters, which showed a better performance to predict the risk of LUAD. The flow diagram of this study is shown in . We present the following article in accordance with the TRIPOD reporting checklist (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-822).
Figure 1

Flow diagram of the study.

Flow diagram of the study.

Methods

Data source and processing

The LUAD sequencing data were applied from three GEO (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) datasets, GSE10072, GSE32863, and GSE43458. We used the sav and limma packages of R to perform batch calibration and data normalization. When a gene corresponds to multiple probes, the mean value is taken as the final expression value.

Estimation of immune infiltrating cells

Using the sequencing data, we estimated the fractions of 22 tumor-infiltrating immune cells using CIBERSORTx (https://cibersortx.stanford.edu/), an online tool that imputes gene expression profiles by a deconvolution algorithm and provides an estimated abundance of known cell types within a mixed cell population (19).

Construction of the coexpression network and module-trait relationships

The expression values of the 10,048 genes of the LUAD samples were used to construct a weight coexpression network employing the R package “WGCNA”, a biological method used to integrate genes with coexpression into the same module. The correlations between the modules and sample traits are calculated to screen the models with a high correlation with traits, and the genes in the modules are analyzed to identify target genes (20). Here, we used the fractions of 22 immune-infiltrating cells as sample traits and chose an optimal soft threshold power (β) to build a scaleless network when setting the index of scale-free topologies as 0.90. Next, we assigned genes with similar expression patterns to the same module (minimum size =30) using the “dynamic tree cutting” algorithm. Moreover, we estimated the correlation of the module eigengenes with the infiltrating level of the 22 immune-infiltrating cells to screen the significance of the modules by Pearson’s test. Finally, we selected the “Tregs (regulatory T cells)” subtype of interest and the module with the highest correlation with Tregs was selected for further study.

Construction of the PPI network and identification of candidate genes

From the significant module, we obtained Treg-related module genes, with which the PPI network was developed using Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING; https://string-db.org/). Next, the PPI network was presented using Cytoscape (version 3.7.2), which is a free app for visualizing sophisticated networks and integrating them with attribute data. The “CytoHubba” module of Cytoscape is a plug-in that recognizes hub genes in a network based on the properties of nodes in a network (21), from which we screened the candidate genes related to Tregs.

Verification of candidate genes using TCGA data and screening of the hub genes

To further verify the role of candidate genes in LUAD, we applied gene sequencing and the corresponding completely clinical data (375 LUAD and 48 normal samples) at the TCGA (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/) portal, from which we extracted the expression values of the Treg-related genes. The expression values of LUAD and normal tissues were averaged using the “mean” function. Next, we used log2 transform to normalize all the average expression values. Analysis of the statistically significant differences between the LUAD and normal expression data was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test built into R (version 3.6.3; https://www.r-project.org/), defining the threshold of |log(fold change)| no less than 1 and the false discovery rate (FDR) less than 0.05. Finally, we implemented a Cox proportional hazards model to screen the Treg-related hub genes and their coefficients, from which the patients were assigned a high- or low-risk score. The risk scores were calculated using the following formula: (e is the expression value of gene g in a sample; n is the number of independent indicators, and c refers to the regression coefficient of gene g in the Cox proportional hazards model).

Validation of Treg-related hub genes

The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curve was illustrated to estimate the differences in overall survival (OS) between the low- and high-risk groups using the log-rank test to analyze the statistical significance. Moreover, we implemented receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to evaluate the accuracy of grouping (low/high risk). Spearman’s correlation between the Treg infiltration level and expression of hub genes was calculated using the data from Tumor Immune Estimation Resource (TIMER2.0; http://timer.cistrome.org/), and the results were visualized using the “ggstatsplot” package of R.

Enrichment analysis of hub genes related to Tregs

To identify tumor-related molecular mechanisms of the hub genes related to Tregs, Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses were performed in R using the packages org.Hs.eg.db, Cluster Profiler, enrichplot, and ggplot2 with both P values and q-values less than 0.05.

Construction and validation of the prognostic nomogram model for LUAD

To apply the Treg-related genes better clinically, we constructed a prognostic nomogram model for LUAD, combining the risk score with traditional clinical parameters (age, gender, stage, T, N and M). A nomogram is an effective tool that formulates the scoring criteria for all the variables in the regression equation according to their regression coefficients. Next, each patient receives a summed score, which can be converted into the probability of the outcome time of each patient through the function (22). We then performed ROC, calibration and K-M curve analyses to elucidate the performance of the nomogram.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses and graphics were generated using the R and Perl packages. A Cox proportional hazards model was applied to identify survival genes related to Tregs. K-M curve analysis was performed to show the differences in OS between the low- and high-risk groups, using the log-rank test to estimate the significance of the differences. The calibration curve, ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) values were used to determine the efficacy of the model. A P value less than 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

Results

Gene sequencing data and estimation of immune-infiltrating cells

We acquired the gene expression data of 10,048 genes from 196 LUAD and 137 normal tissues from the GEO database and calculated the abundance of 22 immune-infiltrating cells for each sample using the CIBERSORTx portal. Next, the fractions of 22 immune-infiltrating cells with gene expression data were selected as traits of WGCNA.

Coexpression network and protein-protein interaction network

The expression data of the 10,048 genes with the abundance of 22 immune-infiltrating cells were used to build the coexpression network. To build the scaleless network, we chose the appropriate soft threshold power (β=10) because it was the first power value to make the index of scale-free topologies reach 0.90 (). Treg-related genes with similar expression patterns were incorporated into the same module using a dynamic tree-cutting algorithm (module size =30), making a hierarchical clustering tree with 12 modules (). As shown in , the black module was highly correlated with regulatory T cells (Tregs) (R2=0.52, P=1e-10) among the twelve modules. Because we were interested in Tregs, we selected 111 Treg-related genes (Table S1) in the black module with P<0.05 for further study.
Figure 2

Selection of the appropriate soft threshold (power) and construction of the hierarchical clustering tree. (A) Selection of the soft threshold made the index of scale-free topologies reach 0.90. (B) Analysis of the average connectivity of 1–20 soft threshold power. (C) Treg-related genes with similar expression patterns were merged into the same module using a dynamic tree-cutting algorithm, creating a hierarchical clustering tree.

