| Literature DB >> 35887651 |
Leyi Ni1, Chengyun Tang1, Yuning Wang1, Jiaming Wan1, Morgan G Charles1, Zilong Zhang1, Chen Li2, Ruijie Zeng1, Yiyao Jin1, Penghao Song1, Ming Wei1, Bocen Li1, Jin Zhang3, Zhenghao Wu1.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the differential expression of microRNA (miRNA) in patients with endometrial cancer and its relationship with prognosis and survival. Method: We used The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database to analyze differentially expressed miRNAs in endometrial cancer tissues and adjacent normal tissues. In addition, we successfully screened out key microRNAs to build nomogram models for predicting prognosis and we performed survival analysis on the key miRNAs as well. Result: We identified 187 differentially expressed miRNAs, which includes 134 up-regulated miRNAs and 53 down-regulated miRNAs. Further univariate Cox regression analysis screened out 47 significantly differentially expressed miRNAs and selected 12 miRNAs from which the prognostic nomogram model for ECA patients by LASSO analysis was constructed. Survival analysis showed that high expression of hsa-mir-138-2, hsa-mir-548f-1, hsa-mir-934, hsa-mir-940, and hsa-mir-4758 as well as low-expression of hsa-mir-146a, hsa-mir-3170, hsa-mir-3614, hsa-mir-3616, and hsa-mir-4687 are associated with poor prognosis in EC patients. However, significant correlations between the expressions levels of has-mir-876 and hsa-mir-1269a and patients' prognosis are not found.Entities:
Keywords: TCGA; differentially expressed microRNA; endometrial cancer; nomogram; survival analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35887651 PMCID: PMC9318842 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Identification of DEMs associated with EC patients: (a) the heatmap of 50 DEMs. Colors represent the expression level of the genes, with darker colors indicating higher expression; red, upregulated; green, downregulated. (b) miRNAs vocano plot. A total of 679 miRNAs were identified with the thresholds as |log2foldchange| > 2 and p value < 0.05.
Figure 2(a) Distribution of LASSO coefficients for 47 related miRNAs. (b) Partial likelihood bias of the LASSO coefficient distribution. The vertical dashed line indicates the minimum partial likelihood deviation.
Figure 3Multivariate COX analysis was used to verify 12 miRNAs related to EC patients. *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01.
Figure 4The prognostic nomogram established by 12 miRNAs was used to predict 3- and 5-year OS of patients with EC. Including data derived from 536 EC specimens and 33 non-tumor tissues. The nomograms are interpreted by adding up the points assigned to each variable, as indicated at the top of the point scale. The total point projected on the bottom scale represents the probability of 3- or 5-year OS.
Figure 5(a) Calibration curves of EC patient risk signature used for evaluating the 3- year AUC. (b) Calibration curves of EC patient risk signature used for evaluating the b- year AUC.The x-axis is nomogram-predicted probability of survival, and the y-axis is actual survival. We used the bootstrapping method for the internal validation of the nomogram. The dotted line indicates perfect calibration, the blue line represents the actual predictive power of the model, the closer the blue line is to the dotted line, the higher the accuracy of the prediction.
Figure 6AUC of risk signature in ROC analysis was calculated for EC patients with 3- and 5-year survival time.
Figure 7Risk scores of EC patients in high- and low-risk groups. (a) The risk scores of EC patients in the high- and low-risk groups displayed by the boxplot. (b) Survival analysis of EC patients in high- and low-risk groups.
Figure 8Survival analysis for EC patients with high and low expression of 12 miRNAs: (a) hsa-mir-138-2; (b) hsa-mir-146a; (c) hsa-mir-548f-1; (d) hsa-mir-876; (e) hsa-mir-934; (f) hsa-mir-940; (g) hsa-mir-1269a; (h) hsa-mir-3170; (i) hsa-mir-3641; (j) hsa-mir-3616; (k) hsa-mir-4687; (l) hsa-mir-4758.