| Literature DB >> 35962436 |
Lin-Yao Cheng1,2,3, Mao-Sen Huang1,2,3, Hua-Ge Zhong1,2,3, Hai-Ming Ru1,2,3, Si-Si Mo1,2,3, Chun-Yin Wei2,3, Zi-Jie Su2,3, Xian-Wei Mo1,2,3, Lin-Hai Yan4,5,6, Wei-Zhong Tang7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) remain high, posing a serious threat to human life and health. The early diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of CRC are two major challenges in clinical practice. MTUS1 is considered a tumour suppressor and can play an important role in inhibiting cell proliferation, migration, and tumour growth. Moreover, the expression of MTUS1 is decreased in different human cancers, including CRC. However, the biological functions and molecular mechanisms of MTUS1 in CRC remain unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Colorectal cancer; Diagnosis; Immune infiltration; MTUS1; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35962436 PMCID: PMC9375397 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02702-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 3.253
Fig. 1MTUS1 expression in different cancer types: A MTUS1 expression levels in different cancer tissues compared with normal tissues in the Oncomine database. Nine studies confirmed that MTUS1 was downregulated in colorectal cancer. B MTUS1 expression levels in different cancer types in the TIMER database (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). This result was consistent with the Oncomine database (A). C Expression of MTUS1 in tumour and normal tissues from the TCGA database. D Comparison of MTUS1 expression in 50 pairs of tumour and adjacent tissues. E, F MTUS1 expression in the GSE13507 array and our recruited cohort
The relationship between MTUS1 mRNA expression profiles and clinicopathological parameters using data from 643 CRC patients retrieved from the TCGA database
| Characteristic | levels | Overall |
|---|---|---|
| n | 644 | |
| Age | <=65 | 276 (42.9%) |
| >65 | 368 (57.1%) | |
| Gender | Female | 301 (46.7%) |
| Male | 343 (53.3%) | |
| T stage | T1 | 20 (3.1%) |
| T2 | 111 (17.3%) | |
| T3 | 436 (68%) | |
| T4 | 74 (11.5%) | |
| N stage | N0 | 368 (57.5%) |
| N1 | 153 (23.9%) | |
| N2 | 119 (18.6%) | |
| M stage | M0 | 475 (84.2%) |
| M1 | 89 (15.8%) | |
| Pathologic stage | Stage I | 111 (17.8%) |
| Stage II | 238 (38.2%) | |
| Stage III | 184 (29.5%) | |
| Stage IV | 90 (14.4%) | |
| CEA level | <=5 | 261 (62.9%) |
| >5 | 154 (37.1%) | |
| Neoplasm type | Colon adenocarcinoma | 478 (74.2%) |
| Rectum adenocarcinoma | 166 (25.8%) | |
| OS event | Alive | 515 (80%) |
| Dead | 129 (20%) |
Fig. 2Differential expression analyses for A sex, B age, C pathological stage, D T stage, E N stage, F M stage, G CEA levels, H neoplasm type, and I survival status
Association with pathological stage of CRC patients with lower MTUS1 expression
| Characteristics | Total(N) | Odds Ratio(OR) forMTUS1 expression | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (Male vs. Female) | 644 | 0.809 (0.593-1.102) | 0.180 |
| Age (>65 vs. <=65) | 644 | 0.904 (0.661-1.235) | 0.524 |
| T stage (T3&T4 vs. T1&T2) | 641 | 1.047 (0.713-1.539) | 0.815 |
| 640 | 0.653 (0.476-0.895) | ||
| M stage (M1 vs. M0) | 564 | 0.668 (0.418-1.055) | 0.086 |
| 623 | 0.626 (0.454-0.860) | ||
| CEA level (>5 vs. <=5) | 415 | 0.886 (0.594-1.320) | 0.552 |
| 644 | 0.699 (0.489-0.996) |
Fig. 3Prognostic value of MTUS1. Kaplan–Meier survival curves comparing A OS and B DSS between the high and low MTUS1 expression groups
The univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis
Fig. 4A A nomogram was established to predict the survival probabilities of CRC patients at 1, 3, and 5 years based on multifactor regression analyses. B The calibration plots showed the good performance of this prognostic model
Fig. 5Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of MTUS1 expression in normal vs. cancerous tissues overall (A), normal vs. stage I and II cancerous tissues (B), normal vs. stage III and IV cancerous tissues (C), and stage I and II vs. stage III and IV cancerous tissues (D)
Fig. 6Enrichment analyses of MTUS1-related genes. A The top 50 MTUS1-binding proteins were determined by the STRING database. We also obtained the top 100 positively (B) and negatively (C) coexpressed genes with MTUS1 in TCGA. D, E Intersection analyses of MTUS1-binding and correlated genes. F MTUS1-binding and interacting genes were analysed using GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses. G Molecular interaction networks according to functional clustering
Fig. 7Associations between MTUS1 expression and immune cell infiltration levels by ssGSEA. The results are presented as a lollipop diagram (A) and scatter plots (B)
Fig. 8Correlations between MTUS1 expression and immune B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, neutrophils, macrophages, and dendritic cells in COAD and READ by TIMER (A). We also identified the impact of MTUS1 copy number variations on the infiltration levels of six immune cell types in COAD (B) and READ (C)
MTUS1 expression