Qiang Zhang1, Xiao-Jun Liu2, Yang Li3, Xiao-Wei Ying4, Lu Chen4. 1. Department of Clinical laboratory, The People's Hospital of Lishui, Lishui, Zhejiang, China. 2. External Liaison Office, The Central Hospital of Lishui City, Lishui, Zhejiang, China. 3. The Emergency Department, The Central Hospital of Lishui City, Lishui, Zhejiang, China. 4. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The People's Hospital of Lishui, Lishui, Zhejiang, China.
Abstract
LncRNA SET-binding factor 2 (SBF2) antisense RNA1 (SBF2-AS1) has been proven to play an oncogenic role in various types of tumors, but the prognostic role of SBF2-AS1 in tumors, especially in diffuse lower-grade glioma (LGG), is still unclear. Here, we aimed to investigate the prognostic value of SBF2-AS1 in LGG. The LGG expression profiles from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n = 524) and Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA, n = 431) were mined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox regression analysis, Chi-square test and GSEA analysis. Through Kaplan-Meier analysis, we found the prognosis of LGG patients with high expression of SBF2-AS1 were worse than that of patients with low expression (Log Rank P < 0.001). Cox analysis showed SBF2-AS1 was an independent prognostic factor for poorer overall survival in LGG (P < 0.05). SBF2-AS1 was found to be significantly related to IDH mutation status and SBF2-AS1 was highly expressed in IDH wildtype group. GSEA analysis obtained a total of 126 GO terms and 6 KEGG pathways that were significantly enriched in SBF2-AS1 high expression phenotype (NOM P value < 0.05). We found these 126 GO terms and KEGG pathways were mainly related to immunity. In conclusion, lncRNA SBF2-AS1 expression is an immune-related lncRNA associated with unfavorable overall survival in LGG. SBF2-AS1 could be a reliable prognostic biomarker for patients with LGG.
LncRNA SET-binding factor 2 (SBF2) antisense RNA1 (SBF2-AS1) has been proven to play an oncogenic role in various types of tumors, but the prognostic role of SBF2-AS1 in tumors, especially in diffuse lower-grade glioma (LGG), is still unclear. Here, we aimed to investigate the prognostic value of SBF2-AS1 in LGG. The LGG expression profiles from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n = 524) and Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA, n = 431) were mined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox regression analysis, Chi-square test and GSEA analysis. Through Kaplan-Meier analysis, we found the prognosis of LGG patients with high expression of SBF2-AS1 were worse than that of patients with low expression (Log Rank P < 0.001). Cox analysis showed SBF2-AS1 was an independent prognostic factor for poorer overall survival in LGG (P < 0.05). SBF2-AS1 was found to be significantly related to IDH mutation status and SBF2-AS1 was highly expressed in IDH wildtype group. GSEA analysis obtained a total of 126 GO terms and 6 KEGG pathways that were significantly enriched in SBF2-AS1 high expression phenotype (NOM P value < 0.05). We found these 126 GO terms and KEGG pathways were mainly related to immunity. In conclusion, lncRNA SBF2-AS1 expression is an immune-related lncRNA associated with unfavorable overall survival in LGG. SBF2-AS1 could be a reliable prognostic biomarker for patients with LGG.
Glioma is the most common type of intracranial malignant tumor, and can be grade I to
IV for diagnosis according to World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Grades
II and III gliomas are defined as diffuse lower-grade glioma (LGG).
Compared with Grade I and IV, LGGs are more heterogeneous, and accurate
prognosis judgment is more difficult, so prognostic markers are more needed for
clinical guidance. With the application of molecular characteristics (such as
isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status) in the grouping of gliomas,
it is increasingly recognized that molecular biomarkers play a critical role
in the prognosis evaluation of LGG.Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a class of non-protein encoded transcripts longer
than 200 bp, which play an important role in normal physiological functions such as
growth and development and in various human diseases, especially cancer regulate.
Emerging evidence suggests that lncRNAs have a critical regulatory role in
tumour progression and can predict the prognosis of cancer patients. In the field of
glioma research, many lncRNAs have been reported to be closely related to
tumorigenesis, development, and prognosis. For example, LINC01116 was found to be
involved in tumorigenesis of glioma by targeting VEGFA through miR-31-5p.
LncRNA HERC2P2 was identified as a tumor suppressor, and its overexpression
could significantly inhibit the migration and growth of gliomas in
vitro and in vivo.
Others have reported that lncRNAs could be prognostic indicators of LGG, such
as GAS5, H19, RAB6C-AS1.LncRNA SET-binding factor 2 (SBF2) antisense RNA1 (SBF2-AS1), located on Chromosome
11 p15.4(9,758,268-9,811,335 [GRCh38/hg38]), is widely expressed in various tissues.
