| Literature DB >> 34675624 |
Xiaotao Jiang1,2, Fan Liu2,3, Peng Liu1,2, Yanhua Yan1,2, Shaoyang Lan1, Kunhai Zhuang1,4, Yufeng Liu5, Kailin Jiang1,2, Yuancheng Huang1,2, Kechao Nie1,2, Zhihua Zheng1,2, Jinglin Pan6, Junhui Zheng1,2, Fengbin Liu1,4, Shijie Xu5, Peiwu Li1, Yi Wen1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to build a ferroptosis-based classifier to characterize the molecular features of gastric cancers (GC) and investigate the relationship between different ferroptosis patterns and GC tumor microenvironment (TME).Entities:
Keywords: ferroptosis; gastric cancer; immune cell infiltration; immunotherapy; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2021 PMID: 34675624 PMCID: PMC8520437 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S331291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gen Med ISSN: 1178-7074
Figure 1Overview of study design.
Clinical Characteristic of the GC Patient Used in This Study
| TCGA | Meta-GEO | |
|---|---|---|
| 350 | 617 | |
| <60 | 112 | 198 |
| ≥60 | 238 | 417 |
| Unknown | 0 | 2 |
| Female | 124 | 206 |
| Male | 226 | 411 |
| Intestinal | 73 | 295 |
| Diffuse | 59 | 261 |
| Mixed | 1 | 59 |
| Unknown | 217 | 2 |
| G1 | 9 | NA |
| G2 | 125 | NA |
| G3 | 207 | NA |
| GX | 9 | NA |
| I | 46 | 72 |
| II | 110 | 149 |
| III | 145 | 228 |
| IV | 35 | 166 |
| Unknown | 14 | 2 |
| OS day (median) | 475 | 956 |
| Survival | 204 | 307 |
| Death | 146 | 310 |
Figure 2Distribution of Ferroptosis Subtypes using NMF Consensus Clustering. (A) NMF clustering based on 121 ferroptosis-related genes decomposes the samples in meta-GEO and TCGA cohorts. The corresponding cophenetic correlation coefficient of k value between 2 and 6 is shown. (B) Scatter diagrams plotted by PCA sustained decomposition of two clusters. (C) Kaplan–Meier curves show OS for patients in C1 and C2. (D) The violin plots show FPI between C1 and C2. (E) Kaplan–Meier curves show OS for patients stratified by high FPI and low FPI.
Figure 3Generation of FSS. (A) Heatmap of DEGs between C1 and C2 to assign patients in meta-GEO cohort into two subgroups: FS gene signature A and B. (B) Heatmap shows FS gene signatures obtained from the meta-GEO cohort can classify patients in TCGA cohort into C1 and C2. (C) Reactome enrichment analysis of the FS signature genes A and B. (D) The violin plots show FSS between C1 and C2. (E) Kaplan–Meier curves show OS for patients stratified by high FSS and low FSS. (F) Scatterplots exhibit the positive correlation between FPI and FSS.
Figure 4The Correlation between Ferroptosis Subtypes and TME. (A) Boxplot shows the differences of immune score, stromal score and estimate score between C1 and C2 in meta-GEO cohort. (B) Boxplot shows the differences of immune score, stromal score and estimate score between C1 and C2 in TCGA cohort. (C) Correlation of FSS and FPI with the Immune score, stromal score and estimate score in meta-GEO cohort. (D) Correlation of FSS and FPI with the Immune score, stromal score and estimate score in TCGA cohort. (E) Violin plot shows the abundance of 21 immune cell populations distinguished by C1 and C2 in meta-GEO cohort. (F) Violin plot shows the abundance of 21 immune cell populations distinguished by C1 and C2 in TCGA cohort. The green box represents C1, red one represents C2. (G) Boxplot shows the expression levels of 9 immune checkpoint genes between C1 and C2 in meta-GEO cohort. (H) Boxplot shows the expression levels of 9 immune checkpoint genes between C1 and C2 in TCGA cohort. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 5The Correlation between Somatic Variants and FSS, FPI. (A) TMB difference between C1 and C2 in the TCGA cohort. (B) TMB difference between high FSS and low FSS in the TCGA cohort. (C) TMB difference between high FPI and low FPI in the TCGA cohort. (D) Kaplan–Meier curves show OS for patients stratified by high TMB and low TMB. (E) Scatterplots depict the negative correlations between TMB and FSS. (F) Scatterplots depict the negative correlations between TMB and FPI. (G) The oncoPrint grouped by C1 on the left (green) and C2 on the right (red), with individual patients represented as columns.
Baseline Characteristic of the Patient in Different Ferroptosis Subtypes
| Characteristic | TCGA | Meta-GEO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | P value | C1 | C2 | P value | |
| 0.3757 | 0.6702 | |||||
| Female | 77 | 47 | 95 | 111 | ||
| Male | 151 | 75 | 197 | 214 | ||
| 0.0077 | 0.2257 | |||||
| <60 | 60 | 49 | 87 | 111 | ||
| ≥60 | 168 | 73 | 205 | 212 | ||
| 0.4436 | 9.045e-7 | |||||
| Intestinal | 47 | 26 | 170 | 125 | ||
| Diffuse | 33 | 26 | 92 | 169 | ||
| Mixed | 1 | 0 | 28 | 31 | ||
| 0.0003 | NA | |||||
| G1+G2 | 103 | 31 | NA | NA | ||
| G3 | 120 | 87 | NA | NA | ||
| 0.3958 | 0.0052 | |||||
| I+II | 108 | 52 | 121 | 100 | ||
| III+IV | 120 | 70 | 170 | 225 | ||
Figure 6Ferroptosis Patterns and Ferroptosis Potential Level in the Role of Anti-PD-1/L1 Immunotherapy. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves of low and high FSS patient groups in the anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy cohort (IMvigor210). (B) The proportion of patients with response to PD-L1 blockade immunotherapy in low or high FSS groups; SD: stable disease, PD: progressive disease; CR, complete response; PR, partial response. (C) Distribution of FSS in different anti-PD-L1 clinical response groups. (D) Kaplan–Meier curves of low and high FSS patient groups in the anti-PD-1 immunotherapy cohort (GSE78220). (E) The proportion of patients with response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in low or high FSS groups. (F) Differences in FSS among different anti-PD-1 clinical response groups. (G) Kaplan–Meier curves of low and high FPI patient groups in the anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy cohort (IMvigor210). (H) The proportion of patients with response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in low or high FPI groups. (I) Distribution of FSS in different anti-PD-L1 clinical response groups. (J) Kaplan–Meier curves of low and high FPI patient groups in the anti-PD-1 immunotherapy cohort (GSE78220). (K) The proportion of patients with response to PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in low or high FPI groups. (L) Differences in FPI among different anti-PD-1 clinical response groups. The statistical significance of differences in all survival analysis was determined via the Log rank test.