| Literature DB >> 35387121 |
Zehao Niu1,2, Xin Wang3, Yujian Xu2, Yan Li1,2, Xiaojing Gong1,2, Quan Zeng4,5, Biao Zhang4,5, Jiafei Xi4,5,6, Xuetao Pei4,5,6, Wen Yue4,5,6, Yan Han2.
Abstract
Background: Necroptosis is crucial for organismal development and pathogenesis. To date, the role of necroptosis in skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is yet unveiled. In addition, the part of melanin pigmentation was largely neglected in the bioinformatic analysis. In this study, we aimed to construct a novel prognostic model based on necroptosis-related genes and analysis the pigmentation phenotype of patients to provide clinically actionable information for SKCM patients.Entities:
Keywords: TCGA; biomarkers; melanoma; necroptosis; prognostic prediction; treatment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35387121 PMCID: PMC8979066 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.852803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Workflow diagram.
Figure 2(A) The heatmap of necroptosis-related genes which were differently expressed; (B) According to the results of univariate Cox regression analysis, a total of 14 genes were identified as prognostic genes; (C) Nine intersected genes were selected as target genes; (D) Correlation network of intersected genes.
Figure 3TCGA training cohort: (A) Risk score distribution; (B) Survival status distribution; (C) Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves of overall survival. (D) The ROC curves for 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival; (E, F) Cox regression analysis of risk score and other clinical features [age, stage, gender, stage-T, stage-N, stage-M); (D) The comparison of pigmentation score between training and testing cohort. GEO validation cohort: (H) Risk score distribution; (I) Survival status distribution; (J) Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves of overall survival; (K) ROC curve for 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival. (L–O)]. The expression of BOK, CD14, CYLD and FASLG in melanoma and normal samples.
Figure 4The GO analysis (A) and KEGG analysis (B) of differently expressed genes; (C) GSEA analysis results showed immune-related pathways were highly activated in the low-risk group.
Figure 5Evaluation of tumor microenvironment. (A) The violin plot of the stromal score, immune score and ESTIMATEscore in the training cohort; (B) The immunity heatmap of high- and low-risk groups in the training cohort; (C) The violin plot of the stromal score, immune score and ESTIMATEscore; (D) The Immunity heatmap of high- and low-risk group in the GEO validation cohort; (E, F) Comparison of immune-related pathways and infiltration of immune cells between high- and low-risk group in the TCGA cohort; (G, H) Comparison of immune-related pathways and infiltration of immune cells between high- and low-risk group in the GEO validation cohort. *** means P < 0.001; ns, not significant.
Figure 6(A-D) Patients were more sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitor when ether PD1 and CTLA-4 was positively expressed; (E, F). Immune checkpoint-related genes were highly expressed in the low-risk group. * means P < 0.05, ** means P < 0.01, *** means P < 0.001.
Figure 7(A) Comparison of pigmentation score in high and low-risk score patients from TCGA dataset; (B) Comparison of pigmentation score in high and low-risk score patients from GEO dataset; (C) Correlation between risk score and pigmentation score; (D) Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves of overall survival of high and low- pigmentation score groups; (E) The survival curves of SKCM patients based on risk score and pigmentation score; (F) The nomogram was constructed based on pigmentation score, age, risk score, T and N stage; (G) The ROC curve of nomogram model predicting 2-, 3- and 5-year survival.