Figure 3

Heatmap of the correlations between the modules and immune-infiltrating cells (traits). (A) Within every square, the number on the top refers to the coefficient between the cell infiltrating level and corresponding module, and the bottom is the P value. (B) The protein-protein interaction network of Treg-related genes.

Selection of the appropriate soft threshold (power) and construction of the hierarchical clustering tree. (A) Selection of the soft threshold made the index of scale-free topologies reach 0.90. (B) Analysis of the average connectivity of 1–20 soft threshold power. (C) Treg-related genes with similar expression patterns were merged into the same module using a dynamic tree-cutting algorithm, creating a hierarchical clustering tree. Heatmap of the correlations between the modules and immune-infiltrating cells (traits). (A) Within every square, the number on the top refers to the coefficient between the cell infiltrating level and corresponding module, and the bottom is the P value. (B) The protein-protein interaction network of Treg-related genes. Next, we developed the PPI network () using 111 module genes and eventually screened 36 candidate genes related to Tregs using the “CytoHubba” module of Cytoscape with all scores no less than 10.

Verification of the role of Treg-related genes in LUAD

To further verify the role of 36 candidate genes in LUAD, we extracted the gene sequencing and corresponding clinical data from the TCGA datvabase, comprising 375 LUAD and 48 normal samples. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we eventually screened 13 hub genes (CCNB2, ECT2, RAD51AP1, UBE2C, CENPE, TOP2A, TYMS, KIF20A, STIL, CDKN3, PRC1, AURKA, HMMR) and their coefficients. Of the 13 hub genes, 4 (STIL, CCNB2, RAD51AP1, TOP2A) were considered risk genes (HRs: 0.2895–0.9717; all P<0.05), and their overexpression may lead to a worse prognosis. Additionally, 4 genes (HMMR, ECT2, TYMS, and PRC1) may serve as protective genes (HRs: 1.0030–2.6878; all P<0.05), and their overexpression may lead to a better outcome for LUAD. The results of Cox regression analyses are shown in detail in . The individual risk score of each LUAD patient was calculated according to our risk score formula. Based on the median risk score, the LUAD patients were assigned to the low- and high-risk groups.
Table 1

Univariate and multivariate cox regression analyses of Treg-related genes in lung adenocarcinoma

GenesUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PCoef
CCNB2 1.2865 (1.1052, 1.4975)0.00110.5618 (0.3248, 0.9717)0.0391−0.5766
CENPF 1.3786 (1.1801, 1.6106)0.0001
ECT2 1.3876 (1.1780, 1.6344)0.00011.4995 (1.0674, 2.1066)0.01950.4051
TPX2 1.2902 (1.1383, 1.4624)0.0001
RAD51AP1 1.2278 (1.0348, 1.4568)0.01870.5962 (0.3927, 0.9052)0.0152−0.5172
UBE2C 1.2097 (1.0799, 1.3551)0.00101.1744 (0.938, 1.4706)0.16100.1608
KIF11 1.4513 (1.2191, 1.7276)0.0000
CDC20 1.2925 (1.1298, 1.4786)0.0002
CENPE 1.6591 (1.3094, 2.1023)0.00001.7341 (0.9894, 3.0393)0.05450.5505
CEP55 1.3132 (1.1228, 1.5359)0.0007
TOP2A 1.1981 (1.0513, 1.3654)0.00670.6710 (0.4736, 0.9507)0.0248−0.3989
TYMS 1.4399 (1.2047, 1.7209)0.00011.5270 (1.0734, 2.1721)0.01860.4233
KIF20A 1.5165 (1.2591, 1.8266)0.00001.4245 (0.9433, 2.1511)0.09250.3538
ASPM 1.5214 (1.2596, 1.8375)0.0000
BUB1 1.3451 (1.1377, 1.5903)0.0005
TRIP13 1.2308 (1.0550, 1.4360)0.0083
STIL 1.4508 (1.1313, 1.8605)0.00340.5235 (0.2895, 0.9465)0.0322−0.6472
CDKN3 1.3521 (1.1623, 1.5730)0.00011.3149 (0.9192, 1.8809)0.13390.2738
PTTG1 1.4207 (1.1964, 1.6871)0.0001
MCM4 1.2973 (1.0940, 1.5385)0.0028
MCM6 1.3489 (1.0960, 1.6602)0.0047
DEPDC1 1.4407 (1.2008, 1.7286)0.0001
NUSAP1 1.3527 (1.1465, 1.5960)0.0003
MCM2 1.2728 (1.0766, 1.5049)0.0047
PRC1 1.4413 (1.2203, 1.7022)0.00001.6418 (1.0030, 2.6873)0.04860.4958
KNTC1 1.3367 (1.0618, 1.6826)0.0135
AURKA 1.2579 (1.0781, 1.4677)0.00360.7174 (0.5122, 1.0049)0.0534−0.3321
PAICS 1.4356 (1.1493, 1.7933)0.0014
MELK 1.3452 (1.1507, 1.5726)0.0002
HMMR 1.4166 (1.1914, 1.6844)0.00011.4713 (1.0176, 2.1274)0.04010.3862
TTK 1.3397 (1.1229, 1.5984)0.0012
PBK 1.2934 (1.1217, 1.4914)0.0004
CCNB1 1.3997 (1.1978, 1.6355)0.0000

HR, hazard ratio; Coef, regression coefficient of genes in the multivariate Cox regression analysis.

HR, hazard ratio; Coef, regression coefficient of genes in the multivariate Cox regression analysis. K-M survival curve analysis was performed to determine the difference between the two groups. The median survival time of the low-risk patients was 4.38 years, while that of the high-risk patients was 2.48 years (). The low-risk patients had a significantly better OS than the high-risk patients (3-year OS: 70.2% vs. 35.2%; 5-year OS: 36.6% vs. 0; P=1.651E-09), and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were good (3-year AUC: 0.733; 5-year AUC: 0.777) ().
Figure 4

K-M and ROC curves based on the risk score model. (A) K-M curve of the high-risk (red) and low-risk (blue) LUAD patients. (B) Three-year (red) and five-year (blue) ROC curves of the risk score model.

