| Literature DB >> 35008393 |
Chengnan Fang1,2, Hui Wang3, Zhikun Lin4, Xinyu Liu1, Liwei Dong3, Tianyi Jiang3, Yexiong Tan3, Zhen Ning4, Yaorui Ye1, Guang Tan4, Guowang Xu1.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) displays a high degree of metabolic and phenotypic heterogeneity and has dismal prognosis in most patients. Here, a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS)-based nontargeted metabolomics method was applied to analyze the metabolic profiling of 130 pairs of hepatocellular tumor tissues and matched adjacent noncancerous tissues from HCC patients. A total of 81 differential metabolites were identified by paired nonparametric test with false discovery rate correction to compare tumor tissues with adjacent noncancerous tissues. Results demonstrated that the metabolic reprogramming of HCC was mainly characterized by highly active glycolysis, enhanced fatty acid metabolism and inhibited tricarboxylic acid cycle, which satisfied the energy and biomass demands for tumor initiation and progression, meanwhile reducing apoptosis by counteracting oxidative stress. Risk stratification was performed based on the differential metabolites between tumor and adjacent noncancerous tissues by using nonnegative matrix factorization clustering. Three metabolic clusters displaying different characteristics were identified, and the cluster with higher levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) in tumors showed a worse prognosis. Finally, a metabolite classifier composed of six FFAs was further verified in a dependent sample set to have potential to define the patients with poor prognosis. Together, our results offered insights into the molecular pathological characteristics of HCC.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; metabolomics; nonnegative matrix factorization; prognosis; risk stratification
Year: 2022 PMID: 35008393 PMCID: PMC8750553 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Flow chart of analysis process.
Clinical characteristics of patients a,b.
| Characteristics | Discovery Cohort ( | Validation Cohort ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All ( | Patients with Follow Up ( | Survivors ( | Nonsurvivors ( | All ( | Survivors ( | Nonsurvivors ( | |
| Age, years | 49 (10.9) | 49 (10.9) | 49 (11.0) | 50 (11.0) | 60 (9.8) | 60 (10.2) | 62 (8.4) |
| Gender, Male/Female | 114 (87.7)/16 (12.3) | 69 (86.3)/11 (13.8) | 36 (85.7)/6 (14.3) | 33 (86.8)/5 (13.2) | 55 (84.6)/10 (15.4) | 44 (86.3)/7 (13.7) | 11 (78.6)/3 (21.4) |
| Smoking, Yes/No | 61 (46.9)/69 (53.1) | 36 (45.0)/44 (55.0) | 19 (45.2)/23 (54.8) | 17 (44.7)/21 (55.3) | 34 (52.3)/31 (47.7) | 27 (52.9)/24 (47.1) | 7 (50.0)/7 (50.0) |
| Hepatitis B, Positive/Negative | 103 (79.2)/27 (20.8) | 62 (77.5)/18 (22.5) | 37 (92.5)/3 (7.5) | 31 (81.6)/7 (18.4) | 48 (73.8)/17 (26.2) | 37 (72.5)/14 (27.5) | 11 (78.6)/3 (21.4) |
| Cirrhosis, Presence/Absence | 25 (19.4)/104 (80.6), | 12 (15.0)/68 (85.0) | 2 (4.8)/40 (95.2) | 10 (26.3)/28 (73.7) | 45 (69.2)/20 (30.8) | 33 (64.7)/18 (35.3) | 12 (85.7)/2 (14.3) |
| AFP level, μg/L, >400/<400 | 58 (46.8)/66 (53.2), | 38 (48.7)/40 (51.3), | 18 (45.0)/22 (55.0), | 20 (52.6)/18 (47.4) | 15 (23.4)/49 (76.6), | 10 (19.6)/41 (80.4) | 5 (38.5)/8 (61.5), |
| ALP level, U/L | 90 (36–911), | 86 (36–911), | 74 (36–735), | 98 (50–911), | 98 (51–312) | 89 (51–312) | 113.5 (65–221) |
| GGT level, U/L | 62 (13–525), | 62 (14–438), | 43 (14–438), | 111 (15–297), | 67 (14–384) | 64 (14–384) | 77.5 (20–213) |
| Bilirubin, μmol/L | 13.7 (5.5–32.7), | 13.9 (6.7–32.7), | 13.6 (6.7–32), | 14.6 (6.9–32.7) | 14 (7.0–93.0) | 14.1 (7.8–93.0) | 12.9 (7.0–33.2) |
| Albumin, g/L | 42.0 (3.5), | 42.0 (3.7), | 42.0 (3.0), | 42.0 (4.3) | 40.6 (5.1) | 41 (4.5) | 38 (6.3) |
| TNM stage, Stage I/Stage II/Stage III | 57 (43.8)/32 (24.6)/41 (31.5) | 37 (46.3)/17 (21.3)/26 (32.5) | 27 (64.3)/10 (23.8)/5 (11.9) | 10 (26.3)/7 (18.4)/21 (55.3) | 39 (60.0)/20 (30.8)/6 (9.2) | 32 (62.7)/16 (31.4)/3 (5.9) | 7 (50.0)/4 (28.6)/3 (21.4) |
| BCLC stage, Stage 0/Stage A/Stage B/Stage C | 2 (1.5)/82 (63.1)/15 (11.5)/31 (23.8) | 1 (1.3)/53 (66.3)/7 (8.8)/19 (23.8) | 1 (2.4)/36 (85.7)/0 (0.0)/5 (11.9) | 0 (0.0)/17 (44.7)/7 (18.4)/14 (36.8) | 0 (0.0)/42 (64.6)/5 (7.7)/18 (27.7) | 0 (0.0)/34 (66.7)/3 (5.9)/14 (27.5) | 0 (0.0)/8 (57.1)/2 (14.3)/4 (28.6) |
| Maximum tumor diameter, cm | 7.4 (1.3–17.8) | 7.1 (1.7–17.8) | 4.7 (1.7–17.8) | 9.2 (3.2–17.2) | 4.3 (0.3–14.5) | 4 (1.5–12.0) | 5 (0.3–14.5) |
| Tumor number, ≥2/1 | 20 (15.4)/110 (84.6) | 11 (13.8)/69 (86.3) | 0 (0.0)/42 (100.0) | 11 (28.9)/27 (71.1) | 10 (15.6)/55 (85.9) | 6 (11.8)/45 (88.2) | 4 (28.6)/10 (71.4) |
| Microvascular invasion, Presence/Absence | 52 (40.0)/78 (60.0) | 33 (41.3)/47 (58.8) | 13 (31.0)/29 (69.0) | 20 (52.6)/18 (47.4) | 10 (15.6)/55 (85.9) | 8 (15.7)/43 (84.3) | 2 (14.3)/12 (85.7) |