The tumor-promoting function of SBF2-AS1 was first discovered in non-small cell lung
cancer (NSCLC) and was confirmed in various tumors. Meanwhile, SBF2-AS1 was also
found to predict the prognosis of cancer patients. For instance, SBF2-AS1 has been
reported to promote proliferation of NSCLC cells in vitro or
in vivo and regulate the radiosensitivity and apoptosis of
NSCLC through microRNA-302a/MBNL3 axis.
In cervical cancer, SBF2-AS1 as ceRNA regulates the expression levels of
miR-361-5p and FOXM1 to promote the tumour progression.
Moreover, up-regulated SBF2-AS1 can promote cell proliferation in esophageal
squamous cell carcinoma.
As for hepatocellular carcinoma, SBF2-AS1 can promote tumour metastasis and
its high expression indicates poor prognosis.
By sponging microRNA-143, SBF2-AS1, serving as ceRNA, can accelerate breast
cancer tumorigenesis and progression.
However, in LGG, it is not known whether SBF2-AS1 has a oncogenic role and
can be used as a prognostic marker.As the development of next generation sequencing technology, massive high-throughput
data and bioinformatics methods have facilitated a comprehensive understanding of
tumorigenesis and finding novel prognostic markers or therapeutic drugs.
Here, lncRNA expression data from a total of 955 patients with LGG were
collected from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database and the Chinese Glioma Genome
Atlas (CGGA). We aimed at mining the large queue of expression profiles and clinical
information to reveal the prognostic indicator efficacy of SBF2-AS1 and to
investigate the potential role of SBF2-AS1 in the LGG.
Materials and Methods
Data Collection of Diffuse Lower Grade Glioma (LGG) Patients
The gene expression profile of patients with LGG from The Cancer Genome Atlas
Program (TCGA) (Release Date: December 18, 2019; Embargo Release Date: August
17, 2018) was measured experimentally using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 RNA
Sequencing platform by the University of North Carolina TCGA genome
characterization center, which could be obtained from the UCSC Xena browser
(https://xenabrowser.net/).
Another dataset was downloaded from Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA)
database (http://www.cgga.org.cn/).
The BIGD accession number of LGG dataset from CGGA is PRJCA001747
(https://bigd.big.ac.cn/bioproject/browse/PRJCA001747). The
corresponding clinical data of these LGG patients were also collected. Clinical
details of patients were shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Clinical Information of LGG Patients From TCGA and CGGA Datasets.
Characteristic
TCGA
CGGA
Age
≤ 40
261
221
> 40
263
210
Sex
Female
237
193
Male
287
238
Grade
Unknown
1
0
WHO II
257
180
WHO III
266
251
IDH mutation status
Unknown
399
38
Mutant
91
297
Wildtype
34
96
Radio status
Unknown
67
31
NO
173
86
YES
284
314
Histology
Astrocytoma
194
124
Mixed glioma
133
226
Oligodendroglioma
197
81
1p19q codeletion status
Unknown
38
Codel
128
Non-codel
265
Clinical Information of LGG Patients From TCGA and CGGA Datasets.
Exploring the Association Between SBF2-AS1 and Clinicopathologic
Parameters
X-tile software was used to select optimal cutoff value of the SBF2-AS1
expression value in TCGA and CGGA datasets.
Then LGG patients were classified into high-expressed or low-expressed
group by SBF2-AS1. Survival analysis including Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression
analysis was used to explore the prognosis performance of SBF2-AS1. Chi-square
test was performed to obtain the relationship between SBF2-AS1 and clinical
parameters.
Bioinformatics Analysis of Function Prediction
The above group information of LGG according to the SBF2-AS1 expression was
treated as a phenotype label. Then GSEA was performed to analyze the GO and KEGG
pathways based on molecular signatures database (c2.cp.kegg.v5.2.symbols.gmt and c5.bp.v5.2.symbols.gmt).
The GO terms and KEGG pathways were selected by Nominal
P value and Normalized enrichment score (NOM
P < 0.05).
