| Literature DB >> 35345651 |
Qun Zhang1, Xinwang Ding2, Hongzhao Lu1.
Abstract
Breast cancer (BRCA) is a class of highly heterogeneous tumors. There is a positive correlation between the overall survival of BRCA and immune infiltration of the tumor microenvironment. QPRT is a rarely reported cancer gene, and the underlying mechanism is poorly understood. Based on TCGA data, the role that QPRT plays in BRCA is evaluated in this study. This study used GEPIA to analyze the expression of QPRT in BRCA and, based on the survival module, assessed the impact of QPRT on the survival of patients with BRCA. Furthermore, this study collected the BRCA data set from TCGA and, through utilizing logistic regression, discussed the relationship between QPRT expression and clinical information. Cox regression analysis was used to obtain clinicopathological features relating to the total survival rate of patients with TCGA. Besides, based on the "correlation" and CIBERSORT module, the relationship between cancer immune infiltration and QPRT was analyzed in GEPIA. Tumor status, pathological staging, and lymph nodes have an obvious correlation with the rise of QPRT expression according to the logistic regression univariate analysis. In this analysis, QPRT is expressed as a categorical-dependent variable (median expression value is 2.5). Furthermore, based on multivariate analysis, independent factors for favorable prognosis include negative pathological stage, increased QPRT expression, and remote metastasis. Among them, CIBERSORT analysis found that the increase in QPRT expression will increase with the growth of the level of immune infiltration of neutrophils, B cells, T cells, and mast cells. In addition, the "correlation" module using GEPIA was used to confirm. Taking all factors into consideration, the rise in QPRT expression is related to a good prognosis and a grown proportion of immune cells in BRCA, such as neutrophils, B cells, mast cells, and T cells. These results suggest that QPRT can be used to be a possible biological indicator to evaluate the immune infiltration level of BRCA and its prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345651 PMCID: PMC8957413 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6482878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1GEPIA analysis of survival results and expression differences. (a) Declined expression in QPRT correlates with good results. (b) The expression of QPRT in various disease states (tumor or normal) is not the same. (c) The expression of QPRT in different pathological stages is different. (d) RT-PCR examined differences in QPRT expression between breast and normal cells in breast cancer cells.
Cox regression analysis results. A. According to univariate Cox regression analysis, overall survival is closely related to some factors, lymph node status (HR = 1.635, P value = 0.034), tumor status (HR = 1.229, P value = 0.314), and the expression of QPRT (HR = 1.660, Pvalue = 0.046). B. Independent prognostic factors with good prognosis include negative distant metastasis, QPRT expression down-regulation, and increased pathological stage.
| Clinicopathologic variable | HR (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| A stage I-II | ||
| Age | 1.031 (1.011–1.050) | 0.002 |
| T | 1.229 (0.823–1.834) | 0.314 |
| N | 1.635 (1.038–2.575) | 0.034 |
| QPRT | 1.660 (1.008–2.735) | 0.046 |
| B stage III-IV | ||
| Age | 1.032 (1.011–1.053) | 0.002 |
| T | 1.194 (0.854–1.669) | 0.300 |
| N | 1.025 (0.713–1.473) | 0.895 |
| M | 3.460 (1.846–6.486) | 0.000 |
| QPRT | 1.804 (1.018–3.196) | 0.043 |
Figure 2Expression of QPRT with multivariate Cox analysis and other clinicopathological factors.
