| Literature DB >> 35586863 |
Huiqin Yang1, Xing Jin1, Tao Cheng1, Guangyao Shan1, Chunlai Lu1, Jie Gu1, Cheng Zhan1, Fengkai Xu1, Di Ge1.
Abstract
To figure out the molecular mechanism in the esophageal squamous carcinoma (ESCC) with the discrepancy in the tissue-resident microbiota, we selected clinical features, RNA sequences, and transcriptomes of ESCC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) website and detailed tissue-resident microbiota information from The Cancer Microbiome Atlas (n = 60) and explored the infiltration condition of particular microbiota in each sample. We classified the tissue-resident micro-environment of ESCC into two clusters (A and B) and built a predictive classifier model. Cluster A has a higher proportion of certain tissue-resident microbiota with comparatively better survival, while Cluster B has a lower proportion of certain tissue-resident microbiota with comparatively worse survival. We showed traits of gene and clinicopathology in the esophageal tissue-resident micro-environment (ETM) phenotypes. By comparing the two clusters' molecular signatures, we find that the two clusters have obvious differences in gene expression and mutation, which lead to pathway expression discrepancy. Several pathways are closely related to tumorigenesis. Our results may demonstrate a synthesis of the infiltration pattern of the esophageal tissue-resident micro-environment in ESCC. We reveal the mechanism of esophageal tissue-resident microbiota discrepancy in ESCC, which may contribute to therapy progress for patients with ESCC.Entities:
Keywords: LASSO analysis; R language software; esophageal squamous carcinoma; esophageal tissue-resident micro-environment; tissue-resident flora
Year: 2022 PMID: 35586863 PMCID: PMC9108775 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.859352
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
FIGURE 1(A) Construction of the study. (B) Consensus matrixes of all sample cohorts for each k (k from 2 to 5) demonstrate the stability of clustering through 2000 HYPERLINK “javascript” hierarchical clustering. (C) All-randomized clustering of esophageal-tissue resident microbiota for 60 samples from both TCGA and TCMA. (D) Proportion of the most significant esophageal tissue-resident microbiota in the primary tumor and solid normal tissue according to the best clustering (Table 1). Basic characteristics of the ESCC patients in the two infiltration groups from the TCGA database.
FIGURE 2(A) Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) of cluster groups in the discovery cohort. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) based on esophageal tissue-resident microbiota.
Clinical features of the two clusters.
| 1 | 2 | p.overall | |
| sex: | 0.457 | ||
| female | 5 (23.8%) | 3 (13.6%) | |
| male | 16 (76.2%) | 19 (86.4%) | |
| age | 63.7 (10.3) | 64.0 (13.1) | 0.937 |
| age_median: | 1.000 | ||
| older | 12 (57.1%) | 13 (59.1%) | |
| younger | 9 (42.9%) | 9 (40.9%) | |
| BMI | 25.2 (21.8;32.5) | 22.1 (20.2;24.2) | 0.023 |
| smoke: | 0.826 | ||
| No | 15 (71.4%) | 14 (63.6%) | |
| Yes | 6 (28.6%) | 8 (36.4%) | |
| T: | 0.500 | ||
| T1 | 6 (28.6%) | 2 (9.09%) | |
| T2 | 3 (14.3%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| T3 | 11 (52.4%) | 13 (59.1%) | |
| T4 | 1 (4.76%) | 2 (9.1%) | |
| N: | 0.648 | ||
| N0 | 12 (57.1%) | 11 (50.0%) | |
| N1 | 5 (23.8%) | 9 (40.9%) | |
| N2 | 2 (9.52%) | 1 (4.55%) | |
| N3 | 2 (9.52%) | 1 (4.55%) | |
| M: | 0.222 | ||
| M0 | 15 (71.4%) | 18 (81.8%) | |
| M1 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (4.55%) | |
| M1a | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (4.55%) | |
| MX | 3 (14.3%) | 2 (9.1%) | |
| stage2: | 0.392 | ||
| I | 5 (25.0%) | 2 (9.52%) | |
| II | 9 (45.0%) | 11 (52.4%) | |
| III | 6 (30.0%) | 6 (28.6%) | |
| IV | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (9.52%) | |
| OS: | 0.240 | ||
| 0 | 19 (90.5%) | 16 (72.7%) | |
| 1 | 2 (9.52%) | 6 (27.3%) | |
| OS.time | 13.4 (12.8;23.5) | 12.7 (5.12;18.5) | 0.123 |
FIGURE 3(A) The volcano plot demonstrates the DEGs of clusters A and B. (B) Unsupervised clustering of 44 ESCC patients from TCGA and TMCA. Clinical-pathologic characteristics contain age, stage, smoking, and cluster groups. (C) The waterfall plots demonstrate the proportion of genomic mutations and certain types of mutations in cluster I. (D) Detailed somatic genomic mutations and variations of copy number analysis of cluster I. (E) The waterfall plots demonstrating the proportion of genomic mutations and certain types of mutations in cluster II. (F) Detailed somatic genomic mutations and variations of copy number analysis of cluster II. (G) The waterfall plots demonstrate the genomic alterations including somatic genomic mutations and variations of copy number in the two cluster cohorts. (H) The forest plot shows the value of each co-related genome of prognosis by corresponding hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio with 95% CI.
FIGURE 4(A) KEGG dot-plot of functional enrichment in co-related pathways analysis of DEGs. (B) GO dot-plot of functional enrichment in co-related pathways analysis of DEGs. (C) GO bar-plot of functional enrichment in co-related pathways analysis of DEGs.
FIGURE 5(A) Five-fold cross-validation for tuning parameter (λ) selection in the LASSO regression model. The partial likelihood deviance is plotted in log(λ), in which vertical lines are shown at the optimal values by minimum criteria and 1-SE criteria. (B) Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of the LASSO-binary logistic regression model.