| Literature DB >> 35509706 |
Xiaowen Zhao1,2, Pingfan Wu1,2, Dongling Liu1,3, Changtian Li1, Ling Xue1, Zhe Liu1, Meng Zhu1, Jie Yang1, Ziyi Chen1,2, Yaling Li1,3, Yali She1,3.
Abstract
Background: Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAD) is one of the most common tumors in the world and the prognosis is still very poor. Objective: We sought to identify reliable prognostic biomarkers for the progression of GAD and the sensitivity to drug therapy. Method: The RNA sequencing data of GAD was downloaded from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database and used for analysis. Differentially expressed, immune-related lncRNA (DEIRlncRNA) was characterized by differential analysis and correlation analysis. Univariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify DEIRlncRNA associated with prognosis. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis allowed us to determine a signature composed of eight IRlncRNAs. Based on this signature, we further performed gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and somatic mutation analysis to evaluate the ability of this signature to predict prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35509706 PMCID: PMC9061059 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3035073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Clinical pathological characteristics of included patients.
| Characteristics | Training set ( | Validating set ( | Entire GC patient cohort ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Age <60 | 61 (31.3%) | 30 (35.7%) | 91 (32.6%) |
| Age ≥60 | 134 (68.7%) | 54 (64.3%) | 188 (67.4%) |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 71 (36.4%) | 33 (39.3%) | 104 (37.3%) |
| Male | 124 (63.6%) | 51 (60.7%) | 175 (62.7%) |
| Pathologic stage | |||
| Stage I | 25 (12.8%) | 14 (16.7%) | 39 (14.0%) |
| Stage II | 70 (35.9%) | 27 (32.1%) | 97 (34.8%) |
| Stage III | 84 (43.1%) | 34 (40.5%) | 118 (42.3%) |
| Stage IV | 16 (8.2%) | 9 (10.7%) | 25 (9.0%) |
| Inventory status | |||
| Alive | 117 (60.0%) | 45 (53.6%) | 162 (58.1%) |
| Dead | 78 (40.0%) | 39 (46.4%) | 117 (41.9%) |
Figure 1Flow chart showing the analysis process.
Figure 2Model construction by choosing prognosis IRlncRNA. (a) LASSO regression analysis identified 8 IRlncRNAs. (b) Forest plot showing the HR and 95% CI of 8 IRlncRNAs through Cox regression analysis. (c) A heatmap of 8 IRlncRNAs in normal and tumor tissues.
The details of prognostic eight immune-related lncRNAs in the training set.
| Gene symbol | Ensembl ID | Coefficient |
|---|---|---|
| AC010890.1 | ENSG00000226953 | 0.0082 |
| AC093850.2 | ENSG00000230838 | 0.0015 |
| CH17-118O6.3 | ENSG00000275585 | 0.0148 |
| RP11-115H13.1 | ENSG00000273906 | 0.0004 |
| RP11-1260E13.4 | ENSG00000262061 | 0.0036 |
| RP11-489D6.2 | ENSG00000259446 | −0.0009 |
| RP11-497E19.1 | ENSG00000205562 | 0.0106 |
| RP11-54A9.1 | ENSG00000257219 | 0.0005 |
Figure 3Construction of the prognostic signature based on 8-IRlncRNA in the training set. (a) Patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on 8-IRlncRNA in the training set. (b) The survival status of GC patients in the training set. (c) Heatmap of expression profiles of 8-IRlncRNA. (d) Survival analysis of high- and low-risk groups. (e) Time-dependent ROC curve of the 8-IRlncRNA prognostic signature.
Figure 4Correlation analysis between risk scores and molecular subtypes, clinicopathological characteristics. (a) The molecular subtype analysis. (b)–(g) The clinicopathological characteristics analysis. ∗P < 0.05. ∗∗P < 0.01. ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Figure 5GESA results of the risk group defined by the 8-IRlncRNA prognostic signature. (a) and (b) Enrichment pathways for low-risk group. (c) and (d) Enrichment pathways for high-risk group.
Figure 6Somatic mutation status between high- and low-risk groups. (a) The top 15 gene mutations in the high-risk group. (b) The top 15 gene mutations in the low-risk group. (c) Top 5 differentially mutated genes between high-risk and low-risk groups. (d) Differential expression of CDH1 in high-risk and low-risk groups. ∗∗∗∗P < 0.0001.
Figure 7(a) The difference in 22 tumor-infiltrating immune cells between high-risk groups and low-risk groups. (b) The relationship between 8-IRlncRNA prognostic signature and response to ICI. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗∗P < 0.0001.