Results
The Performance of SBF2-AS1 in Predicting the OS of LGG Patients in TCGA and
CGGA Datasets
There were 955 LGG patients obtained from the TCGA (n = 524) and
CGGA (n = 431) with lncRNAs expression profiles and the
corresponding follow-up information for next analysis (Table 1). To investigate the clinical
value of SBF2-AS1 in predicting OS of LGG patients, we classified patient with
LGG into high- or low-expressed group based on the cutoff value of SBF2-AS1
expression selected by X-tile software, and performed Kaplan–Meier analysis. In
TCGA dataset, Kaplan–Meier showed that the survival of high-expressed SBF2-AS1
group (n = 88, median survival time: 2.03 years) was shorter
than the low-expressed group (n = 436, median survival time:
7.88 years), and the expression of SBF2-AS1 could distinguish LGG patients with
different survival (log-rank P < 0.001; Figure 1A). Then we tested the
predictive ability of clinical outcome for SBF2-AS1 in another independent LGG
dataset (CGGA, n = 431). The cutoff value of SBF2-AS1 selected
by X-tile in CGGA separated LGG patients into 2 groups and Kaplan–Meier analysis
verified that the SBF2-AS1 could also assess the prognostic risk of LGG patients
(5-year survival: 25.58% vs. 58.43%, log-rank
P < 0.001; Figure 1B). Subsequently, in order to
describe the relationship between the expression of SBF2-AS1 and survival
information, we put them in Figure 2. LGG patients with low expression of SBF2-AS1 lived longer
than patients with high expression in the TCGA dataset (Figure 2A) and in the CGGA group (Figure 2B).
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier analysis showed LGG patients could be classified into 2
groups with significantly different survival based on SBF2-AS1
expression in the TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets.
Figure 2.
The expression of SBF2-AS1, survival status and survival time for LGG
patients in the TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets. X axis represents the
index of samples. Red color means that the survival status of patients
was dead, and black color means that the survival status of patients was
alive.
Kaplan–Meier analysis showed LGG patients could be classified into 2
groups with significantly different survival based on SBF2-AS1
expression in the TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets.The expression of SBF2-AS1, survival status and survival time for LGG
patients in the TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets. X axis represents the
index of samples. Red color means that the survival status of patients
was dead, and black color means that the survival status of patients was
alive.
The Association Between SBF2-AS1 and Clinical Parameters of LGG
Although the expression of SBF2-AS1 was related to Age, Radio status and Grade in
TCGA dataset, the CGGA group could not verify the association
(P < 0.05, Table 2). However, as shown in Table 2, Chi-square
test found the expression of SBF2-AS1 was related to IDH mutation status in 2
datasets (P < 0.001, Table 2). The SBF2-AS1 expression of
IDH mutation group was lower than that of IDH wildtype group in TCGA (Figure 3A) and CGGA
(Figure 3B)
datasets.
Table 2.
Association of SBF2-AS1 Expression With Clinicopathological
Characteristics in LGG Patients.
Variables
TCGA
Pa
CGGA
Pa
Low
High
Low
High
Age
<0.001
0.266
≤ 40
242
19
201
20
> 40
194
69
183
27
Sex
0.181
0.158
Female
191
46
177
16
Male
245
42
207
31
IDH mutation
<0.001
<0.001
Unknown
333
66
35
3
Mutant
83
8
284
13
Wildtype
20
14
65
31
Radio
0.010
0.625
Unknown
50
17
26
5
NO
155
18
77
9
YES
231
53
281
33
1p19q codeletion status
0.001
Unknown
38
0
Codel
121
7
Non-codel
225
40
Grade
0.002
0.724
Unknown
1
0
WHO II
229
28
162
18
WHO III
206
60
222
29
a The Chi-squared test, P value <
0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 3.
SBF2-AS1 expression patterns in IDH wildtype and mutant groups in the
TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets.
Association of SBF2-AS1 Expression With Clinicopathological
Characteristics in LGG Patients.a The Chi-squared test, P value <
0.05 was considered significant.SBF2-AS1 expression patterns in IDH wildtype and mutant groups in the
TCGA (A) and CGGA (B) datasets.
SBF2-AS1 Is an Independent Risk Factor for LGG
In TCGA and CGGA dataset, Cox regression analyses were performed. The univariate
Cox analysis results indicated Grade, IDH mutation status and the SBF2-AS1
expression were risk factors of LGG; The multivariable Cox analysis obtained
that the SBF2-AS1 expression was an independent risk factor of LGG (High
vs. Low, HR TCGA = 2.35, 95% CI 1.61–3.45,
P < 0.001; HR CGGA = 1.56, 95% CI 1.00–2.41,
P < 0.05, Table 3). All above results suggested
SBF2-AS1 was a reliable prognostic indicator of LGG.
Table 3.
Cox Regression Analysis of SBF2-AS1 Expression and Survival of LGG
Patients in the TCGA and CGGA Datasets.
