| Literature DB >> 35359436 |
Zejian Lyu1,2, Yafang Li1,3, Dandan Zhu3, Sifan Wu3,4, Fei Hu3,5, Yu Zhang6, Yong Li1,3, Tieying Hou1,3,4,5,6.
Abstract
Background: The potential role of fibroblast activation protein-alpha (FAP) in modulating the progression and invasion of stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) has not yet been comprehensively investigated. This study aimed to explore the role of FAP in STAD and the underlying association between FAP and the tumor microenvironment (TME) and ferroptosis.Entities:
Keywords: FAP; biomarker; ferroptosis; stomach adenocarcinoma; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35359436 PMCID: PMC8963861 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2022.859999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
FIGURE 1High FAP expression infers poor prognosis for STAD. (A) FAP expression levels in tumors compared to normal tissues in 33 cancers; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (B) Correlations between FAP expression and immune checkpoint gene expression in 33 cancers; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (C) Results of correlation analysis between FAP expression in pan-cancer and MSI described using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. (D) Univariate Cox analysis of FAP shown by a forest plot. A hazard ratio of >1 represented risk factors for survival and a hazard ratio of <1 represented protective factors for survival. The full version can be accessed in supplementary figure. (E) Kaplan–Meier plots of FAP in STAD. Patients were divided into high and low FAP expression groups based on the median FAP expression level.
FIGURE 2Clinical correlation of FAP. (A) FAP expression level in different STAD stages. (B) Heat map and table showing the distribution of STAD stages among the different FAP expression levels. (C) FAP expression levels in different ACRG molecular subtypes. (D) Heat map and table showing the distribution of ACRG molecular subtypes among the different FAP expression levels. (E) FAP expression level in different TCGA molecular subtypes. (F) Heat map and table showing the distribution of TCGA molecular subtypes among the different FAP expression levels.
FIGURE 3Landscape of the TME in STAD and characteristics of different FAP expression levels. (A) Proportions of TME cells among patients with STAD in the TCGA cohort. (B) Correlation plots showing correlations between FAP expression and expression of PDCD1, CTLA4, and CD274 in STAD patients. R = linear correlation coefficient. P = p-value of linear correlation. (C) Expression levels of immune checkpoint genes in FAP-high and FAP-low groups; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (D) Correlation analysis was used to assess relationships among immune cells.
FIGURE 4Identification of a FAP regulatory network. (A) A correlation network between FAP and miRNAs. (B) Expression of hsa-miR-30c-5p and SNHG16 in TCGA. (C) Association between FAP, SNHG16 and hsa-miR-30c-5p evaluated using the TCGA database. (D) Overall survival of hsa-miR-30c-5p and SNHG16 assessed using Kaplan–Meier Plotter. (E) A triple regulatory network in STAD.
FIGURE 5Consensus clustering of ferroptosis-related genes. (A) Correlations between FAP and known FRGs in the TCGA-STAD cohort. (B) Expression levels of FRGs in FAP-high and FAP-low groups; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (C) Consensus clustering matrix for k = 4. (D) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for patients in the four ferroptosis-related clusters.
FIGURE 6Clinical correlation of different subtypes. (A) Distribution of FAP expression across the four STAD subtypes. (B) Heat map and table showing the distribution of FAP expression levels among the different subtypes. (C and D) The results of GSEA based on GO database (C) and KEGG (D) in subtype C.