| Literature DB >> 35911718 |
Jialiang Cai1,2,3, Suiyi Wu1,2, Feng Zhang4, Zhi Dai1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: Epigenetic modification regulates various aspects of cancer biology, from tumor growth and invasion to immune microenvironment modulation. Whether epigenetic regulators (EGRs) can decide tumor malignant degree and risk of immune evasion in liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC) remains unclear. Method: An EGR signature called "EGRscore" was constructed based on bulk RNA-seq data of EGR in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The correlation between EGRscore and overall survival (OS) was validated in HCC cohorts and other tumor cohorts. Mutation profiles, copy number alterations (CNAs), enriched pathways, and response to immunotherapy and chemotherapy were compared between EGRscore-high and EGRscore-low patients.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; chemotherapy; hepatocellular carcinoma; immunotherapy; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35911718 PMCID: PMC9330038 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.952413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Construction of EGR signature in the TCGA-LIHC cohort. (A) Volcano plot of the epigenetic regulators. (B) Univariate Cox analysis of the genes selected by DEGs. (C) Cross-validation for tuning the parameter selection in the LASSO regression. (D) The coefficients of the 6 OS-related genes. (E) Heatmap of genes consisted in EGR signature in normal and HCC patients. (F) Heatmap of genes consisted in EGR signature, the distribution of patients, and the survival status for each individual in low-risk and high-risk HCC patients. (G) Kaplan–Meier curves for the OS of patients between the high- and low-risk groups. (H) Time-dependent ROC curves demonstrated the predictive efficiency. (I) Area under the ROC curve of 1-year survival. (J) Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for the EGRscore.
Figure 2EGRscore is associated with overall survival across multiple independent cohorts. (A) Heatmap of genes consisted in EGR signature in normal and HCC patients. (B) Kaplan–Meier curves for the OS of patients between the high- and low-risk groups in the ICGC-JP cohort. (C) Time-dependent ROC curves demonstrated the predictive efficiency. (D) Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for the EGRscore. (E) Kaplan–Meier curves for the OS of patients between the high- and low-risk groups in the GSE54236 cohort. (F) Time-dependent ROC curves demonstrated the predictive efficiency in the GSE54236 cohort. (G) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and time-dependent ROC curves based on EGRscore in the TCGA-UVM cohort. (H) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and time-dependent ROC curves based on EGRscore in the TCGA-LGG cohort. (I) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and time-dependent ROC curves based on EGRscore in the TCGA-KIRP cohort. (J) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and time-dependent ROC curves based on EGRscore in the TCGA-KIRC cohort.
Figure 3Comparison of mutation landscape between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high tumors. (A) Waterfall maps between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (B) Proportion of the m6Ascore-high and m6Ascore-low group in patients that harbored wild-type or mutant TP53. (C) GSEA of genes upregulated in the NCI-60 panel of cell lines with mutated TP53. (D) Correlation of EGRscore and the expression of p53-induced genes or p53-suppressed genes in HCC patients. (E) Boxplot and correlation analysis of tumor burden mutation and EGRscore. (F) Boxplot and correlation analysis of microsatellite instability and EGRscore. ns, statistically insignificant.
Figure 4EGRscore correlated with immune microenvironment. (A) KEGG of DMGs in the high- and low-risk groups in the TCGA-LIHC cohort. (B) Comparison of immune cell infiltration in the high- and low-risk groups in the TCGA-LIHC cohort. (C) Comparison of immune function in the high- and low-risk groups in the TCGA-LIHC cohort. (D) Comparison of immune cell infiltration in the high- and low-risk groups in the ICGC-JIHC cohort. (E) Comparison of immune function in the high- and low-risk groups in the ICGC-JIHC cohort. Statistical significance was denoted with *(p < 0.05), **(p < 0.01), and ***(p < 0.001).
Figure 5Association of m6Ascore and response to immunotherapy. (A) Boxplot of response of immunotherapy between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (B) ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE78220 cohort. (C) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis based on EGRscore in the GSE78220 cohort. (D) Time-dependent ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE78220 cohort. (E) Boxplot of response of immunotherapy between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients in the GSE126044 cohort. (F) ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE126044 cohort. (G) Boxplot of response of immunotherapy between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients in the GSE100797 cohort. (H) ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE100797 cohort. (I) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS and DFS based on EGRscore in the GSE100797 cohort. (J) Time-dependent ROC curves for OS and DFS based on EGRscore in the GSE100797 cohort.
Figure 6Association of m6Ascore and response to chemotherapy. (A) Boxplot of stemness score between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (B) Boxplot of genes associated with stemness between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (C) Boxplot of response of chemotherapy between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (D) Proportion of EGRscore-high and EGRscore-low group in patients that harbored a response or not in the GSE109211 cohort. (E) ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE109211 cohort. (F) Boxplot of response of TACE between EGRscore-low and EGRscore-high HCC patients. (G) Proportion of EGRscore-high and EGRscore-low group in patients that harbored a response or not in the GSE104580 cohort. (H) ROC curves based on EGRscore in the GSE104580 cohort. Statistical significance was denoted with *(p < 0.05), **(p < 0.01), and ***(p < 0.001).
| EGR | epigenetic regulator |
| LIHC | liver hepatocellular carcinoma |
| HCC | hepatocellular carcinoma |
| OS | overall survival |
| CNAs | copy number alterations |
| UVM | uveal melanoma |
| TMB | tumor mutational burden |
| MSI | microsatellite instability |
| PDL-1 | programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 |
| TCGA | The Cancer Genome Atlas |
| GEO | Gene Expression Omnibus |
| ICGC | International Cancer Genome Consortium |
| LGG | brain lower grade glioma |
| KIRP | kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma |
| KIRC | kidney renal clear cell carcinoma |
| DEGs | differentially expressed genes |
| FDR | false discovery rate |
| LASSO | least absolute shrinkage and selection operator |
| EZH2 | enhancer of zeste 2 polycomb repressive complex 2 subunit |
| TRMT6 | tRNA methyltransferase 6 non-catalytic subunit |
| YBX1 | Y-box binding protein 1 |
| IGF2BP3 | insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 3 |
| SUV39H2 | SUV39H2 histone lysine methyltransferase |
| YTHDF1 | YTH N6-methyladenosine RNA binding protein 1 |
| KEGG | Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes |
| GSEA | Gene Set Enrichment Analysis |
| ssGSEA | single-sample gene set enrichment analysis |
| ROC | receiver operating characteristic |
| AUC | area under the curve |
| CTLA-4 | cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 |
| AFP | alpha fetoprotein |
| DMGs | differently methylated genes |
| Tregs | regulatory T cells |
| DFS | disease-free survival |
| EMT | epithelial–mesenchymal transition |
| ABC transporter | ATP-binding cassette transporter |
| SOX2 | SRY-box transcription factor 2 |
| OCT4 | organic cation/carnitine transporter4 |
| TACE | transcatheter arterial chemoembolization |
| ICIs | immune checkpoint inhibitors |
| ACT | adoptive cell therapy |
| MHC | major histocompatibility complex |
| TME | tumor microenvironment |
| GSVA | gene set variance analysis |
| CXCL9 | C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 9 |
| CXCL10 | C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 |
| CTCs | circulating tumor cells |
| DDR | DNA damage repair |
| MRE11 | MRE11 homolog, double strand break repair nuclease |
| RAD50 | RAD50 double strand break repair protein |
| NBN | nibrin |