| Literature DB >> 35646101 |
Shizhe Yu1,2,3, Haoren Wang4, Jie Gao1,2,3, Long Liu1,2,3, Xiaoyan Sun1,2,3, Zhihui Wang1,2,3, Peihao Wen1,2,3, Xiaoyi Shi1,2,3, Jihua Shi1,2,3, Wenzhi Guo1,2,3, Shuijun Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
Liver cancer is the most frequent fatal malignancy. Furthermore, there is a lack of effective therapeutics for this cancer type. To construct a prognostic model for potential beneficiary screens and identify novel treatment targets, we used an adaptive daisy model (ADaM) to identify context-specific fitness genes from the CRISPR-Cas9 screens database, DepMap. Functional analysis and prognostic significance were assessed using data from TCGA and ICGC cohorts, while drug sensitivity analysis was performed using data from the Liver Cancer Model Repository (LIMORE). Finally, a 25-gene prognostic model was established. Patients were then divided into high- and low-risk groups; the high-risk group had a higher stemness index and shorter overall survival time than the low-risk group. The C-index, time-dependent ROC curves, and multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed the excellent prognostic ability of this model. Functional enrichment analysis revealed the importance of metabolic rearrangements and serine/threonine kinase activity, which could be targeted by trametinib and is the key pathway in regulating liver cancer cell viability. In conclusion, the present study provides a prognostic model for patients with liver cancer and might help in the exploration of novel therapeutic targets to ultimately improve patient outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR-Cas9 screens; drug sensitivity; fitness genes; liver cancer; metabolism; molecular targeted therapy; trametinib
Year: 2022 PMID: 35646101 PMCID: PMC9136325 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.863536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.772
FIGURE 1Flowchart of the entire analysis. Flowchart outlining the steps involved in fabricating robust prognostic models from liver cancer context-specific fitness genes.
FIGURE 2Identifying context-specific fitness genes in liver cancers using the ADaM. (A) ADaM distinguished context-specific fitness genes from core fitness genes to select potential targets for liver cancers. (B,C) The top graphs show the distribution of risk scores, the center graphs show the survival status of patients in the training and validation cohorts, and the bottom graphs show the expression patterns of the 25 genes. (B) TCGA training cohort and (C) ICGC validation cohort.
FIGURE 3Evaluating the prognosis-predicting efficacy of this 25-gene signature. (A,B) Kaplan–Meier plot of TCGA (A) and ICGC (B) cohorts. (C,D) tROC curve of the 25-gene signature in TCGA (C) and ICGC (D) cohorts. (E) C-index of the 25-gene signature was 0.8 in the TCGA cohort and 0.71 in the ICGC cohort. (F) Multivariate Cox regression analysis of clinical parameters and risk scores for OS.
FIGURE 4Analysis of genomic variations in the high-risk group and low-risk group. (A,B) Oncoplot displaying the somatic landscape of the high-risk (A) and low-risk (B) groups. Genes were arranged according to their mutation frequencies. The Y-axis represents the gene name, and the abscissa represents the sample name. Different colors represent different mutation types. (C) Forest plot showing differentially mutated genes between the high- and low-risk groups. The adjacent table includes the number of samples in the high- and low-risk groups with mutations in the highlighted gene. p-value indicates significance threshold: (***) p < 0.001, (**) p < 0.01, Fisher’s exact test. (D) Cobar plots show the most recurrently mutated genes in the high- and low-risk groups. (E) mRNA stemness index of the low-risk group was lower than that of the high-risk group. (F) mRNA stemness index was positively correlated with risk scores.
FIGURE 5Validating the metabolic rearrangements associated with the prognostic model. (A) Differentially metabolic genes in the high-risk group and low-risk group. The heatmap shows that tumor stage and OS were positively correlated with the risk score, while vascular invasion and gender had no relationship with the risk score. (B) GO enrichment analysis of the metabolic genes that are positively correlated with risk scores. (C) GO enrichment analysis of the metabolic genes that are negatively correlated with risk scores.
FIGURE 6Correlation between drug sensitivity and risk scores was assessed using data from LIMORE. (A) The sensitivity of sorafenib had a negative correlation with risk scores. (B) The sensitivity of trametinib had a positive correlation with risk scores.