K-M and ROC curves based on the risk score model. (A) K-M curve of the high-risk (red) and low-risk (blue) LUAD patients. (B) Three-year (red) and five-year (blue) ROC curves of the risk score model. Spearman’s correlation between the Treg infiltration level and expression level of 13 hub genes were illustrated using the R package “ggstatsplot” (). Of the 13 hub genes, we found that the expression levels of AURKA, CCNB2, CDKN3, ECT2, HMMR, KIF20A, PRC1, UBE2C, RAD51AP1, TOP2A and TYMS all had a positive correlation with Treg infiltration in the tumor microenvironment. By contrast, the correlation between the gene expression (of CENPE and STIL) and the infiltration level was negative.
Figure 5

Spearman’s correlations between 13 candidate genes and the infiltration level of Tregs (the “Rho” in the pictures indicates the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and “p” indicates the P value).

Spearman’s correlations between 13 candidate genes and the infiltration level of Tregs (the “Rho” in the pictures indicates the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and “p” indicates the P value).

Prognostic nomogram model for LUAD: construction and validation

To apply Treg-related genes to clinical use, we constructed a nomogram model, combining the risk score with traditional clinical indicators, to predict the prognosis of LUAD. Given the high correlation between pathologic staging of M and T/N/stage, we finally included five clinical indicators (age, gender, stage, T and N) in the model ().
Figure 6

Prognostic nomogram for lung adenocarcinoma. According to the 6 variables (age, gender, stage, pathologic_T, pathologic_N and riskScore) in the model, 6 corresponding “points” values can be obtained, and the “total points” can be calculated by summing them. Therefore, the 3-/5-year survival rate of patients can be predicted

Prognostic nomogram for lung adenocarcinoma. According to the 6 variables (age, gender, stage, pathologic_T, pathologic_N and riskScore) in the model, 6 corresponding “points” values can be obtained, and the “total points” can be calculated by summing them. Therefore, the 3-/5-year survival rate of patients can be predicted To test the discriminability of the model, we implemented the calibration curve, which is used to assess the accuracy of the (disease) risk model in predicting the probability of an individual outcome event in the future and reflects the degree of consistency between the predicted model risk and actual occurrence risk (23). In the study, the calibration curves showed that the predicted survival rate was consistent with the actual incidence rate within 3/5 years (). Moreover, we plotted the K–M curve, which showed good discriminating ability of the nomogram (P=7.073e−13) (), and the AUC was improved (3-year AUC: 0.763; 5-year AUC: 0.873) ().
Figure 7

Calibration curve of the nomogram model at the 3-/5-year survival. Good concordance was obtained at the 3-year (A) and 5-year (B) year survivals of the nomogram-predicted probability with the actual survival.

Figure 8

K-M and ROC curves based on the nomogram model. (A) K-M curve of high-risk (red) and low-risk (blue) LUAD patients. (B) Three-year (red) and five-year (blue) ROC curves of the risk score model.

Calibration curve of the nomogram model at the 3-/5-year survival. Good concordance was obtained at the 3-year (A) and 5-year (B) year survivals of the nomogram-predicted probability with the actual survival. K-M and ROC curves based on the nomogram model. (A) K-M curve of high-risk (red) and low-risk (blue) LUAD patients. (B) Three-year (red) and five-year (blue) ROC curves of the risk score model.

GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses

To identify molecular mechanisms of the candidate genes in LUAD, GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses were performed (). GO analysis includes 3 categories: biological processes (BP), cellular components (CC) and molecular function (MF). We found that the top enriched terms were (mitotic) nuclear division, spindle organization, organelle fission and chromosome segregation in BP; spindle, kinetochore and chromosome/centromeric region in CC; protein serine/threonine kinase activity, DNA-dependent ATPase activity and catalytic activity, acting on DNA in MF (). For KEGG enrichment pathways, the Treg-related hub genes were mostly enriched in the cell cycle, oocyte meiosis, DNA replication, p53 signaling pathway, human T-cell leukemia virus 1 infection, cellular senescence and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis ().
Table 2

GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of candidate genes in the most significant terms

