| Literature DB >> 35401705 |
Zhenhao Liu1,2,3, Siwen Zhang3, Hong Li4, Jiaojiao Guo1,2, Dan Wu5, Wen Zhou1,2, Lu Xie3,6.
Abstract
Cell-cell interaction event (CCEs) dysregulation may relate to the heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and would affect therapeutic responses and clinical outcomes. To reveal the alteration of the immune microenvironment in bone marrow from a healthy state to multiple myeloma (MM), scRNA-seq data of the four states, including healthy state normal bone marrow (NBM) and three disease states (MGUS, SMM, and MM), were collected for analysis. With immune microenvironment reconstruction, the cell types, including NK cells, CD8+ T cells, and CD4+ T cells, with a higher percentage in disease states were associated with prognosis of MM patients. Furthermore, CCEs were annotated and dysregulated CCEs were identified. The number of CCEs were significantly changed between disease states and NBM. The dysregulated CCEs participated in regulation of immune cell proliferation and immune response, such as MIF-TNFRSF14 interacted between early B cells and CD8+ T cells. Moreover, CCE genes related to drug response, including bortezomib and melphalan, provide candidate therapeutic markers for MM treatment. Furthermore, MM patients were separated into three risk groups based on the CCE prognostic signature. Immunoregulation-related differentiation and activation of CD4+ T cells corresponded to the progression status with moderate risk. These results provide a comprehensive understanding of the critical role of intercellular communication in the immune microenvironment over the evolution of premalignant MM, which is related to the tumorigenesis and progression of MM, which moreover, suggests a way of potential target selection for clinical intervention.Entities:
Keywords: cell-cell interaction; immune microenvironment; immunoregulation; multiple myeloma; single-cell RNA-seq
Year: 2022 PMID: 35401705 PMCID: PMC8984155 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.844604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
FIGURE 1Diverse cell types in MM and precursor stages delineated by single-cell RNA-seq analysis. The UMAP plot demonstrates cell types (A), main cell subtypes (B), and cells’ source in the clusters (C). Boxplot of the cells with significant proportion change in the four stages (D).
FIGURE 2Infiltrated immune cells in MM associated with patients’ prognosis. Boxplot of the infiltrated immune cells (A); KM-plot of the cells with infiltrated score predicted by CIBERSORT and ImmuCellAI (B–F).
FIGURE 3CCEs in MM and precursor stages annotated with CellPhoneDB. The Circos plot for the CCEs of immune cell interaction in MM TME (A): the outside and inside circles represent the percentage and the count of CCEs, separately. The three-tiered ring from outside in represents the total CCEs of this cell type, the CCEs when the cells are regulated cell types, and the CCEs when the cells as regulatory cells. The input for Fisher’s exact test in the analysis (B). The results of Fisher’s exact test when we calculated the CCEs of each cell types [color bar means log2 (odds ratio)] (C). The results of CCEs in target cells when the target cell interacted with another cell type (D). Dysregulated CCEs interacted in EarlyB-CD8T (E). The boxplot for TNFRSNF14 in the response and nonresponse groups of melphalan (F) and the ROC for drug response prediction of melphalan (G) in CTR-DB; The KM-plot of TNFRSNF14 and MIF in GDC MMRF (H).
FIGURE 4PPI network constructed with key ligand and receptor genes of CCEs. The MGUS-specific network (A). The SMM-specific network (B). The MM-specific network (C). Enriched GO BP terms and KEGG pathways as gain or loss functions in comparison of MM to SMM (D,E), SMM to MGUS (F,G), and MGUS to NBM (H,I).
FIGURE 5Construction of the prognosis model based on the CCE genes in TME. The forest plot of the seven genes in the model (A), KM estimates of OS of MM patients in the training data set (B) and in the test data set (C). Based on the seven-gene signature, patients were divided into three risk groups according to risk score; the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for OS survival predictions for the signature in training set and test set (D).
FIGURE 6The results of GSEA analysis for comparison of high and low risk groups. Enriched KEGG pathways (A) and GO BP terms (B) in the high risk group.