| Literature DB >> 35073432 |
Carla Ijurko1,2, Nerea González-García2,3, Purificación Galindo-Villardón2,3,4,5, Ángel Hernández-Hernández1,2.
Abstract
The molecular complexity displayed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) hinders patient stratification and treatment decisions. Previous studies support the utility of using specific gene panels for this purpose. Focusing on two salient features of AML, the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by NADPH oxidases (NOX) and metabolism, we aimed to identify a gene panel that could improve patient stratification. A pairwise comparison of AML versus healthy gene expression revealed the downregulation of four members of the NOX2 complex including CYBB (coding for NOX2) in AML patients. We analyzed the expression of 941 genes related to metabolism and found 28 genes with expression correlated to CYBB. This panel of 29 genes (29G) effectively divides AML samples according to their prognostic group. The robustness of 29G was confirmed by 6 AML cohort datasets with a total of 1821 patients (overall accuracies of 85%, 78%, 80%, 75%, 59% and 83%). An expression index (EI) was developed according to the expression of the selected discriminatory genes. Overall Survival (OS) was higher for low 29G expression index patients than for the high 29G expression index group, which was confirmed in three different datasets with a total of 1069 patients. Moreover, 29G can dissect intermediate-prognosis patients in four clusters with different OS, which could improve the current AML stratification scheme. In summary, we have found a gene signature (29G) that can be used for AML classification and for OS prediction. Our results confirm NOX and metabolism as suitable therapeutic targets in AML.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35073432 PMCID: PMC9303675 DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26477
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Hematol ISSN: 0361-8609 Impact factor: 13.265
FIGURE 1FAB classification, RUNX1‐RUNX1T1 translocation and IDH1, IDH2, FLT3‐TKD and N‐RAS mutations are associated with CYBB in AML patients. (A) CYBB expression levels in bone marrow cells ‐ AML individuals (blue dots) and healthy donors (red dots) ‐ extracted from GSE15061 are shown. Distribution of CYBB‐level groups are also illustrated as a result of cut‐off points drawn in gray: 10th percentile of CYBB expression in healthy donors (upper line) and 25th percentile of AML CYBB expression (lower line). (B) Bar plot representation showing the percentage of GSE14468 samples positive for the mutations IDH1 and IDH2 as well as RUNX1‐RUNX1T1 translocation in each of the CYBB groups. (C) Bar plot representing percentage of GSE14468 samples positive for N‐RAS and FLT3‐TKD mutations in each of the CYBB groups. (D) Bar plot showing percentage of GSE14468 samples classified in each FAB class within CYBB groups. (*) represents p‐value <.05; (**) p‐value <.01 and (***) p‐value <.001 in Chi‐Square test [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 229G is a correlated gene signature that separates AML patients on the basis of prognosis. (A) Pearson's correlation pairwise coefficients (from −1 to 1) of 29G GSE15061 samples were plotted. (B) Dot representation of GSE15061 samples in the three LDA coordinates. LD1, LD2 and LD3 correspond to the discriminant functions obtained in the LDA. (C) Scatter plot data from LDA prognosis group separation is shown for two validation datasets: GSE14468 and phs001657.v1.p1. LD1 and LD2 correspond to the discriminant functions obtained in the LDA. (D) Canonical Biplot representation of the different prognosis samples (good: orange filled dots; intermediate: pink filled dots; and poor: green filled dots) of GSE15061 on the axes 1–2. Discriminant genes (arrows) and confidence circles of each prognosis subtype distribution are plotted based on univariate Student t‐tests to perform post hoc analysis of each gene [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 3Patients with a low expression index exhibit greater OS. (A) Representation of ROC curve assessment for establishing an appropriate prognosis discrimination cut‐off point for EI in training dataset GSE10358. (B) Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) curves of EI groups (High‐Index and Low‐Index) in 260 samples from the GSE10358 dataset. (C) Kaplan–Meier event‐free survival (EFS) curve representation of EI groups (High‐Index and Low‐Index) from 260 samples of the GSE10358 dataset. (D) Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) curves of EI groups (High‐Index and Low‐Index) in 429 samples from the phs001657.v1.p1dataset [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 429G based cluster formation in intermediate samples generates four clusters that show differences in OS and EFS. The ability of 29G to discriminate different groups among the intermediate prognosis group was tested on GSE10358 samples (n = 160) and phs001657.v1.p1 (n = 135). (A) PCA representation of the four clusters generated by hkmeans emanated from 29G for intermediate samples of GSE10358 dataset. (B) Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) curves of the clusters shown in panel A. Time is expressed in months. (C) Kaplan–Meier event free survival (EFS) curves of the clusters shown in panel A. Time is expressed in months. (D) Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) curves of the clusters constituted from intermediate samples of phs001657.v1.p1 following the same procedure as in the training. Time is expressed in days [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]