| Literature DB >> 35885976 |
Haijing Wang1,2,3,4, Daoxin Liu1,2,4,5, Pengfei Song1,2,4, Feng Jiang1,2,4, Tongzuo Zhang1,2,4.
Abstract
In high-altitude environments, the prevalence of high-altitude polycythemia (HAPC) ranges between 5 and 18 percent. However, there is currently no effective treatment for this condition. Therefore, disease prevention has emerged as a critical strategy against this disease. Here, we looked into the microarray profiles of GSE135109 and GSE29977, linked to either short- or long-term exposure to the Qinghai Tibet Plateau (QTP). The results revealed inhibition in the adaptive immune response during 30 days of exposure to QTP. Following a gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) discovered that genes associated with HAPC were enriched in Cluster1, which showed a dramatic upregulation on the third day after arriving at the QTP. We then used GeneLogit to construct a logistic prediction model, which allowed us to identify 50 genes that classify HAPC patients. In these genes, LRRC18 and HCAR3 were also significantly altered following early QTP exposure, suggesting that they may serve as hub genes for HAPC development. The in-depth study of a combination of the datasets of transcriptomic changes during exposure to a high altitude and whether diseases occur after long-term exposure in Hans can give us some inspiration about genes associated with HAPC development during adaption to high altitudes.Entities:
Keywords: high altitude polycythemia; logistic model; microarray; prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885976 PMCID: PMC9316656 DOI: 10.3390/genes13071193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.141
The optimal τ and the prediction error for different q.
|
| 1 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal | 4.502 | 2.316 | 0.559 | 0.379 | 0.214 |
| prediction error | 0.059 | 0.058 | 0.056 | 0.051 | 0.051 |
Figure 1Altitude exposure weakened the adaptive immune response: (A) PCA plot of GSE135109; (B) Venn diagram showed the number of shared DEGs in three contrasts; (C) the dot plot was used for visualization of GO enrichment; (D) the heatmap showed log(FC) values in three contrasts of genes related to adaptive immune response.
Figure 2Dynamic changes in the expression of leukocytes: (A) time course plots of normalized data showing 6 patterns of gene expression of 1135 DEGs; (B) genes in cluster 1 and cluster 3 were compared to identify enriched biological processes, with the sizes of the dots representing the numbers of genes involved and with the colors identifying different clusters.
Figure 3The biological functions of genes insensitive to hypoxia and the changes in prediction in immune cell types: (A) genes in cluster 2, cluster 5, and cluster 6 were compared to identify enriched biological processes, with the sizes of the dots representing the numbers of genes involved and with colors identifying different clusters; (B) the heatmap of the scores for each immune cell type.
Figure 4Analysis of genes related to HAPC in GSE135109: (A) PCA plot of GSE135109; (B) a volcanic map showing DEGs, where the red dots indicates DEGs with upregulation and the blue dots indicate downregulation; the genes with absolute log(FC) values higher than 2.25 were labeled; (C) the GSEA plot of geneset of cluster 1 in Figure 2A; (D) The heatmap of module trait relationships showing the correlations between each gene module and the phenotypes.
Figure 5Enrichment of genes in the steelblue module: (A) the dot plot of functional annotations of genes in the steelblue module using the Gene Ontology biological process; (B) the GSEA plot of the “Homeostatic process” and “ion homeostasis” genesets in the steelblue module.
Logistic prediction model using logistic regression (q = 50, τ = 0.379).
| Gene | Intercept |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coefficient | 3.405 | −0.078 | −0.081 | 0.041 | −0.067 | 0.056 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | 0.107 | 0.122 | −0.047 | 0.086 | −0.042 | −0.068 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | 0.073 | −0.081 | −0.096 | −0.105 | −0.055 | −0.052 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | −0.057 | −0.064 | −0.048 | 0.067 | 0.086 | −0.048 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | −0.045 | −0.044 | −0.059 | −0.070 | −0.057 | 0.050 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | −0.054 | 0.073 | −0.082 | −0.053 | 0.042 | −0.048 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | −0.065 | −0.056 | 0.047 | −0.082 | −0.072 | 0.080 |
| Gene |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| coefficient | 0.084 | 0.053 | 0.069 | 0.051 | 0.044 | −0.057 |
| Gene |
|
|
| |||
| coefficient | 0.050 | 0.056 | 0.050 |
Figure 6The co-expression network of marker genes predicting HAPC. The co-expression network visualization for marker genes was obtained from the WGCNA with a weight cutoff of 0.2. The colors of the dots indicate the log(FC) values, were red means upregulated genes and blue means downregulated. The colored circles of the dots indicate the modules to which they belong.