TermsIDDescriptionGene ratioPadjustGene IDCount
Biological processGO:0000280Nuclear division15/354.15E-14 CENPF/TPX2/UBE2C/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/TOP2A/ASPM/TRIP13/NUSAP1/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 15
GO:0048285Organelle fission15/358.22E-14 CENPF/TPX2/UBE2C/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/TOP2A/ASPM/TRIP13/NUSAP1/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 15
GO:0140014Mitotic nuclear division13/358.22E-14 CENPF/TPX2/UBE2C/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/TRIP13/NUSAP1/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 13
GO:0007088Regulation of mitotic nuclear division11/356.79E-13 CENPF/UBE2C/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/TRIP13/NUSAP1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 11
GO:0051783Regulation of nuclear division11/352.50E-12 CENPF/UBE2C/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/TRIP13/NUSAP1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 11
GO:0007051Spindle organization10/352.06E-11 TPX2/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/ASPM/STIL/PRC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 10
GO:1902850Microtubule cytoskeleton organization involved in mitosis9/351.01E-10 TPX2/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/STIL/NUSAP1/PRC1/TTK/CCNB1 9
GO:0007059Chromosome segregation11/352.72E-10 CENPF/ECT2/CDC20/CENPE/TOP2A/BUB1/TRIP13/NUSAP1/PRC1/TTK/CCNB1 11
GO:0051983Regulation of chromosome segregation8/356.96E-10 CENPF/ECT2/CDC20/CENPE/BUB1/TRIP13/TTK/CCNB1 8
GO:0098813Nuclear chromosome segregation10/356.96E-10 CENPF/ECT2/CDC20/CENPE/BUB1/TRIP13/NUSAP1/PRC1/TTK/CCNB1 10
Cellular componentGO:0005819Spindle13/358.73E-13 CENPF/ECT2/TPX2/KIF11/CDC20/CENPE/KIF20A/ASPM/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA/TTK/CCNB1 13
GO:0000922Spindle pole9/352.76E-10 CENPF/TPX2/KIF11/CDC20/ASPM/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA/CCNB1 9
GO:0030496Midbody8/352.02E-08 CENPF/ECT2/CENPE/CEP55/KIF20A/ASPM/PRC1/AURKA 8
GO:0098687Chromosomal region9/351.62E-07 CENPF/CENPE/BUB1/MCM4/MCM6/MCM2/KNTC1/TTK/CCNB1 9
GO:0072686Mitotic spindle6/353.66E-07 ECT2/TPX2/KIF11/CENPE/ASPM/AURKA 6
GO:0005876Spindle microtubule5/355.84E-07 KIF11/CENPE/PRC1/KNTC1/AURKA 5
GO:0000776Kinetochore6/351.48E-06 CENPF/CENPE/BUB1/KNTC1/TTK/CCNB1 6
GO:0005813Centrosome9/351.48E-06 CCNB2/CENPF/CDC20/CEP55/ASPM/STIL/AURKA/HMMR/CCNB1 9
GO:0042555MCM complex3/357.85E-06 MCM4/MCM6/MCM2 3
GO:0000775Chromosome, centromeric region6/357.85E-06 CENPF/CENPE/BUB1/KNTC1/TTK/CCNB1 6
Molecular functionGO:0004674Protein serine/threonine kinase activity6/359.86E-03 BUB1/AURKA/CDK4/MELK/TTK/PBK 6
GO:0008094DNA-dependent ATPase activity3/352.04E-02 TOP2A/MCM4/MCM6 3
GO:0016538Cyclin-dependent protein serine/threonine kinase regulator activity2/352.04E-02 CDK4/CCNB1 2
GO:0003697Single-stranded DNA binding3/352.07E-02 RAD51AP1/MCM4/MCM6 3
GO:0004003ATP-dependent DNA helicase activity2/353.66E-02 MCM4/MCM6 2
GO:0004386Helicase activity3/353.80E-02 MCM4/MCM6/MCM2 3
GO:0004712Protein serine/threonine/tyrosine kinase activity2/354.11E-02 AURKA/TTK 2
GO:0003678DNA helicase activity2/354.11E-02 MCM4/MCM6 2
GO:0140097Catalytic activity, acting on DNA3/354.11E-02 TOP2A/MCM4/MCM6 3
GO:0008026ATP-dependent helicase activity2/354.62E-02 MCM4/MCM6 2
KEGG pathwayshsa04110Cell cycle10/179.47E-15 CCNB2/CDC20/BUB1/PTTG1/MCM4/MCM6/MCM2/CDK4/TTK/CCNB1 10
hsa04114Oocyte meiosis6/171.56E-07 CCNB2/CDC20/BUB1/PTTG1/AURKA/CCNB1 6
hsa04914Progesterone-mediated oocyte maturation4/174.57E-05 CCNB2/BUB1/AURKA/CCNB1 4
hsa03030DNA replication3/175.39E-05 MCM4/MCM6/MCM2 3
hsa04115p53 signaling pathway3/174.47E-04 CCNB2/CDK4/CCNB1 3
hsa05166Human T-cell leukemia virus 1 infection4/179.68E-04 CCNB2/CDC20/PTTG1/CDK4 4
hsa04218Cellular senescence3/174.00E-03 CCNB2/CDK4/CCNB1 3
hsa04068FoxO signaling pathway2/173.06E-02 CCNB2/CCNB1 2
hsa04120Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis2/173.46E-02 UBE2C/CDC20 2
hsa00670One carbon pool by folate1/174.15E-02 TYMS 1

GO, Gene Ontology; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.

Figure 9

Gene Ontology (GO) functional annotation and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses. (A) Enriched GO terms. The changing colors from blue to red elucidate the Padjust value increasing, and the length of the bar indicates the numbers of gene enrichment terms. (B) Enriched KEGG pathways. The depth of red indicates the size of the Z value, and the number of blue points indicates the number of enriched genes.

GO, Gene Ontology; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Gene Ontology (GO) functional annotation and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses. (A) Enriched GO terms. The changing colors from blue to red elucidate the Padjust value increasing, and the length of the bar indicates the numbers of gene enrichment terms. (B) Enriched KEGG pathways. The depth of red indicates the size of the Z value, and the number of blue points indicates the number of enriched genes.