Univariable Analysis
Multivariable Analysis
Variables
HR
95% CI of HR
P
HR
95% CI of HR
P
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
TCGA
Age
>40 vs. ≤40
2.816
1.962
4.041
<0.001
1.707
0.539
5.407
0.364
Gender
Male vs. Female
1.139
0.811
1.599
0.452
1.491
0.542
4.102
0.440
Grade
III vs II,
3.307
2.285
4.787
<0.001
1.398
0.480
4.072
0.540
IDH mutation status
Wildtype vs. Mutant
5.532
2.065
14.820
0.001
2.891
0.909
9.193
0.072
Signature
High risk vs. low risk
4.647
3.226
6.694
<0.001
3.710
1.203
11.436
0.022
CGGA
Age
>40 vs. ≤40
1.188
0.892
1.581
0.239
1.186
0.882
1.596
0.258
Gender
Male vs. Female
1.004
0.753
1.339
0.976
1.140
0.845
1.537
0.392
Grade
III vs II
2.623
1.888
3.645
<0.001
2.970
2.103
4.196
<0.001
IDH mutation status
Wildtype vs. Mutant
2.245
1.642
3.069
<0.001
2.043
1.439
2.902
<0.001
Signature
High risk vs. low risk
2.354
1.606
3.449
<0.001
1.563
0.999
2.445
0.037
Cox Regression Analysis of SBF2-AS1 Expression and Survival of LGG
Patients in the TCGA and CGGA Datasets.
Prognostic Value of SBF2-AS1 Co-Expressing Network
We constructed the co-expression network of SBF2-AS1 based on TCGA (n = 524) and
CGGA (n = 431) datasets by Pearson test and obtained 202 genes that co-expressed
with SBF2-AS1 in both datasets (Pearson coefficient > 0.4/<− 0.4,
P < 0.001, Figure 4A). KM survival analysis
identified 106 genes which were associated with the prognosis of LGG in the 2
sets of data sets (log Rank P < 0.05). Among them, ANKRD29
was a protective factor (Cox coefficient < 0, P < 0.05)
and other 105 genes were risk factors for LGG (Cox coefficient > 0,
P < 0.05, Figure 4B). SBF2-AS1 co-expressed with
105 genes related to poor prognosis, suggesting that SBF2-AS1 may interact with
these genes and promote tumor progression. To display the correlation of these
prognostic genes with survival, KM survival curves of the protective gene
(ANKRD29) and one randomly selected risk gene (BANK1) from the above 105 risk
genes were showed (Figure
4C-F).
Figure 4.
Prognostic value of SBF2-AS1 co-expressing network (A) Constructing the
SBF2-AS1 co-expressing network based on TCGA and CGGA datasets by
Pearson test (Pearson coefficient > 0.4/<− 0.4, P
< 0.001). Distribution statistics of the 202 genes associated with
LGG prognosis by Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis (B).
Kaplan–Meier curves of ANKRD29 and BANK1 in TCGA (C and D) and CGGA
datasets (E and F).
Prognostic value of SBF2-AS1 co-expressing network (A) Constructing the
SBF2-AS1 co-expressing network based on TCGA and CGGA datasets by
Pearson test (Pearson coefficient > 0.4/<− 0.4, P
< 0.001). Distribution statistics of the 202 genes associated with
LGG prognosis by Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis (B).
Kaplan–Meier curves of ANKRD29 and BANK1 in TCGA (C and D) and CGGA
datasets (E and F).
Function Analysis of SBF2-AS1 by GSEA
Based on the SBF2-AS1 expression phenotype label in 2 datasets, we performed GSEA
analysis to explore significantly different pathways between high- and
low-expressed SBF2-AS1 groups in TCGA and CGGA datasets, respectively. We
obtained 126 GO terms and 6 KEGG pathways that were significantly enriched in
both datasets (NOM P value < 0.05, Supplementary Table S2).
Then we found the above 126 GO terms and 6 KEGG pathways were mainly clustered
in immune-related GO terms and KEGG pathways, such as adaptive immune response,
T cell differentiation, B cell activation, immune effector process, lymphocyte
mediated immunity, natural killer cell activation, JAK STAT signaling pathway,
and Toll like receptor signaling pathway (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Functional prediction of SBF2-AS1 by GSEA. (A) Immune effector process,
(B) Adaptive immune response, (C) B cell activation, (D) T cell
differentiation (E) Natural killer cell activation involved ln immune
response (F) Lymphocyte mediated immunity, (G) JAK-STAT signaling
pathway, (H) Toll like receptor signaling pathway.
