| Literature DB >> 35047378 |
Yingrong Shi1, Si Chen1, Huijuan Xing1, Guanglie Jiang1, Nan Wu1, Qiannan Liu1, Norihiro Sakamoto2, Takayoshi Kuno1,2, Reiko Sugiura3, Qinghuan Xiao4, Feng Jin5, Yue Fang1, Fan Yao5.
Abstract
Recent studies reveal that tumor microenvironment contributes to breast cancer (BRCA) development, progression, and therapeutic response. However, the contribution of the tumor microenvironment-related genes in routine diagnostic testing or therapeutic decision making for BRCA remains elusive. Immune/stromal/ESTIMATE scores calculated by the ESTIMATE algorithm quantify immune and stromal components in a tumor, and thus can reflect tumor microenvironment. To investigate the association of the tumor microenvironment-related genes with invasive BRCA prognosis, here we analyzed the immune/stromal/ESTIMATE scores in combination with The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database in invasive BRCA. We found that immune/stromal/ESTIMATE scores were significantly correlated with the invasive BRCA clinicopathological factors. Based on the immune/stromal/ESTIMATE scores, we extracted a series of differential expression genes (DEGs) related to the tumor microenvironment. Survival analysis was further performed to identify a list of high-frequency DEGs (HF-DEGs), which exhibited prognostic value in invasive BRCA. Importantly, consistent with the results of bioinformatics analysis, immunohistochemistry results showed that high SASH3 expression was associated with a good prognosis in invasive BRCA patients. Our findings suggest that the tumor microenvironment-related HF-DEGs identified in this study have prognostic values and may serve as potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for invasive BRCA.Entities:
Keywords: SASH3; TCGA database; immune/stromal/ESTIMATE score; invasive breast cancer; prognosis; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047378 PMCID: PMC8761742 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.576911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Distribution of invasive breast cancer patients’ characteristics and their correlation with stromal/immune/ESTIMATE scores.
| Variables | Count (total | Stromal score | Immune score | ESTIMATE score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 119 | |||
|
| 209 | |||
|
| 56 | |||
|
| 90 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 247 | 0.0994 | 0.1220 |
|
|
| 234 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 468 | 0.9672 | 0.1346 |
|
|
| 13 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 238 | 0.5445 | 0.1591 |
|
|
| 243 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 356 |
|
|
|
|
| 125 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 405 |
|
|
|
|
| 76 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 365 |
|
|
|
|
| 116 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 315 |
|
|
|
|
| 173 | |||
|
| ||||
|
| 418 |
|
|
|
|
| 70 | |||
The bold terms are significant variables. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 1The correlation of gene expression with immune/stromal/ESTIMATE scores. (A) Volcano map of DEGs of immune scores. (B) Volcano map of DEGs of stromal scores. (C) Volcano map of DEGs of ESTIMATE scores. Genes with higher expression are shown in red; lower expression are shown in green; genes with same expression level are shown in black (p < 0.05, log2 (FC) >2). (D, E) Venn diagrams showed the number of upregulated (D) or downregulated (E) DEGs in stromal/immune/ESTIMATE scores groups. (F–H) The top 10 GO terms of overlapping DEGs. False discovery rate (FDR) of GO analysis was acquired from DAVID functional annotation tool (p < 0.05).
Figure 2The top 4 significant modules from PPI network. The top 4 modules, named as module 1 to module 4, are shown in (A–D), respectively. The color of a node in the PPI network reflected the log (FC) value of the Z-score of gene expression, and the size of node indicated the number of interacting proteins with the designated protein. The darker color or the larger volume of a node, the more important the node was in each model.
The biological functions of HF-DEGs.
| Categories | Gene symbols |
|---|---|
| Receptor |
|
| Cytokine | IL1B, FIGF, GBP1 |
| Chemokine | CXCL2, CCL11 |
| Nucleotide exchange factor |
|
| Adaptor protein | DOK2, ACSL5 |
| Transcription factor | STAT4, |
| Activator or inhibitor activity |
|
| Signal transmission/transmembrane/skeletal/extracellular matrix/transport protein |
|
| Blood coagulation factor |
|
| Complement | C3 |
| GTP- and nucleotide-binding proteins |
|
| Enzyme | HSD11B1, NCF4, GZMH, HTRA4, ENPP2, BTK IRAK3, INDO |
| Unknown function |
|
Genes in bold have not been previously reported for their prognostic value in invasive breast cancer patients.
Figure 3The PPI network GO analysis and KEGG analysis of the HF-DEGs. (A) The PPI network of the HF-DEGs. The color of a node in the PPI network reflected the log (FC) value of the Z-score of gene expression, and the size of node indicated the number of interacting proteins with the designated protein. In this PPI network, the log (FC) of the nodes >1.5 was considered the more important nodes. Functional grouped network diagram with GO terms and the KEGG pathways as nodes linked based on the HF-DEGs is shown in (B, D), respectively. The pie charts of (C, E) summarized the GO terms and KEGG terms corresponding to the network diagram in (B, D), respectively. The size of node indicated the p-value of the biological processes or the KEGG pathway. The color of node indicated the term of the biological processes or the KEGG pathway.
The COX analysis of SASH3 in clinical data from the TCGA database.
| Feature (categories) | RFS univariate analysis | RFS multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| SASH3 | 0.44 | 0.203–0.952 | 0.032* | 0.405 | 0.179–0.917 | 0.03* |
| Tumor size | 1.39 | 1.001–1.941 | 0.049* | 1.983 | 0.774–5.081 | 0.569 |
| Lymph nodes | 1.869 | 1.372–2.545 | <0.001*** | 7.997 | 1.64–39.798 | 0.012* |
| AJCC stage | 1.288 | 0.915–1.814 | 0.148 | 0.192 | 0.003–1.256 | 0.085 |
| Age | 1.114 | 0.599–2.071 | 0.732 | |||
| ER | 1.230 | 0.587–2.573 | 0.583 | |||
| PR | 0.803 | 0.433–1.488 | 0.486 | |||
| HER2 | 0.553 | 0.171–1.790 | 0.316 | |||
| Subtype | 1.024 | 0.788–1.331 | 0.856 | |||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4The expression of SASH3 in invasive breast cancer patients. (A, B) The representative immunohistochemical images for the low (A) and high (B) expression of SASH3 in human invasive breast cancer samples. Arrows indicated the magnified regions in the insert. Magnification: ×40. Scale Bars: 100 µm. (C) Survival curves showed the association of SASH3 (n = 172, p = 0.026) expression with the RFS in 172 human invasive breast cancer tissues.
The COX analysis of SASH3 in clinical data from the first affiliated hospital of china medical university.
| Feature (categories) | RFS univariate analysis | RFS multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| SASH3 | 0.276 | 0.082–0.926 | 0.037* | 0.447 | 0.123–1.62 | 0.22 |
| Lymph node | 3.076 | 2.054–4.607 | <0.001*** | 5.702 | 1.724–18.865 | 0.004** |
| AJCC stage | 4.956 | 2.199–11.172 | <0.001*** | 0.151 | 0.016–1.397 | 0.096 |
| Age | 0.977 | 0.439–2.175 | 0.955 | |||
| ER | 1.387 | 0.551–3.494 | 0.488 | |||
| PR | 0.949 | 0.421–2.136 | 0.899 | |||
| HER2 | 0.553 | 0.171–1.790 | 0.316 | |||
| Tumor size | 1.349 | 0.402–4.524 | 0.627 | |||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.