| Literature DB >> 34282055 |
Binhua Pan1,2,3, Modan Yang1,2,3, Xuyong Wei1,3, Wangyao Li1,2,3, Kun Wang1,2,3, Mengfan Yang1,2,3, Di Lu1,3, Rui Wang1,3, Beini Cen1,3, Xiao Xu1,4,2,3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The heterogeneous tumor microenvironment (TME) contributes to poor prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, determining the modulation of TME during HCC progression remains a challenge.Entities:
Keywords: CIBERSORT; ESTIMATE algorithm; HCC; ITK; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34282055 PMCID: PMC8351695 DOI: 10.18632/aging.203306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1Analysis workflow of this study.
Figure 2The correlation between estimate scores and the 1-year RFS of patients with HCC. (A) KM survival curves for the 1-year RFS of low/high stromal score subgroups (p = 0.013). (B) KM survival curves for the 1-year RFS of low/high immune score subgroups (p = 0.0016). (C) KM survival curves for the 1-year RFS of low/high estimate score subgroups (p = 0.001).
Figure 3Correlation between the estimate scores and clinicopathological staging characteristics. (A–D) Correlation of the stromal score with the TNM stage. (E–H) Correlation of the immune score with the TNM stage. (I–L) Correlation of the estimate score with the TNM stage.
Figure 4Cluster analysis, intersection analysis, GO, and KEGG enrichment analysis of the DEGs. (A) Heatmap of 601 DEGs between the high/low stromal score subgroups. (B) Heatmap of 563 DEGs between the high/low immune score subgroups. (C) Venn diagram of the DEGs commonly shared by the two groups. (D) GO enrichment analysis of the common DEGs. (E) KEGG enrichment analysis of the common DEGs.
Figure 5PPI network and univariate COX regression analysis. (A) PPI network of the nodes with combined score > 0.95. (B) Forest plot of the univariate COX regression analysis for OS. (C) Venn diagram of the factors commonly shared by hub genes in PPI and factors correlated with OS and RFS generated by univariate COX regression analysis.
Figure 6ITK expression in HCC tumors and paracarcinoma tissues, and the correlation between ITK and survival/clinical characteristics of patients with HCC (TCGA dataset). (A) ITK expression in HCC tumor tissues and paracarcinoma tissues (p = 0.0001). (B) ITK expression in paired HCC tumor tissues and paracarcinoma tissues derived from the same patient (p < 0.0001). (C) KM survival curves for the long-term OS of low/high ITK subgroups. (D) KM survival curves for the long-term RFS of low/high stromal score subgroups. (E–H) The correlation between ITK expression and clinicopathological stages.
Figure 7Validation of ITK’s prognostic capacity. 176 pairs of HCC tumor and paracarcinoma tissues were obtained from our medical center and ITK expression levels were evaluated using IHC analysis. (A) KM survival curves for the post-operation OS of low/high ITK subgroups (p = 0.024). (B) KM survival curves for the post-operation RFS of low/high ITK subgroups (p < 0.001). (C) IHC of ITK expression.
Figure 8GSEA for HCC tumor samples. (A) Significantly enriched “hallmark gene sets” in the high ITK subgroup. (B) Significantly enriched “C7 gene sets” (the immunological gene sets) in the high ITK subgroup.
Figure 9TIC profiling of HCC tumor tissues and correlation analysis. (A) The composition of 22 kinds of TICs in HCC tumor tissues is shown in a bar plot. (B) Heatmap showing the correlation between 22 kinds of TICs. (C) Principal component analysis of the HCC tumor tissues with high and low ITK expression.
Figure 10The correlation between ITK expression and TICs proportion. (A) The distributions of 22 kinds of TICs in low/high ITK subgroups are shown in a violin plot. (B) Scatter plots of the 13 kinds of TICs significantly correlated with ITK expression (p < 0.05). (C) Venn diagram showing nine common TICs shared, as assessed using differential analysis and correlation analysis.