| Literature DB >> 35664743 |
Xin Lou1,2,3,4,5, Heli Gao1,2,3,4,5, Xiaowu Xu1,2,3,4,5, Zeng Ye1,2,3,4,5, Wuhu Zhang1,2,3,4,5, Fei Wang1,2,3,4,5, Jie Chen1,2,3,4,5, Yue Zhang6, Xuemin Chen6, Yi Qin1,2,3,4,5, Xianjun Yu1,2,3,4,5, Shunrong Ji1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Background: The four major pathways in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) including chromatin remodeling, DNA damage repair, activation of mTOR signaling, and telomere maintenance were mediated by some critical molecules and constituted critical processes of regulation in cancer-causing processes. However, the interplay and potential role of these pathway-related molecules in the tumor microenvironment of the primary and metastatic site remained unknown.Entities:
Keywords: DNA damage repair; MTOR signaling; chromosomal instability; gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms; immune landscape; telomere maintenance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664743 PMCID: PMC9158120 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.808448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Transcriptional expression of the main pathway-related molecules in GEP-NENs. (A) Box plots show the expression distribution of 34-pathway-related molecules between paired normal (blue) and GEP-NEN (red) tissues. (B) Correlation between pathway-related molecules expression and cytolytic activity in GEP-NENs. (C) Correlation map of pathway-related molecules expression in GEP-NENs.
Figure 2Biological characteristics of five-pathway-related molecules. (A) Unsupervised clustering of 5-pathway-related molecules. (B) The five-molecule expression level in the two-pathway-related molecules patterns. (C) Heatmap of GSVA enrichment analysis presents the activation state of biological signaling pathways in two-pathway-related molecules patterns. (D) Box plots of median ssGSEA scores of specific antitumor immune responses associate with T-cell activation between two-pathway-related molecule patterns. (E) Differences in the StromalScore and ImmuneScore between two-pathway-related molecule patterns. (F) Heatmap of ssGSEA scores of gene sets indicative of specific immune cell populations between two-pathway-related molecule patterns.
Figure 3Identification of specific gene signature correlated with immune and stromal cells. (A) Differentially expressed genes between two-pathway-related molecule patterns. The expression of top 20 (red) and 20 (blue) upregulated genes in cluster 1 (blue) and cluster 2 (red). (B) Immune-related genes upregulated and downregulated in cluster 2. (C) Correlation between the traits and gene modules, including fractions of immune or stroma cell calculated by MCP-Counter. Correlation coefficients and P values are shown in each cell. The dendrogram on the left presents the degree of difference between the modules. (D) Genes with MM.cor > 0.7 and GS.cor > 0.6 were considered as specific markers for CAF and immune cells in turquoise and blue modules. (E) Canonical markers in turquoise and blue modules based on MM.cor and GS.cor calculated by WGCNA (left). The specific cell-related markers were screened by binary logistic regression (right).
Figure 4(A) Differences in the PI_Score/PC_Score between two-pathway-related molecule patterns (left). The differences in the PI_Score/PC_Score between gene_cluster_A and gene_cluster_B (middle). The differences in the PI_Score/PC_Score in the four subtypes based on the specific cell-related markers. (B) The heatmap to indicate the relative expression of specific markers among the four subtypes. Heatmap of ssGSEA scores of gene sets indicative of specific immune cell populations among the four subtypes. (C) The proportion of the four subtypes in the two patterns of pathway-related molecules. (D) Hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted by Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the cell-related genes and the five-pathway-related molecules. P values <0.05 were considered significant (ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ***, P < 0.001).
Figure 5(A) Heatmap of median ssGSEA scores of specific antitumor immune responses associated with T-cell activation among the four subtypes. ssGSEA scores of two inflammation signatures (parainflammation and inflammation promoting). (B) Total CD3, CD4, and CD8, and the ratios of CD8/CD3, CD8/CD4, and CD8/FOXP3 to each for available matched samples respectively among the four subtypes. (C) Heat map of median ssGSEA scores of gene signatures upregulated in specific antitumor immune responses related to APC activation among the four subgroups. (D) Box of median ssGSEA scores of DC including cDCs, iDCs, pDCs, and aDCs among the four subtypes. (E) The comparison of immunosuppressive checkpoints and cell surface molecules among the four subtypes. (F) The comparison of immunosuppressive enzymes among the four subtypes. (G) The comparison of immunosuppressive cytokines among the four subtypes. (H) The comparison of immunosuppressive signaling pathways among the four subtypes. P values <0.05 were considered significant (ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ***, P < 0.001).
Figure 6The chemokines associated with the four subtypes and PI_Score/PC_Score. (A) The univariate logistic regression analysis of 29 common expressed chemokines. (B) Differential expression of the 14 chemokines in normal and GEP-NEN tissues. (C) Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships between the PI_Score/PC_Score and the 7 key chemokines. (D) Hierarchical clustering analysis was performed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the 7 key chemokines and five-pathway-related molecules. P values <0.05 were considered significant (ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ***, P < 0.001).
Figure 7Expression of the five-pathway-related molecules was related to an effective immune landscape in 69 GEP-NENs liver metastases. (A) Heatmap of ssGSEA scores of specific antitumor immune cell populations using the same cell-related signatures. (B) The comparison of PI_Score and PC_Score among the four subtypes in liver metastases. (C) Heatmap of median ssGSEA scores of specific antitumor immune responses related to T-cell activation among the four subtypes. (D) Heatmap of median ssGSEA scores of gene signatures upregulated in specific antitumor immune responses related to APC activation among the four subtypes. (E) Box of median ssGSEA scores of DC including cDCs, iDCs, pDCs, and aDCs among the four subtypes. (F) ssGSEA scores of two inflammation signatures (parainflammation and inflammation promoting) among the four subtypes. (G) The comparison of immunosuppressive cytokines, enzymes, signaling pathways, checkpoints, and cell surface molecules among the four subtypes. P values <0.05 were considered significant (ns, P > 0.05; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ***, P < 0.001).