| Literature DB >> 35799608 |
Fan Yang1,2, Lianfang Gan1,3, Junhua Pan1,3, Yaying Chen1,3, Hong Zhang1,3, Ling Huang1,3,4.
Abstract
Gastric cancer (GC) is usually diagnosed in an advanced stage at the first visit due to the atypical clinical symptoms. The low surgical resection rate and chemotherapy sensitivity result in dismal survival. Therefore, it is urgent to develop novel biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity to accurately assess the prognosis of GC patients. In the present study, 3385 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained from the single-cell RNA sequencing data of GC specimens. Using the unsupervised dimensionality reduction, we further found 3 subsets of cells including gastric cells, plasmacytoid dendritic cells, and memory T cells. Based on the cell clustering, we explored the key regulatory genes for GC progression by pseudo-time analysis and functional enrichment analysis. According to the results, the significant differentially expressed fatty acid-binding protein 1 (FABP1) verified by pseudo-time analysis was identified as the hub gene of GC progression. FABP1 was shown to be closely related to the long-term survival and the age at diagnosis of patients with GC in analysis based on the TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) database. To further verify the role of FABP1 in GC, we performed immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis using the GC tissue microarray and found that the expression level of FABP1 was higher in GC tissues than in the adjacent tissues. Moreover, GC patients with higher expression of FABP1 had a worse clinical outcome. In summary, our study revealed that FABP1 is a potential effective biomarker for the prognosis of GC, and high expression of FABP1 predicts unsatisfactory survival.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35799608 PMCID: PMC9256400 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4761403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Figure 1The study flow chart.
Correlation of the expression of FABP1 in gastric cancer with clinicopathologic features.
| Characteristics | No. of patients | FABP1 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression, n (%) | High expression, n (%) | |||
| Overall | 94 | 35 (37.2) | 59 (62.8) | |
| Age | 0.110 | |||
| <60 years, n (%) | 25 (26.6) | 19 (76.0) | 6 (24.0) | |
| ≥60 years, n (%) | 69 (73.4) | 40 (58.0) | 29 (42.0) | |
| Gender | 0.385 | |||
| Female | 59 (62.8) | 39 (66.1) | 20 (33.9) | |
| Male | 35 (37.2) | 20 (57.1) | 15 (42.9) | |
| Tumor size | 0.565 | |||
| <5.0 cm | 33 (35.1) | 22 (66.7) | 11 (33.3) | |
| ≥5.0 cm | 61 (64.9) | 37 (60.7) | 24 (39.3) | |
| Primary tumor location | 0.770 | |||
| Gastric cardial + body | 60 (63.8) | 37 (61.7) | 23 (38.3) | |
| Gastric antral | 34 (36.2) | 22 (64.7) | 12 (35.3) | |
| Pathological type | 0.534 | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 78 (83.0) | 50 (64.1) | 28 (35.9) | |
| Mucinous + signet-ring cell carcinoma | 16 (17.0) | 9 (56.3) | 7 (43.7) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.684 | |||
| Negative | 72 (76.6) | 46 (63.9) | 26 (36) | |
| Positive | 22 (23.4) | 13 (59.1) | 9 (40.9) | |
| TNM stage | 0.370 | |||
| I + II | 35 (37.2) | 24 (68.6) | 11 (31.4) | |
| III + IV | 59 (62.8) | 35 (59.3) | 24 (40.7) | |
| HER2 | 0.668 | |||
| Positive | 6 (6.4) | 5 (83.3) | 1 (16.7) | |
| Negative | 88 (93.6) | 54 (61.4) | 34 (38.6) | |
Figure 2The single-cell transcriptome (scRNA) analysis of early gastric cancer (EGC). (a) The principal component analysis (PCA) results suggested that cells of EGC have consistency in subsequent analysis. (b) The variable feature plot showed the variable regulators in EGC development. (c, d) The Jack-Straw and Elbow plots were applied to select the best cell components in scRNA analysis.
Figure 3The cell annotation and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) identification. (a) The cell annotation results were presented by tSNE map based on the scCATCH algorithm. (b) The DEGs among the different cell clusters are shown in the heatmap. (c) The expression levels of primarily DEGs in different cell clusters.
Figure 4The pseudo-time-related differentially expressed genes (DEGs) detection and enrichment analysis of biological functions. After selecting the appropriate cell principal components (a), the pseudo-time analysis was applied based on the monocle algorithm (b, c). (d) The analysis results presented the GO functional analysis results of biological processes (BP), cellular components (CC), and molecular functions (MF), respectively. (e) The results of the KEGG pathway enrichment analysis. The nodes' size represented the negative log10 p value for illustrative purposes. (f) The volcano plot showed the differentially expressed genes in pseudo-time analysis. (g) The compartmentalized protein-protein interaction of FABP1 was constructed based on the COMPPI database.
Figure 5The function enrichment and survival analysis of a hub regulator. (a) The biological process analysis of FABP1 was performed based on the ToppGene database. (b) The overall survival analyses of FABP1 in gene expression values were applied based on TCGA-STAD tissues. (c) The identification of the relationship between the FABP1 and clinical characteristics of patients with gastric cancer in the TCGA-STAD dataset.
Figure 6The expression and clinical significance of FABP1 in gastric cancer. (a, b) Tissue microarray (TMA) analysis by IHC staining showed that a high expression of FABP1 was observed in gastric cancer tissues. (c) High and low expression rates of FABP1 in gastric cancer tissue. (d) Correlations of FABP1 expression levels in gastric cancer tissues and clinicopathological features. (e) Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that gastric cancer patients with upregulation of FABP1 were positively correlated with worse prognosis and shorter overall survival.