| Literature DB >> 35459272 |
Chongkai Fang1,2,3, Silin Liu1,2, Kunliang Feng1,2,3, Chaoyuan Huang1,2, Ying Zhang1,2,3, Jinan Wang1,2,3, Hongtong Lin4, Junyan Wang5,6,7, Chong Zhong8,9.
Abstract
This study aimed to construct a ferroptosis-related lncRNA signature to probe the prognosis and immune infiltration of HCC patients. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database was randomly divided into two parts, with two-thirds training and one-third testing sets. Univariate, multivariate, and least absolute selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression analyses were performed to establish a ferroptosis-related lncRNA signature. The prognostic signature was constructed by 6 ferroptosis-related lncRNAs (PCAT6, MKLN1-AS, POLH-AS1, LINC00942, AL031985.3, LINC00942) shows a promising clinical prediction value in patients with HCC. Patients with high-risk score indicated a poorer prognosis than patients with low-risk score were shown in the training set (p < 0.001) and testing set (p = 0.024). Principal component analysis (PCA) and nomogram were performed to verify the value of the prognostic signature. The area under curves (AUCs) for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 0.784, 0.726, 0.699, respectively. Moreover, TCGA revealed that immune cell subpopulations and related functions, including cytolytic activity, MHC class I, type I and type II IFN response, were significantly different between the two risk groups. Immune checkpoints such as PDCD1, CTLA4, CD44, VTCN1 were also abnormally expressed between the two risk groups. This prognostic signature based on the ferroptosis-related lncRNAs may be promising for the clinical prediction of prognosis and immunotherapeutic responses in patients with HCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35459272 PMCID: PMC9033801 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10508-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Workflow of this study.
Figure 2Six ferroptosis-related lncRNAs were selected to establish a prognostic signature. (A) Selection of the optimal turning parameters (log λ) through the tenfold cross-validation. (B)The Lasso coefficient profile of 60 OS-related lncRNAs and imaginary perpendicular lines were drawn at the value chosen by tenfold cross-validation. (C) Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed 6 ferroptosis-related lncRNAs.
Figure 3Prognostic signature of the riskScore analyses of the 6 ferroptosis-related lncRNAs in the TCGA training and testing sets. (A) Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the OS of patients were ranked by riskScore for the training set. (B) Distribution of ferroptosis-related lncRNA model-based riskScore for the training set. (C) Patterns of the survival time and survival status were ranked by riskScore. (D) Clustering analysis heatmap shows the display levels of the 6 lncRNA for each patient in the training set. (E) RiskScores ranked Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the OS of for the testing set. (F) Distribution of ferroptosis-related lncRNA model-based riskScore for the testing set. (G) Patterns of the survival time and survival status were ranked by riskScore. (H) Clustering analysis heatmap shows the display levels of the 6 lncRNA for each patient in the testing set.
Figure 4Ferroptosis-related lncRNAs prognostic signature based on TCGA entire set. (A) Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the OS of patients were ranked by riskScore for the entire set. (B) Distribution of ferroptosis-related lncRNA signature was based riskScore for the entire set. (C) Patterns of the survival time and survival status between the high- and low-risk groups for the training set. (D) Clustering analysis heatmap shows the display levels of the 6 lncRNA for each patient in the training set. (E) The AUC values of the risk factors. (F) The AUC for the prediction of 1, 3, 5-year survival rate of LIHC. (G) The DCA of the risk factors.
Figure 5Assessment of the prognostic signature of the ferroptosis-related lncRNAs. (A) Univariate Cox regression analysis of the clinical characteristics and riskScore with the OS. (B) Multivariate analysis of the clinical characteristics and riskScore with the OS. (C) The relationship between the novel lncRNA and mRNA expression.
Figure 6Principal component analysis between the high and low-risk groups in TCGA entire set. (A) entire gene expression profiles, (B) ferroptosis-related genes, (C) ferroptosis-related lncRNAs, (D) prognostic signature based on ferroptosis-related lncRNAs.
Figure 7(A) A nomogram for both clinic-pathological factors and prognostic ferroptosis-related lncRNAs. (B) Heatmap for ferroptosis-related lncRNAs prognostic signature and clinic-pathological characteristics.
Figure 8(A) Gene enrichment analysis for ferroptosis-related lncRNAs based on TCGA entire set. (B) Heatmap for immune infiltration based on TIMER, CIBERSORT, quanTIseq, MCP-counter, xCELL, and EPIC algorithms among high- and low-risk groups.
Figure 9(A) ssGSEA for the association between immune cell subpopulations and related functions (B) Expression of immune checkpoints between high- and low- risk groups.