| Literature DB >> 35069691 |
Chenlu Li1, Jingjing Pan2, Yinyan Jiang3, Yan Yu4, Zhenlin Jin3, Xupeng Chen1.
Abstract
Background: Gastric cancer (GC) was usually associated with poor prognosis and invalid therapeutical response to immunotherapy due to biological heterogeneity. It is urgent to screen reliable indices especially immunotherapy-associated parameters that can predict the therapeutic responses to immunotherapy of GC patients.Entities:
Keywords: gastric cancer; immune cell infiltration landscape; immune response; immunotherapy; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35069691 PMCID: PMC8770548 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.793628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
FIGURE 1Identification of immune molecular subtypes and characteristics of immuno-cell infiltration landscape in the gastric cancer. (A) Consensus clustering matrix for k = 3 in GC patients. (B) Heatmap of immune cells infiltration and clinicopathologic features of the three subtypes. (C) The box plots showing the difference of immune cells infiltration among three ICI clusters. (D) The correlation among the immune cell infiltration in GC patients. (E). Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival (OS) for the GC patients in three subtypes. (F) The expression of PD-L1 between different ICI cluster groups. (G) Difference of TMN stages among different ICI cluster groups.
FIGURE 2Identification of ICI gene-types and its functional enrichment. (A) Consensus clustering matrix for k = 2 in GC patients based on the expression of DEGs. (B) Unsupervised clustering of DEGs to classify GC patients into novel two gene clusters (A,B). (C) Kaplan-Meier curves for the two gene clusters of patients. (D) Gene Ontology enrichment analysis of the two ICI-related signature genes. (E) The difference of immune cells infiltrating in TME between two gene clusters. (F) The expression of PD-L1 between different gene cluster groups. (G) Difference of TMN stages between different gene cluster groups.
FIGURE 3Construction and identification of characteristics for ICI Score. (A) Alluvial diagram showing the ICI gene cluster distribution from different ICI gene clusters, ICI score groups and final survival outcomes. (B) The expression of immune-checkpoint-associated signatures (CD274/PD-L1, PDCD1, LAG3, CTLA4 and HAVCR2) and immune-activity-related genes (CD8A, CXCL9, CXCL10, GZMA, GZMB, PRF1, IFNG, TNF and TBX2) in different ICI score groups. (C) Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival (OS) for the GC patients in high and low ICI score groups. (D) Difference of TMN stages between different ICI score groups. (E) The results of GSEA showing that Calcium signaling pathway, MAPK signaling pathway, TGF beta signaling pathway, WNT signaling pathway and NOD like receptor signaling pathway were significantly enriched in high-ICI score group while RNA degradation, Spliceosome, Oxidative phosphorylation, Vascular smooth muscle contraction and Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity were enriched in the low-ICI score group. (F) ROC analysis showed the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year AUC values of the ICI scores in predicting the prognosis of GCs were 0.580, 0.620, and 0.663, respectively.
FIGURE 4The Relationship between ICI Scores and Tumor Burden Mutation. (A) The difference of TMB value between the high and low ICI score subgroups. (B) The scatter diagram showing the negative correlation between TMB value and ICI scores. (C) Kaplan-Meier curves of the high and low TMB subgroups in GC patients. (D) Stratified survival analysis for GC patients combining TMB groups and ICI score subtypes. (E,F) The oncoPrint showing the mutant situation of individual patients in high ICI scores groups (red) and low ICI scores groups (blue) respectively.
Top20 Somatic Variants between High- and Low-ICI Score group.
| Gene symbol | High ICI score (%) | Low ICI score (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| TTN | 58 (33.92%) | 111 (58.12%) | 6.75E-06 |
| PLEC | 7 (4.09%) | 39 (20.42%) | 6.86E-06 |
| CNTLN | 3 (1.75%) | 29 (15.18%) | 1.65E-05 |
| PIK3CA | 11 (6.43%) | 43 (22.51%) | 3.48E-05 |
| ANKRD11 | 4 (2.34%) | 29 (15.18%) | 5.00E-05 |
| HDAC4 | 0 (0%) | 19 (9.95%) | 6.31E-05 |
| KMT2D | 13 (7.6%) | 45 (23.56%) | 6.64E-05 |
| ANK3 | 8 (4.68%) | 36 (18.85%) | 7.56E-05 |
| ASPM | 4 (2.34%) | 28 (14.66%) | 8.25E-05 |
| HERC2 | 6 (3.51%) | 32 (16.75%) | 8.40E-05 |
| JARID2 | 1 (0.58%) | 21 (10.99%) | 8.91E-05 |
| NPAP1 | 1 (0.58%) | 21 (10.99%) | 8.91E-05 |
| SIPA1L1 | 2 (1.17%) | 23 (12.04%) | 1.11E-04 |
| SLITRK5 | 4 (2.34%) | 27 (14.14%) | 1.35E-04 |
| FBN1 | 4 (2.34%) | 27 (14.14%) | 1.35E-04 |
| SSPO | 4 (2.34%) | 27 (14.14%) | 1.35E-04 |
| HIVEP1 | 1 (0.58%) | 20 (10.47%) | 1.49E-04 |
| OBSCN | 13 (7.6%) | 43 (22.51%) | 1.63E-04 |
| KMT2A | 4 (2.34%) | 26 (13.61%) | 2.21E-04 |
| ATP10 A | 4 (2.34%) | 26 (13.61%) | 2.21E-04 |
p value was obtained based on the chi-square test between the high and low ICI, score subgroups.
FIGURE 5The role of ICI scores in the prediction of immunotherapy and common chemotherapeutics response. (A) ICI scores between groups with different clinical immunotherapy response status. (B) Survival analysis for patients in high and low ICI score groups from the IMvigor210 cohort. (C) The distribution of the complete remission (CR)/partial response (PR) rate and stable disease (SD)/progressive disease (PD) to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy between high and low ICI score groups based on the IMvigor210 cohort. (D–H) The difference of IC50 value from five common chemotherapy drugs between high and low ICI score groups, including 5-Fluorouracil, Bleomycin, Cisplatin, Docetaxel and Mitomycin-C.