| Literature DB >> 34308747 |
Lingshan Zhou1,2, Yuan Yang1, Min Liu1, Yuling Gan3, Rong Liu2, Man Ren2, Ya Zheng1, Yuping Wang1, Yongning Zhou1.
Abstract
Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Despite rapid advances in systemic therapy, GC remains the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths. We aimed to identify a novel prognostic signature associated with FAT2 mutations in GC. We analyzed the expression levels of FAT2-mutant and FAT2-wildtype GC samples obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that patients with FAT2 mutations showed better prognosis than those without the mutation. Sixteen long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and 62 messenger RNAs (mRNAs) associated with FAT2 mutations were correlated with the prognosis of GC. We then constructed a 4-mRNA signature and a 5-lncRNA signature for GC. Finally, we identified the most relevant RP11-21 C4.1/SVEP1 gene pair as a prognostic signature of GC that exhibited superior predictive performance in comparison with the 4-mRNA or 5-lncRNA signature by weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA) and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. In this study, we constructed a prognostic signature of GC by integrative genomics analysis, which also provided insights into the molecular mechanisms linked to FAT2 mutations in GC.Entities:
Keywords: RP11-21C4.1; SVEP1; gastric cancer; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34308747 PMCID: PMC8806586 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1953211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Figure 1.Overall survival of GC patients in the FAT2-mutant and FAT2-wildtype groups
Figure 2.Identification of the DElncRNAs and DEmRNAs between the FAT2-mutant and FAT2-wildtype groups. (a) Volcano plot for DElncRNAs. (b) Volcano plot for DEmRNAs. (c) Heatmaps for the DElncRNAs. (d) Heatmaps for the DEmRNAs
Figure 3.Functional enrichment analysis related to DEmRNAs. (a) Significantly enriched biological processes in the GO analysis. (b) Significantly enriched cell components in the GO analysis. (c) Significantly enriched molecular function in the GO analysis. (d) Significantly enriched pathways in KEGG analysis
Figure 4.Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of lncRNAs. (a) Forest plot of risk factors. (b) The AUC for risk score was calculated according to the ROC curve. (c) Nomogram of OS prediction in GC
Figure 5.Cox proportional hazard regression analysis of mRNAs. (a) Forest plot of risk factors. (b) The AUC for the risk score was calculated according to the ROC curve. (c) Nomogram of OS prediction in GC
Figure 6.The effect of RP11-21C4.1 on the prognosis of GC. (a) The expression value of RP11-21C4.1 in FAT2-mutant and FAT2-wildtype GC. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves for the OS of GC patients in the high- and low-RP11-21C4.1 groups. (c) The AUC for RP11-21C4.1 was calculated according to the ROC curve. (d) Multivariable Cox regression analysis. (e) Cancer gene enrichment analysis based on the state of RP11-21C4.1 expression
Figure 7.The effect of SVEP1 on the prognosis of GC. (a) The expression value of SVEP1 in FAT2-mutant and FAT2-wildtype GC. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves for the OS of GC patients in the SVEP1 high- and low-expression groups. (c) The AUC for SVEP1 was calculated according to the ROC curve. (d) Multivariable Cox regression analysis. (e) Gene enrichment analysis based on the state of SVEP1 expression
Figure 8.Construction of the TF-mRNA network. (a) TFs enriched for DEGs between the SVEP1 high- and low-expression groups. (b) The association between POU6F1 and the prognosis of GC