| Literature DB >> 34987579 |
Deyu Zhang1, Meiqi Wang2, Lisi Peng1, Xiaoli Yang1, Keliang Li2, Hua Yin1, Chuanchao Xia1, Fang Cui1, Haojie Huang1, Zhendong Jin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the progress of precision medicine treatment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), individualized cancer-related medical examination and prediction are of great importance in this high malignant tumor and tumor-immune microenvironment with changed pathways highly enrolled in the carcinogenesis of PDAC.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34987579 PMCID: PMC8723862 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4986227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1Flow chart of our study.
Figure 2Heatmap of TCGA and GEO data. (a) Enrichment score of immunologic and hallmark genes between cancers and paracarcinoma tissues in TCGA-PDAC. (b) Enrichment score of immunologic and hallmark gene cancers and paracarcinoma tissues in GSE28735 and GSE62452.
Figure 3(a) Identification of best cutoff of cluster. (b) The distribution of each cluster by PCA method in factoextra package. (c) Survival analysis of TCGA-PDAC by clusters. (d) Identification of the value of grouping by silhouette width plots. (e) Visualization of each cluster using the NMF method.
Figure 4(a) The common gene sets and pathways among the 3 subtypes. (b) The clinical characteristic and the expression of 93 intersected gene sets and pathways among the 3 different PDAC subtypes.
The relevance among subtypes and clinical data in TCGA-PDAC.
| Subtype 1 ( | Subtype 2 ( | Subtype 3 ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.848 | |||
| Male | 40 | 11 | 45 | |
| Female | 38 | 6 | 36 | |
| Age (average age) | 0.763 | |||
| >65 | 40 (73.5) | 6 | 37 (74.5) | |
| ≦65 | 38 (60.0) | 11 | 44 (56.5) | |
| Status (dead, %) | 34 (43.6) | 3 (17.6) | 20 (24.7) | <0.01 |
| Residual tumor (R0, %) | 41 (52.6) | 13 (76.5) | 52 (64.2) | <0.01 |
| Tumor size (≤4 cm) (%) | 45 (57.7) | 11 (64.7) | 58 (61.7) | 0.236 |
|
| ||||
| T1 | 3 (3.8) | 1 (5.9) | 3 (3.7) | <0.01 |
| T2 | 9 (11.5) | 6 (35.3) | 9 (11.1) | |
| T3&4 | 66 (84.6) | 8 (47.1) | 69 (85.1) | |
| Tx (missing) | 0 | 2 (11.8) | 0 | |
| M0 | 35 (44.9) | 5 (29.4) | 40 (49.4) | 0.893 |
| M1 | 2 (2.6) | 0 | 2 (2.5) | |
| Mx (missing) | 41 (52.6) | 0 | 39 (48.1) | |
| N0 | 24 (30.8) | 7 (41.2) | 18 (22.2) | 0.02 |
| N1 | 54 (69.2) | 7 (41.2) | 61 (75.3) | |
| Nx (missing) | 0 | 3 (17.6) | 2 (2.5) | |
|
| ||||
| Stage I | 10 (12.8) | 6 (35.3) | 5 (6.2) | 0.02 |
| Stage II | 64 (82.1) | 9 (52.9) | 72 (88.9) | |
| Stage III and IV | 4 (5.1) | 0 | 4 (4.9) | |
| Stage x (missing) | 0 | 2 (11.8) | 0 | |
|
| ||||
| G1 | 7 (9.0) | 11 (64.7) | 12 (14.8) | 0.02 |
| G2 | 44 (56.4) | 2 (11.8) | 48 (59.3) | |
| G3 and G4 | 27 (34.6) | 3 (17.6) | 21 (25.9) | |
| Gx (missing) | 0 | 1 (5.9) | 0 | |
| Alcohol history (YES, %) | 49 (62.8) | 6 (35.3) | 40 (49.4) | 0.04 |
| Smoking history (YES, %) | 24 (30.8) | 5 (29.4) | 30 (37.0) | 0.248 |
The screened gene sets and pathways after univariable Cox regression analysis.
| Gene sets and pathways | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T_GSE45365_WT_VS_IFNAR_KO_CD11B_DC_MCMV_INFECTION_DN | 5.03 | 4.94 | 5.23 | 0.003 |
| T_GSE20715_0H_VS_48H_OZONE_LUNG_DN | 2.92 | 3.04 | 1.17 | 0.005 |
| T_GSE13411_PLASMA_CELL_VS_MEMORY_BCELL_UP | 3.73 | 1.92 | 7.74 | 0.014 |
| T_HALLMARK_GLYCOLYSIS | 8.97 | 8.43 | 9.25 | 0.001 |
| T_GSE19888_CTRL_VS_T_CELL_MEMBRANES_ACT_MAST_CELL_DN | 2.89 | 2.15 | 3.87 | 0.002 |
Figure 5(a) Based on TCGA-PDAC data, absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) coefficient profiles were exerted. (b) Best penalization coefficient (λ) by threefold validation according to partial likelihood deviance. (c) The significant gene sets and pathways after LASSO regression with the risk coefficient. (d–f) Survival analysis of each gene set and pathway on TCGA-PDAC cohort. (g–i) Survival analysis of each gene set and pathway on the GSE28735 and GSE62452 cohorts. (j) Survival analysis of the calculated risk formula on TCGA-PDAC cohort. (k) Survival analysis of the calculated risk formula on GSE28735 and GSE62452 cohort.
Figure 6(a) Gene ontology (GO) analysis shows enriched GO term. (b) Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis shows enriched signaling pathways. (c) Protein-protein interaction analysis. (d) Hub genes were found and ranked by Cytoscape and Cytohubba.
Figure 7(a) The 10 hub genes are enriched in promoting the infiltration of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) using 4 algorithms in the TIMER database. (b) Validating the differential expression of the 10 hub genes in the GEPIA database.