| Literature DB >> 35068448 |
Jiayue Zou1,1, Yanlin Gu2,1, Qi Zhu3,1, Xiaohua Li4, Lei Qin1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Functions associated with glycolysis could serve as targets or biomarkers for therapy cancer. Our purpose was to establish a prognostic model that could evaluate the importance of Glycolysis-related lncRNAs in breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Glycolysis; LncRNA; breast cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35068448 PMCID: PMC9198763 DOI: 10.3233/CBM-210446
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Biomark ISSN: 1574-0153 Impact factor: 3.828
Figure 1.A: Heatmap of DEGs Blue and red indicate lower expression and higher expression. B: Volcano map of expression of Glycolysis-related lncRNAs. C: The Sankey diagram listed the relationship of 14 lncRNAs and 18 mRNAs. D: The co-expression network listed the relationship of 14 lncRNAs and 18 mRNAs.
The characteristics of training and validation set
| Covariates | Type | Total | Test | Train | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 520(54.28%) | 256(53.56%) | 264(55%) | 0.7013 | |
| Age | 438(45.72%) | 222(46.44%) | 216(45%) | ||
| Stage | Stage I–II | 725(75.68%) | 367(76.78%) | 358(74.58%) | 0.4737 |
| Stage | Stage III–IV | 233(24.32%) | 111(23.22%) | 122(25.42%) | |
| T | T1-2 | 811(84.66%) | 404(84.52%) | 407(84.79%) | 0.9781 |
| T | T3-4 | 147(15.34%) | 74(15.48%) | 73(15.21%) | |
| M | M0 | 943(98.43%) | 470(98.33%) | 473(98.54%) | 0.9935 |
| M | M1 | 15(1.57%) | 8(1.67%) | 7(1.46%) | |
| N | N0 | 451(47.08%) | 235(49.16%) | 216(45%) | 0.2202 |
| N | N1-3 | 507(52.92%) | 243(50.84%) | 264(55%) |
Univariate Cox analysis of 14 prognostic glycolysis-related lncRNAs in training set
| Id | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LINC01614 | 1.3964652 | 1.1282007 | 1.7285178 | 0.0021532 |
| U62317.1 | 0.7247198 | 0.5649086 | 0.9297412 | 0.0113057 |
| AL031316.1 | 0.3779058 | 0.1869022 | 0.7641044 | 0.0067497 |
| AC092142.1 | 1.7194702 | 1.1797157 | 2.5061782 | 0.0048056 |
| AL136084.3 | 0.5839348 | 0.3437030 | 0.9920769 | 0.0466593 |
| USP30-AS1 | 0.4388315 | 0.2645420 | 0.7279490 | 0.0014247 |
| AC092718.4 | 1.3708613 | 1.0326176 | 1.8199001 | 0.0291104 |
| LINC01235 | 1.3284102 | 1.0960503 | 1.6100298 | 0.0037931 |
| AC010503.4 | 1.4792999 | 1.0081596 | 2.1706169 | 0.0453383 |
| AC002546.1 | 0.2185639 | 0.0555115 | 0.8605451 | 0.0296486 |
| LINC02446 | 0.5825388 | 0.3873295 | 0.8761311 | 0.0094582 |
| MIAT | 0.4990005 | 0.2745908 | 0.9068095 | 0.0225518 |
| LINC01929 | 1.7198242 | 1.2426473 | 2.3802372 | 0.0010748 |
| LINC01857 | 0.5763394 | 0.3767619 | 0.8816366 | 0.0110597 |
Figure 2.A: Kaplan-Meier Curve of low-risk group and high-risk groups according to the risk score in training set. B: Distribution of prognostic index in training set. C: Survival status of patients in training set D: Forest plot of Cox univariate analysis in training set E: Forest plot of Cox multivariate analysis in training set. F: Multi-parameter ROC curves for risk score, age, stage, lymph node statue metastasis statue and tumor size in training set.
Figure 3.A: Kaplan-Meier Curve of low-risk group and high-risk groups according to the risk score in validating set. B: Distribution of prognostic index in validating set. C: Survival status of patients in validating set D: Forest plot of Cox univariate analysis in validating set E: Forest plot of Cox multivariate analysis in validating set. F: Multi-parameter ROC curves for risk score, age, stage, lymph node statue metastasis statue and tumor size in validating set.
Figure 4.The correlation between neutrophils, CD4+ T cells CD8+ T cells B cells macrophage, dendritic cells and risk score.