| Literature DB >> 35919036 |
Yuxia Liu1,2, Chang Xu3, Wenxin Gao3, Huaqiong Liu3, Chenglong Li4, Mingwei Chen1.
Abstract
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a disease of progressive lung fibrosis with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to uncover the underlying molecular features for different types of IPF. IPF microarray datasets were retrieved from GEO databases. Weighted gene co-expression analysis (WGCNA) was used and identified subgroup-specific WGCNA modules. Infiltration-level immune cells in different subgroups of microenvironments were analyzed with CIBERSORT algorithms. The result is we classified 173 IPF cases into two subgroups based on gene expression profiles, which were retrieved from the GEO databases. The SGRQ score and age were significantly higher in C2 than in C1. Using WGCNA, five subgroup-specific modules were identified. M4 was mainly enriched by MAPK signaling, which was mainly expressed in C2; M1, M2, and M3 were mainly enriched by metabolic pathways and Chemokine signaling, and the pathway of M5 was phagosome inflammation; M1, M2, M3, and M5 were mainly expressed in C1. Utilizing the CIBERSORT, we showed that the number of M1 macrophage cells, CD8 T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs), and Plasma cells was significantly different between C1 and C2. We found the molecular subgroups of IPF revealed that cases from different subgroups may have their unique patterns and provide novel information to understand the mechanisms of IPF itself.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35919036 PMCID: PMC9308534 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7448481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Res (Camb) ISSN: 0016-6723 Impact factor: 1.375
Figure 1Principal component analysis of the 4 gene expression datasets. (a) Data before normalization. (b) Data following normalization.
Figure 2Consensus-based cluster analysis of gene expression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. (a) The consensus matrix using a two-group model (k = 2). (b) The plot of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for each number of clusters tested. (c) The consensus scores analysis of each cluster.
Figure 3Comparison of clinical characteristics in different subgroups. (a, c) The status of gender and smoking in different subgroups is shown. (b, d) The status of age and SGRQ score in subgroups showed significant differences.
Figure 4Molecular characterization of the molecular subgroups. (a) Expression heat map of five weighted gene co-expression network analysis modules. (b) GO analysis of 5 modules. (c) KEGG analysis of 5 modules.
Figure 5The difference of 22 immune cell infiltration proportions between C1 and C2. (a) The correlation matrix for 22 immune cell proportions in C1. (b) The correlation matrix for 22 immune cell proportions in C2. Red means positive correlation, blue means negative correlation, and the darker the color, the stronger the correlation. (c) Distribution of immune cells between C1 and C2. P values show the significance of distribution.