| Literature DB >> 34654352 |
Wenbo Zou1,2,3, Lincheng Li1,2,3, Zizheng Wang2,3, Nan Jiang2,3, Fei Wang2,3, Minggen Hu2,3, Rong Liu2,3.
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is associated with a high mortality rate, and the prognosis is positively related to immune status. In this study, we constructed a prognostic signature from survival- and immune-related genes (IRGs) to guide treatment and assess prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. The transcriptomic data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, and IRGs were extracted from the ImmPort database. Univariate and LASSO regression analysis were used to obtain survival-related IRGs. Finally, the prognostic signature was constructed using multivariate regression analysis. The laboratory experiments were conducted to verify the key IRG expression. Immune cells infiltration was analyzed using the CIBERSORT algorithm and TIMER database. Prognostic signature containing four IRGs (ADA2, TLR1, PTPN6, S100P) was constructed with good predictive performance; in particular, S100P played a significant role in the immune microenvironment, and tumorigenesis of pancreatic cancer. Moreover, we found that CD8+ T cell and activated CD4+ memory T cell tumor infiltration was lower in the high-risk group, while high-risk score correlated positively with higher tumor mutational burden, and the higher half inhibitory centration 50 of chemotherapeutic agents Docetaxel and Sunitinib. In summary, this study identified and constructed an immune-related prognostic signature that can predict overall survival, besides suggests that S100P was a novel immune-related biomarker. We hope that this signature will aid the identification of new biomarkers for the individualized immunotherapy of pancreatic cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Pancreatic cancer; immune cell infiltration; immune-related gene; prognosis; tumor mutation burden
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34654352 PMCID: PMC8806945 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1992331
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Primers used for quantitative real-time PCR
| GeneName | Direction | Sequences (5ʹ–3ʹ) |
|---|---|---|
| S100P | Forward | AAGGATGCCGTGGATAAATTGC |
| S100P | Reverse | ACACGATGAACTCACTGAAGTC |
| h18S | Forward | AACCCGTTGAACCCCATT |
| h18S | Reverse | CCATCCAATCGGTAGTAGCG |
Figure 1.Differentially expressed analysis. (a) Heatmap of significant DEGs in pancreatic cancer. (b) Volcano plot of DEGs. (c) The Venn diagram of the intersection between DEGs
Figure 2.Construction of the prognostic signature. (a) Univariate regression analysis. (b,c) LASSO regression analysis (d) Multivariate regression analysis
Figure 3.(a) Survival condition plots and heatmap of four IRGs. (b) Kaplan-Meier survival curve. (c) Time-dependent ROC curves used to predict OS at 1, 3, and 5 years
Figure 4.Mechanism analysis of S100P. (a) Venn diagram for the intersections of IRGs and data from the GEO database. (b) Differentially expressed analysis of S100P in GEPIA database. (c,d) Survival analysis of S100P. (e) The relationship between the common immune-inhibiter and S100P. (f) The correlation of immune cell infiltration with the expression level of S100P. (g) Copy number variation analysis
Differentially expressed TFs
| TF | logFC | AveExpression | p value | adj.p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIITA | −1.4903896 | 1.782997979 | 0.0000163 | 0.00195858 |
| FLI1 | −1.13045278 | 1.731869954 | 0.000396856 | 0.01799967 |
| KLF5 | 2.076788399 | 5.252328688 | 0.001133446 | 0.03636955 |
| SPDEF | 2.632872658 | 3.392909267 | 0.000573362 | 0.02331316 |
Results of correlation analysis
| TF | IRGs | Correlation | p value | Regulation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KLF5 | S100P | 0.706399294 | 4.6145E-28 | postive |
| SPDEF | S100P | 0.629713781 | 6.07823E-21 | postive |
| KLF5 | CETP | −0.504604868 | 7.99247E-13 | negative |
Figure 5.(a) The results of quantitative real-time PCR showed that relative expression level of S100P between tumor and normal tissue. (T1-6: Tumor samples with normal tissues control; C: cell lines with HPDE6-C7 control, C7–8: BxPC-3, SW1990; * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.) (b,c) Immunohistochemistry (B: Tumor tissue; C: Normal tissue)
Figure 6.(a) Clinical relevance of the prognostic signature and four IRGs. (b,c) Forest plot of univariate and multivariate regression analyses
Figure 7.(a) nomogram for predicting OS at 1, 2, and 3 years. (b–d) Calibration curves showing the probability of 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS between the nomogram prediction and practical observation
Figure 8.Immune cell infiltration analysis. (a) Distributed histogram of 22 immune cell types. (b) Violin plot comparing immune cell infiltration between the two groups. (c) Correlation heatmap of 22 immune cell types
Figure 9.(a,b) The IC50 difference of docetaxel (p = 0.018) and sunitinib (p < 0.001) in high- and low- risk groups. (c) Bar plot of relationship between TMB score and risk score