Logistic regression is used to analyze the relationship between clinicopathological variables and QPRT expression. There is a remarkable correlation between age, lymph node status, and pathological stage and declined QPRT expression.
| Characteristics | Total (N) | Odds ratio (OR) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (continuous) | 858 | 0.776 (0.593–1.017) | 0.066 |
| Stage (I vs. II) | 656 | 1.581 (1.099–2.274) | 0.014 |
| Stage (I vs. IV) | 173 | 2.422 (0.838–6.997) | 0.102 |
| Stage (I vs. III) | 343 | 1.584 (1.031–2.432) | 0.036 |
| Stage (I vs. II–IV) | 858 | 1.597 (1.124–3.276) | 0.000 |
| N0-N1 | 711 | 1.448 (1.072–1.955) | 0.016 |
| N0-N2 | 515 | 1.543 (0.983–2.419) | 0.060 |
| Age (continuous) | 858 | 0.776 (0.593–1.017) | 0.066 |
Figure 3The significantly enriched signaling pathways in the high-expression phenotypes of H2AFZ in LUAD. GSEA 3.0 software. (a) Top 10 signaling pathways for GSEA enrichment. (b) Visualization of the single-gene enrichment for the QPRT. NES: normalized enrichment score.
Figure 4The alteration of immune infiltration associated with QPRT. (a) The proportion of changes in the 22 immune subtypes in the QPRT high and low expression groups in the tumor samples. (b) For T cell regulation (P < 0.001), T cell follicular adjuvant (p = 0.027), and macrophage M0 (p = 0.002), they account for a higher proportion in the high-expression group compared with the low expression group. Monocytes account for the reduced proportion (p = 0.034).
The relationship between gene markers of neutrophils, natural killer (NK) cells, T-helper 2 (Th2) cells, T-helper 1 (Th1) cells, T-helper 17 (Th17) cells, follicular helper T (Tfh) cells, mast cells exhausted, and T cells and QPRT expression analyzed by GEPIA “correlation” module.
| Description | Gene markers | BRCA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor | Normal | ||||
| R | P | R | P | ||
| B cell | CD79A | 0.117 | 0.000 | 0.561 | 1.16E−25 |
| Natural killer cell | KIR2DL1 | 0.066 | 0.028 | 0.002 | 0.986 |
| KIR2DL3 | 0.085 | 0.005 | −0.118 | 0.213 | |
| KIR2DL4 | 0.161 | 0.000 | 0.107 | 0.261 | |
| KIR3DL1 | 0.119 | 0.000 | −0.068 | 0.476 | |
| KIR3DL2 | 0.123 | 0.000 | 0.068 | 0.472 | |
| KIR3DL3 | 0.049 | 0.104 | 0.063 | 0.506 | |
| KIR2DS4 | 0.071 | 0.018 | −0.052 | 0.586 | |
|
| |||||
| Neutrophils | CCR7 | 0.086 | 0.004 | 0.4288 | 0.001 |
| Th1 | STAT4 | 0.052 | 0.081 | 0.162 | 0.087 |
| Th2 | GATA3 | −0.01 | 0.728 | 0.492 | 1.21E−16 |
| STAT6 | 0.103 | 0.001 | 0.340 | 0.000 | |
| STAT5A | 0.052 | 0.084 | −0.154 | 0.104 | |
| IL13 | 0.015 | 0.627 | 0.12 | 0.206 | |
|
| |||||
| Tfh | BCL6 | −0.041 | 0.172 | −0.015 | 0.872 |
| Th17 | STAT3 | 0.021 | 0.482 | 0.398 | 0.000 |
| IL17A | 0 | 0.999 | 0.162 | 0.087 | |
|
| |||||
| T cell exhaustion | CTLA4 | 0.152 | 0.000 | 0.517 | 0.001 |
| LAG3 | 0.247 | 0.000 | 0.382 | 0.001 | |
|
| |||||
| Mast cells | TPSB2 | 0.075 | 0.012 | 0.059 | 0.532 |
| TPSAB1 | −0.01 | 0.728 | 0.098 | 0.302 | |
| CPA3 | 0.011 | 0.719 | 0.09 | 0.343 | |
| MS4A2 | −0.002 | 0.943 | 0.097 | 0.306 | |
| HDC | −0.055 | 0.066 | 0.253 | 0.007 | |
Tumor means correlation analysis in BRCA tumor tissue of TCGA; normal means correlation analysis in BRCA normal tissue of TCGA.