Functional prediction of SBF2-AS1 by GSEA. (A) Immune effector process,
(B) Adaptive immune response, (C) B cell activation, (D) T cell
differentiation (E) Natural killer cell activation involved ln immune
response (F) Lymphocyte mediated immunity, (G) JAK-STAT signaling
pathway, (H) Toll like receptor signaling pathway.
Discussion
Patient survival is largely affected by the ability of the tumor to migrate to
surrounding normal tissues.
LGG is highly invasive and heterogeneous, so the prognosis of patients is
large and difficult to assess. Over the past decades, the abnormal gene expression
(including mRNA, microRNA and lncRNA), gene mutations and epigenetic modifications
in LGG have been the research hot-spots of glioma prognostic biomarker. Recently,
researchers find that lncRNAs have the advantages of stable existence and can be
detected in blood, urine or other body fluids, and have good clinical application
value.Here, after analyzing the expression of SBF2-AS1 in 955 patients with LGG from TCGA
and CGGA database, we found that SBF2-AS1 could predict LGG overall survival and be
an independent risk factor of overall survival in the 2 large queues of LGG.LGG
patients with high expression of SBF2-AS1 were proved to have worse prognosis than
patients with low expression. Additionally, the expression of SBF2-AS1 was
associated with IDH mutation status, which was regarded as ne of the prognostic
indicators of glioma. We also found that patients with IDH mutation had a good
prognosis and high expression of SBF2-AS1, and vice versa, confirming the argument
that SBF2-AS1 was an indicator of poor prognosis. GSEA analysis found SBF2-AS1
mainly enriched in immune-related GO terms and KEGG pathways, such as adaptive
immune response, T cell differentiation, B cell activation, immune effector process,
lymphocyte mediated immunity, natural killer cell activation, JAK STAT signaling
pathway, and Toll like receptor signaling pathway, suggesting that SBF2-AS1 could
participate in tumor progression by regulating immunity.LncRNA SBF2-AS1 has been reported to serve as an oncogene in a variety of cancers
such as lung cancer,
gastric cancer,
colorectal cancer
hepatocellular carcinoma,
breast cancer,
acute myeloid leukemia,
and clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
It has been reported that SBF2-AS1 is highly expressed in the tissues of
above tumors, and downregulated SBF2-AS1 could inhibit tumor cells proliferation and
promote apoptosis. Moreover, SBF2-AS1 has been demonstrated to be associated with
poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer
and hepatocellular carcinoma,
indicating its prognostic value in cancer. In glioblastoma, Hai Yu et
al found SBF2-AS1 was highly expressed and played an important role in
the GBM angiogenesis through NFAT5/SBF2-AS1/miR-338-3p/EGFL7 pathway.
Zhuoran Zhang et al discovered that SBF2-AS1 was mainly
expressed in the cytoplasm of GBM cells and could secrete into serum by exosomes,
and identified another function of the oncogenic SBF2-AS1, mediating TMZ resistance.
Fangkun Luan et al found that SBF2-AS1 was an independent
unfavorable prognostic factor in glioma.
However, there are few reports on the specific function of SBF2-AS1 in LGG
patients and its prognostic significance. This article found that SBF2-AS1 had a
prognostic value in LGG, which was consistent with the reported results of SBF2-AS1
in other cancers. Furthermore, we found that SBF2-AS1 was related to immunity in
functional analysis, suggesting that it may be a target for LGG immunotherapy. In
the later research, we need explore the the carcinogenic mechanism of lncRNA
SBF2-AS1 in LGG through more biological experiments such as cell proliferation
assay, colony formation assay, transwell cell migration and invasion assay. From the
perspective of bioinformatics analysis, we plan to explore the specific mechanism of
SBF2-AS1 in LGG through constructing a network composed of lncRNA, genes and miRNA.Overall, we identified that lncRNA SBF2-AS1 could be a prognostic risk indicator of
LGG and the SBF2-AS1 expression was associated with unfavorable survival. SBF2-AS1
has potential to become a good prognostic biomarker.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental Material, sj-xls-1-tct-10.1177_15330338211011966 for Prognostic
Value of Immune-Related lncRNA SBF2-AS1 in Diffuse Lower-Grade Glioma by Qiang
Zhang, Xiao-Jun Liu, Yang Li, Xiao-Wei Ying and Lu Chen in Technology in Cancer
Research & TreatmentClick here for additional data file.Supplemental Material, sj-xls-2-tct-10.1177_15330338211011966 for Prognostic
Value of Immune-Related lncRNA SBF2-AS1 in Diffuse Lower-Grade Glioma by Qiang
Zhang, Xiao-Jun Liu, Yang Li, Xiao-Wei Ying and Lu Chen in Technology in Cancer
Research & Treatment
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205