| Literature DB >> 34873403 |
Jiani Guo1, Xuesong Yi2, Zhuqing Ji1, Mengchu Yao1, Yu Yang1, Wei Song3, Mingde Huang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains the most incurable subtype of breast cancer owing to high heterogeneity, aggressive nature, and lack of treatment options. It is generally acknowledged that epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is the key step in tumor metastasis.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34873403 PMCID: PMC8643262 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9219961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1Workflow of the study and EMT-related lncRNAs in TNBC. (a) Workflow of this study. (b) Identification of 14 differential EMT genes in the expression profile between the tumor group and the normal group by differential analysis (|logFC| > 1 and P < 0.05), including 7 upregulated genes and 7 downregulated genes. (c) Correlation between 20 randomly selected lncRNAs and 14 EMT-related genes.
Figure 2Prognostic genes used for model construction. (a) Prognostic lncRNAs were screened out from TNBC data. The overall survival (OS) of the high-risk group in both sets was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier curve ((b) TCGA training dataset; (c) TCGA testing dataset). The model's efficiency is evaluated by ROC curve ((d) TCGA training dataset; (e) TCGA testing dataset).
Figure 3Clinical predictive value of the model. (a) Relationship between the model and tumor immune infiltration. (b) Relationship between the model and sensitivity of common chemotherapy drugs. (c) Mutation spectrum of high-/low-risk groups (left: high-risk group; right: low-risk group).
Figure 4GSVA, GESA, and robustness analysis by external datasets. (a) Results of GSVA showed the differential pathways of high-/low-risk groups. (b) Results of GSEA showed the significant enrichments in various related pathways by KEGG. (c) Results of GSEA showed the significant enrichments in various related pathways by GO. (d) The survival differences between the high-/low-risk groups were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier analysis in GSE135565. (e) The survival differences between the high-/low-risk groups were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier analysis in GSE103091. (f) Prediction efficiency of the model verified by ROC curve in GSE135565. (g) Prediction efficiency of the model verified by ROC curve in GSE103091.
Figure 5Independent prognostic analysis and correlation analysis of clinical parameters. (a) Logistic regression analysis showed the relationship between TNBC stages and distribution of risk score value. The effect of distribution of risk score and clinical parameters on TNBC stage scoring was analyzed by (b) general linear model and (d) Cox proportional hazards model. (c) Prediction analyses on the 5-year and 7-year periods. Risk score as an independent prognostic factor proved by (e) univariate and (f) bivariate analyses. Risk score values are grouped by different clinical parameters and analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis test: (g) stage; (h) tumor; (i) lymph node; (j) metastasis.
Figure 6LncRNA expression in TNBC cell lines and samples. (a) Relative lncRNA expression in 4 TNBC cell lines (MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468, Hs 578T, and BT-549) and 1 normal breast epithelial cell line (MCF 10A). Fold change >0 presented the higher expression of lncRNAs in TNBC cell lines, whereas the fold change <0 meant the lower expression of lncRNAs in TNBC cell lines than in MCF 10A cells. (b) lncRNA expression in TNBC patients' tumor samples (right, yellow) and normal samples (left, blue) from TCGA. P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
lncRNAs in cancers.
| lncRNA | Cancer type | Role in cancer | Molecular mechanism | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIFK-AS1 | Endometrial cancer | Inhibit | Sponge miR-146a, inhibits M2-like polarization of macrophages | [ |
| LINC01315 | Colorectal cancer | Promote | Sponge miR-205-3p, upregulates PRKAA1 | [ |
| Oral squamous cell carcinoma | Inhibit | Sponge miR-211, upregulates DLG3, activates Hippo signaling | [ | |
|
| ||||
| LINC00667 | Colorectal cancer | Promote | Sponge miR-449b-5p, activated by YY1 | [ |
| NSCLC | Recruits EIF4A3 to stabilize VEGFA | [ | ||
| Cholangiocarcinoma | Sponge miR-200c-3p, promotes PDK1, activated by YY1 | [ | ||
| Glioma | USF1/linc00667/miR-429/ALDH1A1 axis | [ | ||
|
| ||||
| ASB16-AS1 | Gastric cancer | Promote | Sponge miR-3918 and miR-4676-3p, cooperates with ATM, induces TRIM37 phosphorylation | [ |
| HCC | Regulates miR-1827/FZD4 axis, activates wnt/ | [ | ||
| Osteosarcoma | Sponge miR-760, upregulates HDGF | [ | ||
| Cervical cancer | miR-1305/wnt/ | [ | ||
| Glioma | Affects EMT signaling pathway | [ | ||
| Adrenocortical carcinoma | Inhibit | Promotes ubiquitination of HuR | [ | |
| Clear cell renal cell carcinoma | miR-185-5p-miR-214-3p-LARP1 pathway | [ | ||
|
| ||||
| PINK1-AS | Gastric cancer | Promote | Sponge miR-200a, upregulates G | [ |
| ZSCAN16-AS1 | HCC | Promote | Regulates miR-181c-5p/SPAG9 axis, activates the JNK pathway | [ |
| SOCS2-AS1 | Prostate cancer | Promote | Inhibits apoptosis pathway, promotes androgen signaling by modulating the epigenetic control for AR target genes | [ |
| Colorectal cancer | Inhibit | Sponge miR-1264, upregulates SOCS2 | [ | |
| Endometrial cancer | Regulates AURKA degradation | [ | ||
|
| ||||
| TINCR | Breast cancer | Promote | Recruits DNMT1 and increases the methylation and suppresses the transcriptional expression of miR-503-5p, sponge miR-503-5p, and upregulates EGFR, stimulates JAK2-STAT3 signaling downstream from EGFR | [ |
| Guides STAU1 to OAS1 mRNA to mediate its stability | [ | |||
| HCC | Interacts with TCPTP, activates STAT3 signaling | [ | ||
| Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma | Inhibit | miR-210/BTG2 pathway | [ | |
| Melanoma | Prevents ATF4 translation | [ | ||