Discussion

As the predominant histological phenotype of lung cancer, LUAD has a poor prognosis with a 5-year survival rate less than 25% (24,25), likely because of its undetected pathogenesis and complicated patterns of invasive growth, such as lymphovascular invasion, pleural invasion, and aerogenous invasion (26,27). Histopathological analysis revealed that the infiltration of inflammatory cells and lymphocytes is an important activity of the tumor microenvironment that may impact tumorigenesis, invasion, metastasis, and prognosis. Therefore, increasing emphasis has been placed on immune infiltration cell targeting compared with direct tumor cell killing (28). In recent years, immunotherapy for LUAD has advanced rapidly and has been markedly beneficial to patients (29). The 2018 Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine was awarded to Professor James P. Allison, and Professor Tasuku Honjo for their contribution to immune checkpoint therapy. To date, antibodies against PD-1/L1—nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, atezolizumab, durvalumab and avelumab—have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for first-line and/or late-stage treatment of 17 cancers (including NSCLC) (30,31). Pembrolizumab has been recommended for non-squamous cell carcinoma patients with high PD-L1 expression levels (tumor proportion score ≥50%) (32). However, the intratumor or inter-tumor heterogeneity and the non-standardized cut-off values for PD-1/L1, tumor mutation burden (TMB) and other independent immune-related biomarkers are far from being efficient (33-36). Thus, more potential and effective biomarkers are required. In this study, we integrated three different GEO datasets (GSE10072/GSE32863/GSE43458) and obtained 196 LUAD and 137 normal samples. First, we acquired the abundances of 22 tumor-infiltrating immune cells using a deconvolution algorithm with the help of the CIBERSORTx portal, and then we identified candidate modules (black) and 36 candidate genes highly related to Tregs using the method of weighting gene coexpression network and PPIs. To verify the Treg-related genes, we generated the expression data of Treg-related genes as well as the clinical parameters from the TCGA database and then implemented a Cox proportional hazards model to calculate a risk score for each LUAD patient. The model performed well in that the low-risk patients had significantly longer 3- and 5-year survival times than the high-risk patients. Moreover, to further apply the Treg-related risk score in the clinic, we constructed a prognostic nomogram for LUAD, integrating the Treg-related risk score with traditional clinical parameters (age, gender, stage, T and N). The AUC value and calibration curve indicated that the nomogram performed better. Additionally, GO enrichment analysis revealed that the prognostic Treg-related genes were mainly enriched in BP involving cell proliferation, such as mitosis, chromosome separation, and DNA replicase activity. For the KEGG pathway analysis, Treg-related genes were mostly involved in the cell cycle, DNA replication and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, which were similar to the GO enriched terms for the cell cycle. This may reflect the reason for Treg enrichment in the tumor microenvironment, a finding that was consistent with that in previous studies (37-39). Moreover, the p53 and FoxO signaling pathways were included in the KEGG enriched pathways. P53 is a tumor suppressor that monitors the cell cycle, maintains genomic stability by participating in DNA repair and is coexpressed with angiogenic genes such as Smad4 to inhibit tumor angiogenesis (40,41). FoxO is a nuclear protein subfamily that mediates the inhibition of insulin or insulin-like growth factor to further influence cell cycle regulation, energy metabolism, protein stability, oxidative stress, apoptosis, and immunity (42,43). Akimova et al. found that the number and inhibitory function of Treg intratumor were significantly higher than those in blood, lungs and lymph nodes by single-cell studies (37,38). Conventional research has highlighted the protective role of Tregs in alleviating inflammation in autoimmune diseases (44). Xie et al. showed that Tregs recruited to tumors played a role as “accomplices” in helping tumor cells escape immunological surveillance (45). Shimizu et al. and Marshall et al. revealed that the enrichment of Tregs in tumors usually indicates a poor prognosis (16,46). However, the latest discovery of Ferreira et al. found that Tregs promoted the differentiation of CD8+ effector memory T cells into tissue-resident memory T cells by providing the necessary cytokines, yielding more effective antitumor immunity (18). Therefore, studying the role of Treg cell infiltration into tumor tissue may provide a new perspective for immunotherapy or prognosis of LUAD. Infiltrating Tregs in the tumor microenvironment play a potentially important role, which has been partially confirmed and applied in our study. However, this study has certain limitations. Although we drew the conclusion through multiple sequencing data and across different databases, more studies are needed to verify our results. Additionally, our results were obtained at the transcriptome level, and more proteomics level validation and clinical trials are needed to accelerate the clinical application.

Conclusions

We provide insights into the roles of Treg-related genes in LUAD and constructed a promising nomogram, which may help clinicians formulate more adequate treatment and follow-up plans. The article’s supplementary files as
  46 in total

1.  Small cell lung cancer tumour cells induce regulatory T lymphocytes, and patient survival correlates negatively with FOXP3+ cells in tumour infiltrate.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Philip Hodkinson; Fiona McLaren; Alison MacKinnon; William Wallace; Sarah Howie; Tariq Sethi
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 2.  TREG-cell therapies for autoimmune rheumatic diseases.

Authors:  Makoto Miyara; Yoshinaga Ito; Shimon Sakaguchi
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 20.543

3.  Expanded CIBERSORTx.

Authors:  Nicole Rusk
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 28.547

4.  Oxidative stress, mutagenic effects, and cell death induced by retene.

Authors:  Milena Simões Peixoto; Francisco Carlos da Silva Junior; Marcos Felipe de Oliveira Galvão; Deborah Arnsdorff Roubicek; Nilmara de Oliveira Alves; Silvia Regina Batistuzzo de Medeiros
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 7.086

5.  Human lung tumor FOXP3+ Tregs upregulate four "Treg-locking" transcription factors.

Authors:  Tatiana Akimova; Tianyi Zhang; Dmitri Negorev; Sunil Singhal; Jason Stadanlick; Abhishek Rao; Michael Annunziata; Matthew H Levine; Ulf H Beier; Joshua M Diamond; Jason D Christie; Steven M Albelda; Evgeniy B Eruslanov; Wayne W Hancock
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2017-08-17

6.  Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update.

Authors:  Nasser H Hanna; Bryan J Schneider; Sarah Temin; Sherman Baker; Julie Brahmer; Peter M Ellis; Laurie E Gaspar; Rami Y Haddad; Paul J Hesketh; Dharamvir Jain; Ishmael Jaiyesimi; David H Johnson; Natasha B Leighl; Tanyanika Phillips; Gregory J Riely; Andrew G Robinson; Rafael Rosell; Joan H Schiller; Navneet Singh; David R Spigel; Janis O Stabler; Joan Tashbar; Gregory Masters
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Martin Reck; Delvys Rodríguez-Abreu; Andrew G Robinson; Rina Hui; Tibor Csőszi; Andrea Fülöp; Maya Gottfried; Nir Peled; Ali Tafreshi; Sinead Cuffe; Mary O'Brien; Suman Rao; Katsuyuki Hotta; Melanie A Leiby; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Yue Shentu; Reshma Rangwala; Julie R Brahmer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Reciprocal CD4+ T-cell balance of effector CD62Llow CD4+ and CD62LhighCD25+ CD4+ regulatory T cells in small cell lung cancer reflects disease stage.

Authors:  Kenichi Koyama; Hiroshi Kagamu; Satoru Miura; Toru Hiura; Takahiro Miyabayashi; Ryo Itoh; Hideyuki Kuriyama; Hiroshi Tanaka; Junta Tanaka; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Koh Nakata; Fumitake Gejyo
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 9.  The Role of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Development, Progression, and Prognosis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Roy M Bremnes; Lill-Tove Busund; Thomas L Kilvær; Sigve Andersen; Elin Richardsen; Erna Elise Paulsen; Sigurd Hald; Mehrdad Rakaee Khanehkenari; Wendy A Cooper; Steven C Kao; Tom Dønnem
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 15.609

