| Literature DB >> 33813769 |
Xi Wang1,2,3, Lixin Pan1,2, Qinchen Lu1,2, Haoxuan Huang1,2, Chao Feng1,2, Yuting Tao1,2, Zhijian Li1,2, Jiaxin Hu1,2, Zhiyong Lai1,2, Qiuyan Wang1,2, Zhong Tang3, Yuanliang Xie1,2,4, Tianyu Li1,2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is a heterogeneous disease with varying clinical courses and responses to treatment. To improve the prognosis of patients, it is necessary to understand such heterogeneity.Entities:
Keywords: immune microenvironment; mass cytometry; muscle-invasive bladder cancer; ssGSEA; tumor heterogeneity
Year: 2021 PMID: 33813769 PMCID: PMC8128294 DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23754
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Lab Anal ISSN: 0887-8013 Impact factor: 2.352
FIGURE 3Description of immune microenvironment by CyTOF. A, Workflow of CyTOF. B, Antibodies panel of CyTOF. C, The t‐SNE maps of the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. D, The t‐SNE maps of antibodies for cell typing. E, The t‐SNE maps of tumor‐infiltrating immune cells in cancer tissues of 35 patients with MIBC
FIGURE 1Immunophenotyping of MIBC based on ssGSEA. A, Clustering of 29 immune signatures. Immunity_H, immunity‐high; Immunity_L, immunity‐low. B, Clinical parameter of 35 patients with MIBC. C, Kaplan‐Meier curves for overall survival of MIBC patients (n = 27) by Immunophenotyping. Immunity‐high (n = 14); Immunity‐low (n = 13). p: p value of Log‐Rank test; p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical differences
FIGURE 2Differentially expressed genes and enrichment analysis. A, Heatmap of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. Samples (column) and genes (row) were clustered by unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. B, Volcano plot showed the DEGs between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. Red dots represented the significantly upregulated genes in the immunity‐high group compared with immunity‐low group (Log2(foldchange)) >1.5 and adjusted p < 0.05). Blue dots represented the significantly downregulated genes in the immunity‐high group compared with immunity‐low group (Log2(foldchange)) <−1.5 and adjusted p < 0.05). Black dots represented non‐DEGs. C, Go‐bubble plot showed top 15 pathways of GO enrichment analysis, ranked by p value. D, Significant pathways identified by GSEA
FIGURE 4Differences of immune cell composition and function between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups A, Volcano plot and Box plots showed the differential expressed tumor‐infiltrating immune cell subsets between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. H_CT: cancer tissues of immunity‐high group; L_CT cancer tissues of immunity‐low group. Red dots represented the significantly differential expressed cell subsets (|Log2(foldchange)| >1 and p < 0.05). Gray dots represented the non‐significantly differential expressed cell subsets (|Log2(foldchange)| <1 or p > 0.05). B, Box plots show differentially expressed of tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. C, The t‐SNE maps of antibodies for cellular function. D, The heatmap showed expressions of 34 markers in 26 tumor‐infiltrating immune cell subsets. p: p value of t‐test or Mann‐Whitney U test; p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical differences
FIGURE 5Differential maker expressions of Tregs and frequency of PD‐1+ Treg between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. A, Box plots showed differentially expressed of CD279 (PD‐1) and TIM‐3 on Tregs between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. H_Treg: Treg in the immunity‐high group; L_Treg: Treg in the immunity‐low group. B, Box plot showed differential frequency of CD279+ (PD‐1) Treg between the immunity‐high and immunity‐low groups. H_CT: cancer tissues of immunity‐high group; L_CT cancer tissues of immunity‐low group. p: p value of t‐test or Mann‐Whitney U test; p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical differences