| Literature DB >> 34893046 |
Simeng Zhang1,2,3,4, Mengzhu Lv5, Yu Cheng1,2,3,4, Shuo Wang1,2,3,4, Ce Li1,2,3,4, Xiujuan Qu6,7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a disease with poor prognosis due to the current lack of effective therapeutic strategies. Immune checkpoint blockade treatments have shown effective responses in patient subgroups but biomarkers remain challenging. Traditional classification of gastric cancer (GC) is based on genomic profiling and molecular features. Therefore, it is critical to identify the immune-related subtypes and predictive markers by immuno-genomic profiling.Entities:
Keywords: ADAMDEC1; Advanced gastric cancer; Immuno-genomic profiling; Tumor microenvironment; WGCNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34893046 PMCID: PMC8665569 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-09065-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Characteristics of GSE62254 and GSE29272 cohort
| GSE62254 | GSE29272 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Number of Patients (%) | Characteristic | Number of Patients (%) | |
| Median (Range) | 63 (24–86) | Median (Range) | 59 (23–71) | |
| Male | 195 (66.1%) | Male | 99 (78.6%) | |
| Female | 100 (33.9%) | Female | 27 (21.4%) | |
| T2 | 184 (62.4%) | I | 5 (4.0%) | |
| T3 | 90 (30.5%) | II | 5 (4.0%) | |
| T4 | 21 (7.1%) | III | 108 (85.7%) | |
| IV | 8 (6.3%) | |||
| N0 | 38 (12.9%) | |||
| N1 | 128 (43.4%) | |||
| N2 | 79 (26.8%) | |||
| N3 | 50 (16.9%) | |||
| M0 | 268 (90.8%) | |||
| M1 | 27 (9.2%) | |||
| I | 30 (10.2%) | |||
| II | 94 (31.9%) | |||
| III | 95 (32.2%) | |||
| IV | 76 (25.8%) | |||
| Intestinal | 144 (48.8%) | |||
| Diffuse | 134 (45.4%) | |||
| Mixed | 17 (5.8%) | |||
Fig. 1Clustering of immune-related subtypes of AGC. Three immune-related subtypes of advanced gastric cancer in two independent datasets were generated by Hierarchical clustering. Immunity_L, Immunity_M and Immunity_H refers to Immuunity Low, Immunity Medium and Immunity High respectively. ImmuneScore, StromalScore and TumorPurity were calculated by ESTIMATE algorithm
Clinical Characteristics of Immune Subtypes
| GSE62254 | GSE29272 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity L | Immunity M | Immunity H | Immunity L | Immunity M | Immunity H | ||||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | ||
| < 60 | 10 | 9.4% | 79 | 74.5% | 17 | 16.0% | < 60 | 11 | 16.4% | 41 | 61.2% | 15 | 22.4% |
| ≥60 | 22 | 11.6% | 140 | 74.1% | 27 | 14.3% | ≥60 | 7 | 11.9% | 48 | 81.4% | 4 | 6.8% |
| Male | 24 | 12.3% | 143 | 73.3% | 28 | 14.4% | Male | 14 | 14.1% | 70 | 70.7% | 15 | 15.2% |
| Female | 8 | 8.0% | 76 | 76.0% | 16 | 16.0% | Female | 4 | 14.8% | 19 | 70.4% | 4 | 14.8% |
| I/II | 14 | 11.3% | 93 | 75.0% | 17 | 13.7% | I/II | 2 | 20.0% | 8 | 80.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| III/IV | 18 | 10.5% | 126 | 73.7% | 27 | 15.8% | III/IV | 16 | 13.8% | 81 | 69.8% | 19 | 16.4% |
| Yes | 16 | 11.3% | 110 | 77.5% | 16 | 11.3% | |||||||
| No | 16 | 10.5% | 109 | 71.2% | 28 | 18.3% | |||||||
Fig. 2Characteristics of different immune-related subtypes. A The level of immune cell infiltration in different immune subtypes (MannWhitney U test). B Comparison of HLA genes expression between different immune subtypes (ANOVA test)
Fig. 3Gene set enrichment analysis of immune-related subtypes. A Overall survival of different immune subtypes by Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test P = 0.13 in GSE62254; P < 0.001 in GSE29272). B GSEA GO analysis of Immunity_H subtypes in GSE62254. C KEGG enrichment analysis of Immunity_H and Immunity_L subtypes in GSE62254. D GSEA GO analysis of Immunity_H subtypes in GSE29272. E KEGG enrichment analysis of Immunity_H and Immunity_L subtypes in GSE29272
Fig. 4Construction of co-expression network of immune-related subtypes. A Comparison of the immune-related classification and traditional classification of gastric cancer in GSE62254 and Immunity_H was highly correlated with MSI (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.022) and lauren diffuse subtype (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001). B The correlation of different soft threshold power values of co-expression network. C Module-trait associations were evaluated by correlations between module eigengene and clinical traits. D The correlation of genes in brown module with immune subtypes trait. E The correlation of genes in magenta module with immune subtypes trait
Fig. 5Identification of the hub-network and hub-genes in Immunity_H subtype. A PPI network of genes in brown module which including 955 nodes and 248,141 edges. Hub-network was extracted from PPI network according to topological features and MCODE algorithm which consist of 275 nodes and 37,675 edges. B Significantly enriched KEGG pathways of hub-network genes. C Overall Survival (OS) of ADAMDEC1 in GSE62254 cohort by Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis (log-rank P < 0.008) and external validation by GSE29272 and KMplotter cohort (log-rank P = 0.023, P = 0.031, respectively). D Overall survival of high and low ADAMDEC1 expression by Kaplan-Meier analysis in IMvigor210 cohort (Log rank test, p = 0.01). E Rate of clinical response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in high and low ADAMDEC1 expression groups in IMvigor210 cohort
Fig. 6Experimental validation by gastric cancer cells. A MGC803 cell was knockdown of ADAMDEC1 gene and western blot was applied to detect the expression level of ADAMDEC1. B MTT assay was used to detect the cell proliferation rates in 0 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. Data are means ± SD in three independent experiment (*P < 0.05). C Transwell assay was performed to detect the migration of MGC803 cell after silencing ADAMDEC1 for 48 h. Data are means ± SD in three independent experiment (*P < 0.05). D mRNA expression level change of PD-L1 in silencing ADAMDEC1 of MGC803 cell. E Western blot was used to detect the change of PD-L1 expression level in MGC803 cell with ADAMDEC1 knockdown. F Jurkat T cells were co-incubated with ADAMDEC1-NC and ADAMDEC1-KD MGC803 cell for 48 h, respectively. The apoptosis in Jurkat T cells was measured by flow cytometry analysis