| Literature DB >> 33622179 |
Jie Cao1, Lili Wu2, Xin Lei1, Keqing Shi1, Liang Shi3.
Abstract
Growing evidences suggest that autophagy plays a momentous part in the tumorigenesis and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are not many researches to predict the prognosis of HCC using autophagy-related genes. Therefore, based on the clinical information and RNA-Seq data of The Cancer Genome Atlas data portal (TCGA), 13 autophagy‑related gene pairs were screened to build the autophagy‑related signature to predict the prognosis by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis. Besides, the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) cohort was further applied to verify the autophagy‑related prognostic signature. Gene ontology (GO), Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) were also used to predict the relevant function of the autophagy-related gene pairs signature. As shown in the results, the autophagy-related gene pairs were mainly involved in process utilizing autophagic mechanism, autophagy, macroautophagy and cellular response to oxidative stress. The immune cell levels in the high-risk and low-risk group were explored, which showed that the three immune cells were obviously increased in the high-risk group, while the five immune cells were obviously increased in the low-risk group. In conclusion, an autophagy‑related prognostic signature was established to predict the prognosis of HCC patients with great accuracy and we found that autophagy‑related prognostic signature was related to infiltrating immune cells.Entities:
Keywords: Autophagy-related gene pairs; hepatocellular carcinoma; immune; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33622179 PMCID: PMC8806227 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1880084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
127 autophagy-related genes
| 127 autophagy-related genes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APOL1 | ARNT | ARSA | ARSB | ATF4 | ATF6 |
| ATG4B | ATG4D | ATIC | BAG1 | BAG3 | BAK1 |
| BAX | BCL2L1 | BECN1 | BID | BIRC5 | BIRC6 |
| BNIP3 | BNIP3L | CANX | CAPN1 | CAPN2 | CAPNS1 |
| CASP1 | CASP3 | CASP4 | CASP8 | CCL2 | CD46 |
| CDKN1A | CDKN1B | CDKN2A | CHMP2B | CHMP4B | CLN3 |
| CTSB | CTSD | CX3CL1 | CXCR4 | DAPK1 | DDIT3 |
| DLC1 | DNAJB1 | DNAJB9 | DRAM1 | EDEM1 | EEF2 |
| EEF2K | EGFR | EIF2AK2 | EIF4EBP1 | ERBB2 | ERN1 |
| FAS | FKBP1A | FKBP1B | FOS | FOXO1 | FOXO3 |
| GAA | GABARAPL1 | GAPDH | GOPC | HDAC1 | HDAC6 |
| HGS | HIF1A | HSP90AB1 | HSPA5 | HSPA8 | HSPB8 |
| IKBKE | ITGA3 | ITGA6 | ITGB1 | ITGB4 | KIF5B |
| KLHL24 | LAMP1 | LAMP2 | MAP1LC3A | MAP1LC3B | MAPK1 |
| MAPK3 | MAPK8IP1 | MTOR | MYC | NAMPT | NBR1 |
| NCKAP1 | NFE2L2 | NFKB1 | NPC1 | P4HB | PARP1 |
| PEA15 | PELP1 | PEX14 | PEX3 | PIK3R4 | PINK1 |
| PPP1R15A | PRKAR1A | PRKCD | PTK6 | RAB24 | RAB33B |
| RB1 | RB1CC1 | RGS19 | SERPINA1 | SESN2 | SIRT1 |
| SPHK1 | SQSTM1 | TMEM74 | TNFSF10 | TP53 | TP53INP2 |
| TSC2 | TUSC1 | ULK1 | ULK2 | VAMP3 | VEGFA |
| WIPI1 | |||||
Figure 1.LASSO cox-regression analysis to filter the autophagy-related gene pairs for prognosis. (a)The most representative autophagy-related gene pairs were obtained by LASSO analysis; (b) LASSO coefficient of the 13 autophagy-related gene pairs
Figure 2.Survival analysis of HCC in the two cohort. (a)Risk scores distribution of patients in the training cohort; (b) Survival time and survival state of patients in the training cohort; (c) Kaplan-Meier survival curve of patients with HCC in the training cohort; (d) Risk scores distribution of patients with HCC in the validation cohort; (e) Survival time and survival state of patients with HCC in the validation cohort; (f) Kaplan-Meier analysis of patients in the validation cohort
Figure 3.Univariate and multivariate analyses showed independently prognostic factors for OS of HCC in the two cohorts. (a) Univariate analyses in the training cohort; (b) Multivariate analyses in the training cohort; (c) Univariate analyses in the validation cohort; (d) Multivariate analyses in the validation cohort
Figure 4.GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of the signature gene. (a) GO enrichment analyses; (b) KEGG enrichment analyses
Figure 5.Immune infiltration levels in the two groups. (a)The radar plot displayed 22 different immune cell levels for different groups; (b) The violin plot displayed 22 different immune cell levels for different groups