10.  Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  Christina Fitzmaurice; Degu Abate; Naghmeh Abbasi; Hedayat Abbastabar; Foad Abd-Allah; Omar Abdel-Rahman; Ahmed Abdelalim; Amir Abdoli; Ibrahim Abdollahpour; Abdishakur S M Abdulle; Nebiyu Dereje Abebe; Haftom Niguse Abraha; Laith Jamal Abu-Raddad; Ahmed Abualhasan; Isaac Akinkunmi Adedeji; Shailesh M Advani; Mohsen Afarideh; Mahdi Afshari; Mohammad Aghaali; Dominic Agius; Sutapa Agrawal; Ayat Ahmadi; Elham Ahmadian; Ehsan Ahmadpour; Muktar Beshir Ahmed; Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari; Tomi Akinyemiju; Ziyad Al-Aly; Assim M AlAbdulKader; Fares Alahdab; Tahiya Alam; Genet Melak Alamene; Birhan Tamene T Alemnew; Kefyalew Addis Alene; Cyrus Alinia; Vahid Alipour; Syed Mohamed Aljunid; Fatemeh Allah Bakeshei; Majid Abdulrahman Hamad Almadi; Amir Almasi-Hashiani; Ubai Alsharif; Shirina Alsowaidi; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Erfan Amini; Saeed Amini; Yaw Ampem Amoako; Zohreh Anbari; Nahla Hamed Anber; Catalina Liliana Andrei; Mina Anjomshoa; Fereshteh Ansari; Ansariadi Ansariadi; Seth Christopher Yaw Appiah; Morteza Arab-Zozani; Jalal Arabloo; Zohreh Arefi; Olatunde Aremu; Habtamu Abera Areri; Al Artaman; Hamid Asayesh; Ephrem Tsegay Asfaw; Alebachew Fasil Ashagre; Reza Assadi; Bahar Ataeinia; Hagos Tasew Atalay; Zerihun Ataro; Suleman Atique; Marcel Ausloos; Leticia Avila-Burgos; Euripide F G A Avokpaho; Ashish Awasthi; Nefsu Awoke; Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla; Martin Amogre Ayanore; Henok Tadesse Ayele; Ebrahim Babaee; Umar Bacha; Alaa Badawi; Mojtaba Bagherzadeh; Eleni Bagli; Senthilkumar Balakrishnan; Abbas Balouchi; Till Winfried Bärnighausen; Robert J Battista; Masoud Behzadifar; Meysam Behzadifar; Bayu Begashaw Bekele; Yared Belete Belay; Yaschilal Muche Belayneh; Kathleen Kim Sachiko Berfield; Adugnaw Berhane; Eduardo Bernabe; Mircea Beuran; Nickhill Bhakta; Krittika Bhattacharyya; Belete Biadgo; Ali Bijani; Muhammad Shahdaat Bin Sayeed; Charles Birungi; Catherine Bisignano; Helen Bitew; Tone Bjørge; Archie Bleyer; Kassawmar Angaw Bogale; Hunduma Amensisa Bojia; Antonio M Borzì; Cristina Bosetti; Ibrahim R Bou-Orm; Hermann Brenner; Jerry D Brewer; Andrey Nikolaevich Briko; Nikolay Ivanovich Briko; Maria Teresa Bustamante-Teixeira; Zahid A Butt; Giulia Carreras; Juan J Carrero; Félix Carvalho; Clara Castro; Franz Castro; Ferrán Catalá-López; Ester Cerin; Yazan Chaiah; Wagaye Fentahun Chanie; Vijay Kumar Chattu; Pankaj Chaturvedi; Neelima Singh Chauhan; Mohammad Chehrazi; Peggy Pei-Chia Chiang; Tesfaye Yitna Chichiabellu; Onyema Greg Chido-Amajuoyi; Odgerel Chimed-Ochir; Jee-Young J Choi; Devasahayam J Christopher; Dinh-Toi Chu; Maria-Magdalena Constantin; Vera M Costa; Emanuele Crocetti; Christopher Stephen Crowe; Maria Paula Curado; Saad M A Dahlawi; Giovanni Damiani; Amira Hamed Darwish; Ahmad Daryani; José das Neves; Feleke Mekonnen Demeke; Asmamaw Bizuneh Demis; Birhanu Wondimeneh Demissie; Gebre Teklemariam Demoz; Edgar Denova-Gutiérrez; Afshin Derakhshani; Kalkidan Solomon Deribe; Rupak Desai; Beruk Berhanu Desalegn; Melaku Desta; Subhojit Dey; Samath Dhamminda Dharmaratne; Meghnath Dhimal; Daniel Diaz; Mesfin Tadese Tadese Dinberu; Shirin Djalalinia; David Teye Doku; Thomas M Drake; Manisha Dubey; Eleonora Dubljanin; Eyasu Ejeta Duken; Hedyeh Ebrahimi; Andem Effiong; Aziz Eftekhari; Iman El Sayed; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Shaimaa I El-Jaafary; Ziad El-Khatib; Demelash Abewa Elemineh; Hajer Elkout; Richard G Ellenbogen; Aisha Elsharkawy; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Daniel Adane Endalew; Aman Yesuf Endries; Babak Eshrati; Ibtihal Fadhil; Vahid Fallah Omrani; Mahbobeh Faramarzi; Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi; Andrea Farioli; Farshad Farzadfar; Netsanet Fentahun; Eduarda Fernandes; Garumma Tolu Feyissa; Irina Filip; Florian Fischer; James L Fisher; Lisa M Force; Masoud Foroutan; Marisa Freitas; Takeshi Fukumoto; Neal D Futran; Silvano Gallus; Fortune Gbetoho Gankpe; Reta Tsegaye Gayesa; Tsegaye Tewelde Gebrehiwot; Gebreamlak Gebremedhn Gebremeskel; Getnet Azeze Gedefaw; Belayneh K Gelaw; Birhanu Geta; Sefonias Getachew; Kebede Embaye Gezae; Mansour Ghafourifard; Alireza Ghajar; Ahmad Ghashghaee; Asadollah Gholamian; Paramjit Singh Gill; Themba T G Ginindza; Alem Girmay; Muluken Gizaw; Ricardo Santiago Gomez; Sameer Vali Gopalani; Giuseppe Gorini; Bárbara Niegia Garcia Goulart; Ayman Grada; Maximiliano Ribeiro Guerra; Andre Luiz Sena Guimaraes; Prakash C Gupta; Rahul Gupta; Kishor Hadkhale; Arvin Haj-Mirzaian; Arya Haj-Mirzaian; Randah R Hamadeh; Samer Hamidi; Lolemo Kelbiso Hanfore; Josep Maria Haro; Milad Hasankhani; Amir Hasanzadeh; Hamid Yimam Hassen; Roderick J Hay; Simon I Hay; Andualem Henok; Nathaniel J Henry; Claudiu Herteliu; Hagos D Hidru; Chi Linh Hoang; Michael K Hole; Praveen Hoogar; Nobuyuki Horita; H Dean Hosgood; Mostafa Hosseini; Mehdi Hosseinzadeh; Mihaela Hostiuc; Sorin Hostiuc; Mowafa Househ; Mohammedaman Mama Hussen; Bogdan Ileanu; Milena D Ilic; Kaire Innos; Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani; Kufre Robert Iseh; Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Farhad Islami; Nader Jafari Balalami; Morteza Jafarinia; Leila Jahangiry; Mohammad Ali Jahani; Nader Jahanmehr; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Spencer L James; Mehdi Javanbakht; Sudha Jayaraman; Sun Ha Jee; Ensiyeh Jenabi; Ravi Prakash Jha; Jost B Jonas; Jitendra Jonnagaddala; Tamas Joo; Suresh Banayya Jungari; Mikk Jürisson; Ali Kabir; Farin Kamangar; André Karch; Narges Karimi; Ansar Karimian; Amir Kasaeian; Gebremicheal Gebreslassie Kasahun; Belete Kassa; Tesfaye Dessale Kassa; Mesfin Wudu Kassaw; Anil Kaul; Peter Njenga Keiyoro; Abraham Getachew Kelbore; Amene Abebe Kerbo; Yousef Saleh Khader; Maryam Khalilarjmandi; Ejaz Ahmad Khan; Gulfaraz Khan; Young-Ho Khang; Khaled Khatab; Amir Khater; Maryam Khayamzadeh; Maryam Khazaee-Pool; Salman Khazaei; Abdullah T Khoja; Mohammad Hossein Khosravi; Jagdish Khubchandani; Neda Kianipour; Daniel Kim; Yun Jin Kim; Adnan Kisa; Sezer Kisa; Katarzyna Kissimova-Skarbek; Hamidreza