a All parameters were detected before surgery. Age and albumin were expressed as average (SD). ALP level, GGT level, bilirubin and maximum tumor diameter were expressed as median (range). Other characteristics were expressed as number (proportion%). b n is as indicated in the column headings unless otherwise state. AFP, alpha fetoprotein; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2Metabolic signatures of the adjacent noncancerous tissue (ANT) and hepatocellular carcinoma tumor (HCT) group. (a) Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) score scatter plot of ANT and HCT groups. (b) Volcano plot of the 81 significant differential metabolites (FDR < 0.05) between ANT and HCT groups. Paired nonparametric test (Wilcoxon test) was used to calculate statistical significance, and p values were corrected using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. FDR, false discovery rate. FC, fold change. (c) Heatmap of 81 metabolites with significant changes by comparing HCT group with ANT group. Red, increased metabolite. Blue, decreased metabolite. The red arrows represent significant upregulation in the HCT group.
Figure 3Metabolic pathways of some significantly changed metabolites in HCC. The blue and red bars represent the corrected responses in the ANT and HCT groups, respectively. The colors of names represent changes in HCT group compared with ANT group. Red, increased metabolite. Green, decreased metabolite. Dark, not significantly changed. Dotted box, not measured. Dotted arrow, indirect link. ** and *** represent p value of less than 0.01 and 0.001, respectively. Others the same as Figure 2.
Figure 4Unsupervised clustering of HCC based on metabolic signatures in the discovery cohort. (a) Relationship between rank and cophenetic correlation coefficient after NMF rank survey. (b) NMF clustering based on fold change of differential metabolites between ANT and HCT groups. (c) Volcano plot shows which differential metabolites have a significantly increased or decreased fold change in each cluster, relative to all other clusters. NMF, nonnegative matrix factorization. FDR, false discovery rate. FCR, fold change (HCT/ANT) ratio. Others the same as Figure 2.
Figure 5Association between metabolic clusters and prognosis of HCC in the discovery cohort. (a) Heatmap of the differential metabolites in tumor tissues and AFP among three clusters. The comparison among three clusters was completed by Kruskal–Wallis test. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival of low-risk group (Clusters 1 and 2) and high-risk group (Cluster 3). (c) DES of low-risk and high-risk groups in the discovery cohort. Mann Whitney test was used to calculate p value, and *** represent p value of less than 0.001. The black dots are not in the 90% confidence interval. (d) ROC curve of DES for prognosis prediction. DES, difference enrichment score.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of metabolic cluster and clinicopathological parameters associated with overall survival a.
| Variable | Overall Survival ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Metabolic risk stratification b, High risk/Low risk | 3.38 (1.40, 8.18) | 0.007 | 3.16 (1.27, 7.87) | 0.013 |
| Cirrhosis, Presence/Absence | 3.37 (1.62, 7.02) | 0.001 | - | - |
| Maximum tumor diameter, cm | 1.09 (1.02, 1.16) | 0.009 | - | - |
| Tumor number, ≥2/1 | 5.48 (2.58, 11.62) | 9.00 × 10−6 | - | - |
| Microvascular invasion, Presence/Absence | 1.96 (1.04, 3.72) | 0.038 | - | - |
| TNM Stage c | - | 2.29 × 10−5 | - | 0.014 |
| TNM Stage II | 1.65 (0.63, 4.34) | 0.309 | 1.55 (0.59, 4.08) | 0.377 |
| TNM Stage III | 5.50 (2.56, 11.81) | 1.25 × 10−5 | 3.89 (1.61, 9.42) | 0.003 |
| BCLC Stage d | - | 2.08 × 10−5 | - | - |
| BCLC Stage B | 6.82 (2.73, 17.06) | 4.07 × 10−5 | - | - |
| BCLC Stage C | 4.01 (1.96, 8.19) | 1.39 × 10−4 | - | - |
a HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. b Clusters 1 and 2 were merged as low-risk group. c Stage I was used as the reference group. d Stage 0 + A was used as the reference group.
Figure 6Unsupervised clustering of HCC based on metabolic signatures of six free fatty acids in the validation cohort. (a) NMF clustering based on fold change of six FFAs between ANT and HCT group. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival of low-risk group (Clusters 1 and 2) and high-risk group (Cluster 3). (c) DES of low-risk and high-risk groups. Mann Whitney test was used to calculate p value, and *** represent p value of less than 0.001. The black dots are not in the 90% confidence interval. (d) ROC curve of DES for prognosis prediction. Others the same as Figure 2 and Figure 5.