| Literature DB >> 34227920 |
Xiangzhou Tan1,2,3, Linfeng Mao1,3, Changhao Huang1,3, Weimin Yang1,3, Jianping Guo1,3, Zhikang Chen1,3, Zihua Chen1,3.
Abstract
Recent findings have identified microbiota as crucial participants in many disease conditions, including cancers. Competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) is regarded as a candidate mechanism involving relevant biological processes. We therefore constructed a ceRNA network using the TCGA and GEO database, to determine the potential mechanisms of microbiota-mediated colorectal carcinogenesis and progression. We found a total of 75 lncRNAs, 8 miRNAs, and 9 mRNAs in the probiotics-mediated ceRNA network and a total of 49 lncRNAs, 4 miRNAs, and 3 mRNA in the pathobiont-mediated ceRNA network, which could induce the microbiota-mediated carcinogenesis and progression. The GO and KEGG analysis indicated that the ceRNA network is mainly enriched in the metabolic process, and two unique pathways (the p53 signaling pathway and microRNA in cancer), respectively. A four-gene signature (FRMD6-AS2, DIRC3, LIFR-AS1, and MRPL23-AS1) was suggested as an independent prognostic factor. Four lncRNAs (LINC00355, KCNQ1OT1, LINC00491, and HOTAIR) were associated with poor survival. Three small molecule candidate anticancer drugs (Pentoxyverine, Rimexolone, and Doxylamine) were identified. A four-gene signature (FAM129A, BCL2, PMAIP1, and RPS6) is significantly correlated with immune infiltration level. This study provides a promising biomarker reservoir to explore the mechanism by which microbiota regulate the ceRNA network involving the immune response, and further participate in colorectal carcinogenesis and progression.Entities:
Keywords: Cerna network; bioinformatics; colorectal cancer; immune infiltration; lncRNA; miRNA; microbiota
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34227920 PMCID: PMC8806860 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1940614
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Figure 1.The flow chart of bioinformatics analysis. Caco-2, human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells; LGG, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; B.caccae, Bacteroides caccae; CRC, Colorectal cancer; CR, Colorectum; Fn, Fusobacterium nucleatum; GDC, Genomic Data Commons Data Portal
The expression of 8 DEmiRNAs in probiotic environment from TCGA and GEO database
| miRNA | TCGA (colorectal cancer vs normal) | GEO (with probiotics VS without probiotics) | Role | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LogFC | FDR | LogFC | P.value | Group Set | ||
| hsa-mir-429 | 4.114057 | 1.62E-19 | −3.31806 | 0.01654 | LGG VS control | Oppose |
| hsa-mir-141 | 5.414177 | 7.61E-42 | 3.056937 | 0.021687 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Support |
| hsa-mir-140 | −1.31675 | 3.01E-08 | 3.03569 | 0.022295 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Opposite |
| hsa-mir-22 | 2.181122 | 9.85E-14 | 2.735955 | 0.033153 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Support |
| hsa-mir-132 | −1.35959 | 9.53E-08 | 2.810566 | 0.030002 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Oppose |
| hsa-mir-454 | 6.098412 | 3.47E-22 | 3.601023 | 0.010924 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Support |
| 3.342003 | 0.016062 | LGG VS control | Support | |||
| hsa-mir-153 | 5.705182 | 3.50E-05 | −2.77244 | 0.03157 | LGG+ B.caccae VS control | Oppose |
| hsa-mir-143 | 3.623069 | 4.96E-08 | 3.097131 | 0.02177 | LGG VS control | Support |
Control group, without bacteria; FDR, false discovery rate; FC, fold change; Role, the role of probiotics on colorectal carcinogenesis and tumor progression; LGG, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; B.caccae, Bacteroides caccae
The expression of 4 DEmiRNAs in pathogenic environment from TCGA and GEO database