Komaki; Ai Koyanagi; Kristopher J Krohn; Burcu Kucuk Bicer; Nuworza Kugbey; Vivek Kumar; Desmond Kuupiel; Carlo La Vecchia; Deepesh P Lad; Eyasu Alem Lake; Ayenew Molla Lakew; Dharmesh Kumar Lal; Faris Hasan Lami; Qing Lan; Savita Lasrado; Paolo Lauriola; Jeffrey V Lazarus; James Leigh; Cheru Tesema Leshargie; Yu Liao; Miteku Andualem Limenih; Stefan Listl; Alan D Lopez; Platon D Lopukhov; Raimundas Lunevicius; Mohammed Madadin; Sameh Magdeldin; Hassan Magdy Abd El Razek; Azeem Majeed; Afshin Maleki; Reza Malekzadeh; Ali Manafi; Navid Manafi; Wondimu Ayele Manamo; Morteza Mansourian; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani; Saman Maroufizadeh; Santi Martini S Martini; Tivani Phosa Mashamba-Thompson; Benjamin Ballard Massenburg; Motswadi Titus Maswabi; Manu Raj Mathur; Colm McAlinden; Martin McKee; Hailemariam Abiy Alemu Meheretu; Ravi Mehrotra; Varshil Mehta; Toni Meier; Yohannes A Melaku; Gebrekiros Gebremichael Meles; Hagazi Gebre Meles; Addisu Melese; Mulugeta Melku; Peter T N Memiah; Walter Mendoza; Ritesh G Menezes; Shahin Merat; Tuomo J Meretoja; Tomislav Mestrovic; Bartosz Miazgowski; Tomasz Miazgowski; Kebadnew Mulatu M Mihretie; Ted R Miller; Edward J Mills; Seyed Mostafa Mir; Hamed Mirzaei; Hamid Reza Mirzaei; Rashmi Mishra; Babak Moazen; Dara K Mohammad; Karzan Abdulmuhsin Mohammad; Yousef Mohammad; Aso Mohammad Darwesh; Abolfazl Mohammadbeigi; Hiwa Mohammadi; Moslem Mohammadi; Mahdi Mohammadian; Abdollah Mohammadian-Hafshejani; Milad Mohammadoo-Khorasani; Reza Mohammadpourhodki; Ammas Siraj Mohammed; Jemal Abdu Mohammed; Shafiu Mohammed; Farnam Mohebi; Ali H Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Yoshan Moodley; Mahmood Moosazadeh; Maryam Moossavi; Ghobad Moradi; Mohammad Moradi-Joo; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Farhad Moradpour; Lidia Morawska; Joana Morgado-da-Costa; Naho Morisaki; Shane Douglas Morrison; Abbas Mosapour; Seyyed Meysam Mousavi; Achenef Asmamaw Muche; Oumer Sada S Muhammed; Jonah Musa; Ashraf F Nabhan; Mehdi Naderi; Ahamarshan Jayaraman Nagarajan; Gabriele Nagel; Azin Nahvijou; Gurudatta Naik; Farid Najafi; Luigi Naldi; Hae Sung Nam; Naser Nasiri; Javad Nazari; Ionut Negoi; Subas Neupane; Polly A Newcomb; Haruna Asura Nggada; Josephine W Ngunjiri; Cuong Tat Nguyen; Leila Nikniaz; Dina Nur Anggraini Ningrum; Yirga Legesse Nirayo; Molly R Nixon; Chukwudi A Nnaji; Marzieh Nojomi; Shirin Nosratnejad; Malihe Nourollahpour Shiadeh; Mohammed Suleiman Obsa; Richard Ofori-Asenso; Felix Akpojene Ogbo; In-Hwan Oh; Andrew T Olagunju; Tinuke O Olagunju; Mojisola Morenike Oluwasanu; Abidemi E Omonisi; Obinna E Onwujekwe; Anu Mary Oommen; Eyal Oren; Doris D V Ortega-Altamirano; Erika Ota; Stanislav S Otstavnov; Mayowa Ojo Owolabi; Mahesh P A; Jagadish Rao Padubidri; Smita Pakhale; Amir H Pakpour; Adrian Pana; Eun-Kee Park; Hadi Parsian; Tahereh Pashaei; Shanti Patel; Snehal T Patil; Alyssa Pennini; David M Pereira; Cristiano Piccinelli; Julian David Pillay; Majid Pirestani; Farhad Pishgar; Maarten J Postma; Hadi Pourjafar; Farshad Pourmalek; Akram Pourshams; Swayam Prakash; Narayan Prasad; Mostafa Qorbani; Mohammad Rabiee; Navid Rabiee; Amir Radfar; Alireza Rafiei; Fakher Rahim; Mahdi Rahimi; Muhammad Aziz Rahman; Fatemeh Rajati; Saleem M Rana; Samira Raoofi; Goura Kishor Rath; David Laith Rawaf; Salman Rawaf; Robert C Reiner; Andre M N Renzaho; Nima Rezaei; Aziz Rezapour; Ana Isabel Ribeiro; Daniela Ribeiro; Luca Ronfani; Elias Merdassa Roro; Gholamreza Roshandel; Ali Rostami; Ragy Safwat Saad; Parisa Sabbagh; Siamak Sabour; Basema Saddik; Saeid Safiri; Amirhossein Sahebkar; Mohammad Reza Salahshoor; Farkhonde Salehi; Hosni Salem; Marwa Rashad Salem; Hamideh Salimzadeh; Joshua A Salomon; Abdallah M Samy; Juan Sanabria; Milena M Santric Milicevic; Benn Sartorius; Arash Sarveazad; Brijesh Sathian; Maheswar Satpathy; Miloje Savic; Monika Sawhney; Mehdi Sayyah; Ione J C Schneider; Ben Schöttker; Mario Sekerija; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Masood Sepehrimanesh; Seyedmojtaba Seyedmousavi; Faramarz Shaahmadi; Hosein Shabaninejad; Mohammad Shahbaz; Masood Ali Shaikh; Amir Shamshirian; Morteza Shamsizadeh; Heidar Sharafi; Zeinab Sharafi; Mehdi Sharif; Ali Sharifi; Hamid Sharifi; Rajesh Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Reza Shirkoohi; Sharvari Rahul Shukla; Si Si; Soraya Siabani; Diego Augusto Santos Silva; Dayane Gabriele Alves Silveira; Ambrish Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Solomon Sisay; Freddy Sitas; Eugène Sobngwi; Moslem Soofi; Joan B Soriano; Vasiliki Stathopoulou; Mu'awiyyah Babale Sufiyan; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Takahiro Tabuchi; Ken Takahashi; Omid Reza Tamtaji; Mohammed Rasoul Tarawneh; Segen Gebremeskel Tassew; Parvaneh Taymoori; Arash Tehrani-Banihashemi; Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Omar Temsah; Berhe Etsay Tesfay; Fisaha Haile Tesfay; Manaye Yihune Teshale; Gizachew Assefa Tessema; Subash Thapa; Kenean Getaneh Tlaye; Roman Topor-Madry; Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone; Eugenio Traini; Bach Xuan Tran; Khanh Bao Tran; Afewerki Gebremeskel Tsadik; Irfan Ullah; Olalekan A Uthman; Marco Vacante; Maryam Vaezi; Patricia Varona Pérez; Yousef Veisani; Simone Vidale; Francesco S Violante; Vasily Vlassov; Stein Emil Vollset; Theo Vos; Kia Vosoughi; Giang Thu Vu; Isidora S Vujcic; Henry Wabinga; Tesfahun Mulatu Wachamo; Fasil Shiferaw Wagnew; Yasir Waheed; Fitsum Weldegebreal; Girmay Teklay Weldesamuel; Tissa Wijeratne; Dawit Zewdu Wondafrash; Tewodros Eshete Wonde; Adam Belay Wondmieneh; Hailemariam Mekonnen Workie; Rajaram Yadav; Abbas Yadegar; Ali Yadollahpour; Mehdi Yaseri; Vahid Yazdi-Feyzabadi; Alex Yeshaneh; Mohammed Ahmed Yimam; Ebrahim M Yimer; Engida Yisma; Naohiro Yonemoto; Mustafa Z Younis; Bahman Yousefi; Mahmoud Yousefifard; Chuanhua Yu; Erfan Zabeh; Vesna Zadnik; Telma Zahirian Moghadam; Zoubida Zaidi; Mohammad Zamani; Hamed Zandian; Alireza Zangeneh; Leila Zaki; Kazem Zendehdel; Zerihun Menlkalew Zenebe; Taye Abuhay Zewale; Arash Ziapour; Sanjay Zodpey; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more
  7 in total

