| Literature DB >> 34819038 |
Xiaotao Li1,2,3, Shi Fu1,2,3, Yinglong Huang1,2,3, Ting Luan1,2,3, Haifeng Wang4,5,6, Jiansong Wang7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer (BC) is one of the most common malignancies and has a relatively poor outcome worldwide. In this study, we attempted to construct a novel metabolism-related gene (MRG) signature for predicting the survival probability of BC patients.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; GEO; Metabolism-related gene; Prognosis; TCGA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34819038 PMCID: PMC8611960 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-09006-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Identification of Metabolism-related DEGs. A B The volcano plots of DEGs in normal samples compared to BC samples in GSE13507 and TCGA database (B). C The venn diagram of MRGs, DEGs in GSE13507 and DEGs in TCGA database
Fig. 2The results of GO Functional Annotation and KEGG Pathway Enrichment Analysis. A The enriched biological processes by metabolism-related DEGs. B The enriched cellular components by metabolism-related DEGs. C The enriched molecular functions by metabolism-related DEGs. D The enriched KEGG pathways by metabolism-related DEGs
Fig. 3PPI network genetic variation for metabolism-related DEGs. A The PPI network of 27 metabolism-related DEGs. B The bar diagrams showed the interactions of each gene and other genes. C The mutation frequency of 23 metabolism-related DEGs in 414 BC samples from the TCGA database
Fig. 4Identification of prognostic metabolism-related DEGs. A Univariate Cox regression analysis identified 5 prognostic metabolism-related DEGs. B Multivariate Cox regression analysis reserved 3 prognostic metabolism-related DEGs for establishing the prognostic MRG signature
Fig. 5Assessing the efficiencies of the prognostic MRG signature in the training set and validation set. A B C The Kaplan-Meier survival curves of the training set (A), the testing set (B) and the validation set (C). D E F The distribution of risk scores and the survival status of patients in the training set (D), the testing set (E) and the validation set (F), and each dot represents a BC patient. G H I ROC curves of the training set (G), the testing set (H) and the validation set (I) showed the performance for predicting the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year OS
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients in high- and low-risk group in the training set
| Characteristics | Number | Risk score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| Total cases | 219 | 109 | 110 | |
| Gender | ||||
| female | 44 | 18 | 26 | 0.2520 |
| male | 175 | 91 | 84 | |
| Age | ||||
| > =60 | 174 | 80 | 94 | |
| < 60 | 45 | 29 | 16 | |
| Pathological tumor stage | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 60 | 40 | 20 | |
| 3 | 79 | 37 | 42 | |
| 4 | 78 | 31 | 47 | |
| T stage | ||||
| T1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.0629 |
| T2 | 69 | 43 | 26 | |
| T3 | 117 | 49 | 68 | |
| T4 | 31 | 16 | 15 | |
| M stage | ||||
| M1 | 105 | 46 | 59 | 0.2300 |
| M2 | 108 | 60 | 48 | |
| M3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | |
| N stage | ||||
| Nx | 15 | 6 | 9 | 0.1090 |
| N0 | 129 | 74 | 55 | |
| N1 | 30 | 12 | 18 | |
| N2 | 41 | 16 | 25 | |
| N3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | |
Fig. 6Construction of a nomogram for better predicting the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year OS of patients in the training set. A B Univariate (A) and multivariate (B) Cox regression analyses identified independent prognostic factors in training set. C Nomogram based on the age, pathological tumor stage and risk score was established in the training set. D The calibration curve showed the predictive efficiency of nomogram in the training set
Fig. 7The expression levels of MAOB, FASN and LRP1. A TCGA database. B GSE13507. C Clinical samples