| miRNA | TCGA (colorectal cancer vs normal) | GEO (with pathobionts VS without pathobionts) | Role | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LogFC | FDR | LogFC | P.value | Group Set | ||
| hsa-mir-223 | 3.057351 | 2.23E-07 | 1.398719 | 0.030564 | CR tissue + Fn VS control | Support |
| hsa-mir-32 | 3.841335 | 6.25E-22 | −1.490555 | 0.003800 | CRC tissue + Fn VS control | Oppose |
| hsa-mir-96 | 5.457990 | 5.53E-18 | 2.366778 | 0.009546 | CRC tissue + Fn VS control | Support |
| hsa-mir-106a | 4.314718 | 3.32E-07 | 1.2774166 | 0.020353 | CR tissue + Fn VS control | Support |
FDR, false discovery rate; FC, fold change; Role, the role of pathogenic on colorectal carcinogenesis and tumor progression; CR, Colorectum; Fn, Fusobacterium nucleatum
Figure 4.GO functional analysis (a) and KEGG pathway (b) analysis of differentially expressed RNAs in microbiota-mediated colorectal cancer
Univariate and multivariate analysis
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | pvalue | HR | 95% CI | pvalue | |
| Age | 1.02 | 1.00–1.05 | 1.14 | 1.09–1.19 | ||
| Gender | 0.95 | 0.61–1.50 | 0.84 | 2.21 | 0.91–5.33 | 0.08 |
| Stage | 2.12 | 1.64–2.73 | 1.84 | 0.90–3.76 | 0.10 | |
| AJCC-T | 2.51 | 1.60–3.95 | 1.01 | 0.68–3.31 | 0.31 | |
| AJCC-N | 2.10 | 1.60–2.74 | 2.48 | 1.15–5.35 | ||
| AJCC-M | 1.92 | 1.48–2.50 | 3.08 | 1.49–6.36 | ||
| FRMD6-AS2 | 1.04 | 1.00–1.07 | 1.35 | 1.15–1.58 | ||
| LINC00461 | 1.04 | 1.02–1.05 | 0.92 | 0.82–1.04 | 0.17 | |
| DIRC3 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.03 | 1.21 | 1.08–1.37 | ||
| LIFR-AS1 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 | 0.81 | 0.68–0.95 | ||
| NAALADL2-AS2 | 1.02 | 1.01–1.03 | 1.18 | 0.74–1.87 | 0.50 | |
| LINC00402 | 1.01 | 1.00–1.03 | 1.08 | 0.99–1.17 | 0.10 | |
| ADAMTS9-AS2 | 1.01 | 1.00–1.01 | 0.96 | 0.90–1.01 | 0.13 | |
| MRPL23-AS1 | 1.01 | 1.00–1.01 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.06 | ||
| LHX1 | 1.01 | 1.01–1.02 | 1.02 | 0.96–1.08 | 0.56 | |
| RBM20 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.94 | |
AJCC, the classification system developed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer
Figure 5.Overall survival analysis of RNAs in the ceRNA network of microbiota-mediated colorectal cancer. (a), (b) Kaplan-Meier survival curves of prognostic DELs both in probiotics-mediated ceRNA network and pathobionts-mediated ceRNA network. (c), (d) Kaplan-Meier survival curves of prognostic DELs only in proniotics-mediated ceRNA network
Figure 6.Protein-protein interaction network of differentially expressed RNAs in microbiota-mediated colorectal cancer, the nodes represent proteins, and the edges demonstrate the predicted functional associations between them, line thickness indicates the strength of data support
Figure 7.The expressions of 12 hub genes were determined using GEPIA. The expressions of genes are expressed as relative gene expression using transformed log2 (TPM+1) Value (Y-axis) of tumor (red bar) and normal (black bar) samples and displayed as a whisker plot. * p-value <0.05. GEIPIA, gene expression profiling interactive analysis
Results of connectivity map analysis
| Rank | Cmap name | Mean | n | Enrichment | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Netilmicin | 0.591 | 4 | 0.898 | |
| 2 | Pentoxyverine | −0.62 | 4 | −0.854 | |
| 3 | Meclofenamic acid | 0.499 | 5 | 0.779 | |
| 4 | Timolol | 0.559 | 4 | 0.832 | |
| 5 | Ciclopirox | 0.583 | 4 | 0.813 | |
| 6 | Rimexolone | −0.601 | 4 | −0.811 | |
| 7 | Zuclopenthixol | 0.561 | 4 | 0.803 | |
| 8 | Doxylamine | −0.537 | 5 | −0.731 | |
| 9 | Prestwick-1082 | 0.601 | 3 | 0.885 | |
| 10 | Minaprine | −0.571 | 5 | −0.726 |
Cmap, Connectivity Map
Figure 8.Three-dimensional diagram of the three most significant candidate drugs. (a) Pentoxyverine (b) Rimexolone (c) Doxylamine
Figure 9.Integrative analysis between hub identified signature with humor-infiltrating immune cells