| Literature DB >> 35844556 |
Siyuan Weng1,2,3, Zaoqu Liu1,2,3, Xiaofeng Ren4, Hui Xu1,2,3, Xiaoyong Ge1,2,3, Yuqing Ren5, Yuyuan Zhang1, Qin Dang6, Long Liu7, Chunguang Guo8, Richard Beatson9, Jinhai Deng10, Xinwei Han1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: Fluorouracil (FU)-based chemotherapy regimens are indispensable in the comprehensive treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the heterogeneity of treated individuals and the severe adverse effects of chemotherapy results in limited overall benefit.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; chemotherapy; colorectal cancer; immunotherapy; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844556 PMCID: PMC9283651 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.873871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1The flow chart of this study.
Figure 2Modules relevant to chemotherapy response. (A) Raw data from GSE19860, GSE62080 and GSE69657 were batch corrected to form a Meta cohort. (B) Remaining samples after discarding outliers. (C) Scale-free topological indices at various soft-thresholding powers. (D) Gene clustering diagram based on hierarchical clustering under optimal soft-thresholding power. (E) Correlations between gene modules and chemotherapy response. (F, G) The correlation between the key modules (red, F; green, G) memberships and the gene significance for chemotherapy response.
Figure 3Functional analysis and identify prognostic genes in modules. (A) Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analysis of genes in key modules. (B) The 20 module genes with AUC values >0.7 in all chemotherapy cohorts. (C) Univariate analysis with relapse-free survival (RFS) as the outcome event and the expression of the above 20 genes as independent variables. (D) Different expression of GILS2, MAOB, SCG2, ZHX2 between tumor and normal tissues in the internal cohort. (E) Representative IHC staining images of SCG2 between colorectal cancer and normal tissue. (F) Survival analysis of in-house cohort with RFS. (G) Univariate analysis of internal cohort with relapse-free survival (RFS) as the outcome event. (H) Multi-factor regression analysis of internal and external queues with relapse-free survival (RFS) as the outcome event. ns, P >0.05; ***P <0.001.
Figure 4Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and gene set variation analysis (GSVA) of SCG2. (A) Top 20 Gene Ontology (GO) terms with significant enrichment. (B) Top 20 Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways with significant enrichment. (C) Five significantly enriched GO terms associated with SCG2. (D) Five Significantly enriched KEGG pathways associated with SCG2. (E) Differences in pathway activities scored by GSVA between high and low expression of SCG2.
Figure 5 Effects of SCG2 on CRC cells migration and invasion. (A, B) Expression was significantly reduced after SCG2 knockdown in in HCT116 (A) and SW480 (B) cell lines. (C) Wound-healing assay to detect the migratory ability of CRC cells in the control group and SCG2 downregulation group. (D) Transwell assay to detect the migratory and invasive ability of CRC cells in the control group and SCG2 downregulation group. (E–H) SCG2 knockdown significantly inhibits migration and invasion behavior in HCT119 (E, G) and SW480 (F, H) cell lines. ***P <0.001; ****P <0.0001.
Figure 6Effects of SCG2 on CRC cells proliferation. (A, B) SCG2 knockdown significantly reduced colony numbers of HCT116 (A) and SW480 (B) cell lines. (C, D) Reduced proliferative capacity of SCG2 knockdown HCT116 (C) and SW480 (D) cell lines in CCK8 array. (E-G) EdU assay (G, left: DAPI, middle: EdU, right: Merge) to detect the proliferative ability of CRC cells in the control group and SCG2 downregulation group. SCG2 knockdown significantly reduced the proliferative ability of HCT116 (E) and SW480 (F) cell lines. *P <0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001.
Figure 7Gene mutation and copy number variation analysis. (A) Mutation landscape between high and low expression groups of SCG2, including a total of 30 frequently mutated genes (FMGs). (B) Analysis of mutational differences in FMGs between SCG2 expression subgroups. (C) A multivariate logistic regression analysis of FMGs, which incorporated SCG2 expression, TMB, age, gender, and stage. (D) Copy number variation landscape between high and low expression groups of SCG2. (E) Expression differences of SCG2 between variant and non-variant groups in top 15 deletion and amplification genes of copy number variation. *P <0.05; **P <0.01; ****P <0.0001; ns, P >0.05.
Figure 8Immune infiltration associated with SCG2 expression and immunotherapy prognosis. (A) Correlation of immune cell infiltration score with SCG2 expression. (B) Distribution of immune cell infiltration and clinical features among the three subtypes obtained by hierarchical clustering. (C) Significant differences in SCG2 expression among the three immune subtypes. (D) Differential expression analysis of molecules representing immune characteristics in different SCG2 expression subgroups. (E) Differences in immune checkpoint expression between high and low SCG2 expression groups. (F) SubMap algorithm evaluated the expression similarity between the two SCG2 expression subgroups and the patients with a different immunotherapy response. (G) Distribution of immunotherapy responders predicted by TIDE algorithm between high and low SCG2 expression groups. *P <0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001; ****P <0.0001; ns, P >0.05.