1.  Construction of a prognostic immune-related lncRNA model and identification of the immune microenvironment in middle- or advanced-stage lung squamous carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Qianqian Xue; Yue Wang; Qiang Zheng; Lijun Chen; Yan Jin; Xuxia Shen; Yuan Li
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-05-23

2.  Construction of an immune-related lncRNA signature as a novel prognosis biomarker for LUAD.

Authors:  Hang Chen; Wei Shen; Saiqi Ni; Menglu Sang; Shibo Wu; Yinyu Mu; Kaitai Liu; Ni Li; Linwen Zhu; Guodong Xu
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 5.682

3.  A nomogram based on A-to-I RNA editing predicting overall survival of patients with lung squamous carcinoma.

Authors:  Li Liu; Jun Liu; Xiaoliang Deng; Li Tu; Zhuxiang Zhao; Chenli Xie; Lei Yang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 4.  The Multi-Dimensional Biomarker Landscape in Cancer Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Jing Yi Lee; Bavani Kannan; Boon Yee Lim; Zhimei Li; Abner Herbert Lim; Jui Wan Loh; Tun Kiat Ko; Cedric Chuan-Young Ng; Jason Yongsheng Chan
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 6.208

5.  Identification and Validation of an Inflammatory Response-Related Polygenic Risk Score as a Prognostic Marker in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Huang Xiaochun; Pang Feixiong; Ou Shengsong; Wei Xiaojiao; Xu Yuju; Lai Yanhua
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  An Aging-Related Gene Signature-Based Model for Risk Stratification and Prognosis Prediction in Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Qian Xu; Yurong Chen
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2021-07-02

Review 7.  Regulatory T-Cells as an Emerging Barrier to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Daniel R Principe; Lauren Chiec; Nisha A Mohindra; Hidayatullah G Munshi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 6.244

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.