| Literature DB >> 34247194 |
Weijie Ma1,2, Ye Yao1, Gang Xu3, Xiaoling Wu1, Jinghua Li1, Ganggang Wang1, Xi Chen1, Kunlei Wang1, Yirang Chen1, Yonghua Guo1, Yongsheng Li3, Deli Tan4, Hui Guo4, Zhisu Liu1, Yufeng Yuan5, Francois X Claret6.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, accounting for over 700,000 deaths each year. The lack of predictive and prognostic biomarkers for HCC, with effective therapy, remains a significant challenge for HCC management. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play a key role in tumorigenesis and have clinical value as potential biomarkers in the early diagnosis and prediction of HCC. Jun activation domain-binding protein 1 (Jab1, also known as COP9 signalosome subunit 5, CSN5) is a potential oncogene that plays a critical role in the occurrence of HCC. Here, we performed a comprehensive analysis for Jab1/CSN5-associated lncRNAs to predict the prognosis of HCC. The differentially expressed (DE) lncRNAs between in HCC were analyzed based on the TCGA RNA-seq data. We detected 1031 upregulated lncRNAs in 371 HCC tissues and identified a seven-lncRNA signature strongly correlated with Jab1/CSN5 (SNHG6, CTD3065J16.9, LINC01604, CTD3025N20.3, KB-1460A1.5, RP13-582O9.7, and RP11-29520.2). We further evaluated the prognostic significance of these lncRNAs by GEPIA ( http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/ ). The expression data in 364 liver tumors indicated that this seven-lncRNA signature could better predict worse survival in HCC patients. Moreover, 35 clinical HCC samples were evaluated to assess the validity and reproducibility of the bioinformatic analysis. We found that the targeted lncRNAs were upregulated, with a strong association with Jab1/CSN5 and prognostic value in HCC. Functional enrichment analysis by Gene Ontology (GO) showed that these seven prognostic lncRNAs exhibit oncogenic properties and are associated with prominent hallmarks of cancer. Overall, our findings demonstrate the clinical implication of Jab1/CSN5 with the seven-lncRNAs in predicting survival for patients with HCC.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34247194 PMCID: PMC8272716 DOI: 10.1038/s41420-021-00560-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Death Discov ISSN: 2058-7716
Fig. 1The flowchart for the current study.
A The flowchart for the current study. B Venn diagram indicating the overlap between overexpressed lncRNAs and those positively correlated with CSN5. The overlap part indicated that 114 upregulated lncRNAs were positively correlated with CSN5.
Fig. 2Differentially expressed lncRNAs in HCC from the TCGA database.
A Heatmap of 1031 upregulated lncRNAs in 371 HCC tissues compared with 50 normal tissues B Volcano plot showed the distribution of the seven-lncRNA differential expression, which positively correlated with CSN5 co-expression between HCC and adjacent normal tissues (No Diff no difference, UP upregulation, Down downregulation). C Heatmap for the seven-lncRNA expression profiles. D Table presented the relative fold changes of lncRNAs in HCC, compared to normal samples, and the correlation coefficients with CSN5 levels.
Fig. 3The prognostic assessment of seven lncRNAs from TCGA.
A Kaplan–Meier survival curve of overall survival (OS) for the seven lncRNAs (with 95% confidence interval). B Kaplan–Meier survival curve of disease-free survival (DFS) for the seven-lncRNA signature.
Fig. 4The relative expression level of CSN5 and seven lncRNAs from the Zhongnan cohort.
A The CSN5 and seven lncRNAs expression levels were significantly higher than in adjacent non-tumor liver tissues. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. B The linear regression plots between the relative expression level in each of the CSN5 and seven-lncRNAs. The relative expression levels were normalized by the value of −log. C The prognostic value of CSN5 and seven lncRNAs of overall survival (OS) among the patients. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Prognostic factors in Cox proportional hazards model.
| Factors ( | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Gender (male/female) | 0.319 (0.088–1.155) | 0.082 | ||
| Age (⩽60/>60) | 1.699 (0.635–4.549) | 0.291 | ||
| Differentiation (low/high or moderate) | 3.687 (1.245–10.922) | 0.019 | ||
| TNM (III∼IV/I∼II) | 0.605 (0.219–1.674) | 0.334 | ||
| CSN5 (high/low) | 2.889 (0.995–8.393) | 0.041 | ||
| SNHG6 (high/low) | 4.925 (1.387–17.484) | 0.014 | ||
| CTD3065J16.9 (high/low) | 2.159 (0.783–5.952) | 0.137 | ||
| LINC01604 (high/low) | 2.401 (0.862–6.688) | 0.094 | ||
| CTD3025N20.3 (high/low) | 7.311 (1.644–32.518) | 0.009 | 7.311 (1.644–32.518) | 0.009 |
| KB-1460A1.5 (high/low) | 2.503 (0.893–7.018) | 0.081 | ||
| RP13-582O9.7 (high/low) | 1.383 (0.502–3.814) | 0.531 | ||
| RP11-295G20.2 (high/low)) | 1.221 (0.438–3.403) | 0.703 | ||
TNM tumor-node-metastasis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Fig. 5ROC curves of CSN5 and seven lncRNAs expression.
A The relative expression levels were proven to be a valuable parameter in the differentiation of HCC. B The predictive value of CSN5 and seven lncRNAs for the TNM stage of HCC.
Fig. 6GO functional enrichment analysis of lncRNAs.
Functional enrichment for SNHG6 (up) and CTD-3025N20.3 (down) were partly presented.