| Literature DB >> 35990657 |
Qihang Yuan1,2, Dawei Deng1,2,3, Chen Pan4, Jie Ren5, Tianfu Wei2, Zeming Wu6, Biao Zhang1,2, Shuang Li1,2, Peiyuan Yin2,7, Dong Shang1,2,7.
Abstract
Background: Currently available prognostic tools and focused therapeutic methods result in unsatisfactory treatment of gastric cancer (GC). A deeper understanding of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-coexpressed metabolic pathways may offer novel insights into tumour-intrinsic precision medicine.Entities:
Keywords: HER2; gastric cancer; metabolic classification; multi-omics analysis; precision medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990657 PMCID: PMC9389544 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.951137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of the GC patients used for untargeted metabolomics.
| GC (n = 112) | Healthy individuals (n = 112) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.092 | ||
| Male | 78 (69.6%) | 89 (79.5%) | |
| Female | 34 (30.4%) | 23 (20.5%) | |
|
| 63.32 ± 10.66 | 61.61 ± 11.79 | 0.255 |
|
| 123.01 ± 24.62 | 139.84 ± 35.19 | <0.001 |
|
| 69.86 ± 19.45 | 72.62 ± 11.42 | 0.202 |
|
| 5.70 ± 1.64 | 5.47 ± 1.32 | 0.243 |
|
| 5.41 ± 1.80 | 5.55 ± 1.34 | 0.526 |
|
| |||
| ≤5 | 80 (71.4%) | – | |
| >5 | 23 (20.5%) | – | |
| NA | 9 (8.0%) | – | |
|
| |||
| ≤27 | 84 (75.0%) | – | |
| >27 | 19 (17.0%) | – | |
| NA | 9 (8.0%) | – | |
|
| |||
| Low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia | 2 (1.8%) | – | |
| High-grade intraepithelial neoplasia | 3 (2.7%) | – | |
| Severe dysplasia | 1 (0.9%) | – | |
| Early GC | 9 (8%) | – | |
| Poorly differentiated | 20 (17.9%) | – | |
| Moderately/poorly-differentiated | 18 (16.1%) | – | |
| Moderately-differentiated | 15 (13.4%) | – | |
| Well/moderately-differentiated | 10 (8.9%) | – | |
| Well-differentiated | 2 (1.8%) | – | |
| Signet ring cell carcinoma | 6 (5.4%) | – | |
| NA | 26 (23.2%) | – | |
|
| |||
| Tis | 1 (0.9%) | – | |
| I | 44 (39.3%) | – | |
| II | 10 (8.9%) | – | |
| III | 31 (27.7%) | – | |
| IV | 22 (19.6%) | – | |
| NA | 4 (3.6%) | – | |
|
| |||
| Early GC | 43 (38.4%) | – | |
| Adanced GC | 69 (61.6%) | – | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 1 | 48 (42.9%) | – | |
| NA | 64 (57.1%) | – | |
|
| |||
| 0 | 30 (26.8%) | – | |
| 1 | 11 (10.0%) | – | |
| 2 | 5 (4.5%) | – | |
| 3 | 5 (4.5%) | – | |
| NA | 61 (54.5%) | – | |
|
| |||
| ≤25% | 8 (7.1%) | – | |
| ≤50% | 10 (8.9%) | – | |
| ≤75% | 21 (18.8%) | – | |
| >75% | 19 (17.0%) | – | |
| NA | 54 (48.2%) | – | |
|
| |||
| 0 | 6 (5.4%) | – | |
| 1 | 43 (38.4%) | – | |
| NA | 63 (56.3%) | – | |
|
| |||
| 0 | 1 (0.9%) | – | |
| 1 | 49 (43.8%) | – | |
| NA | 62 (55.4%) | – | |
|
| |||
| 1 | 50 (44.6%) | – | |
| NA | 62 (55.4%) | – | |
|
| |||
| Negative | 10 (8.9%) | – | |
| Wild | 27 (24.1%) | – | |
| Mutant | 18 (16.1%) | – | |
| NA | 57 (50.9%) | – | |
|
| |||
| 0 | 5 (4.5%) | – | |
| 1 | 43 (38.4%) | – | |
| NA | 64 (57.1%) | – | |
NA. Not Available.
Figure 1The workflow of this study.
Figure 2Association of ERBB2/HER2 with the immune microenvironment and metabolic remodelling in pan-cancer (especially in GC). Enrichment analysis for immune (A) and metabolic (B) pathways between tumour tissues with high and low ERBB2 expression; NES is the normalised enrichment score in the GSEA algorithm. ssGSEA highlights the regulatory role of ERBB2 (C) and HER2 (D) in the immune microenvironment of GC based on TCGA-STAD and TCPA-STAD cohorts. The correlation between ERBB2 and immune (E) and metabolic (F) pathways in GC was analysed.
Figure 3Characterisation of the metabolic landscape of GC and identification of HER2-coexpressed metabolites. (A) Differential expression heatmap of the top 40 metabolites. (B) The correlation of 34 HER2-coexpressed metabolites and clinicopathological characteristics in different clusters. (C) Development of a metabolite–metabolite interaction network. MetaboAnalyst5.0 (D) and MBROLE 2.0 (E) platforms were used to determine HER2-associated metabolic pathways. (F) Crosstalk between alanine–aspartate–glutamate and glycolysis/gluconeogenesis metabolism.
Figure 4Classification of the metabolic subtypes of GC based on the expression of alanine–aspartate–glutamate and glycolysis/gluconeogenesis metabolism-related genes. (A) Scatter plot showing the median expression levels of coexpressed glycolysis/gluconeogenesis (X-axis) and alanine–aspartate–glutamate (Y-axis) metabolism-related genes in each GC sample. Metabolic subgroups were assigned based on the relative expression of glycolysis/gluconeogenesis and alanine–aspartate–glutamate metabolism-related genes. (B) Heatmap depicting the expression levels of coexpressed glycolysis/gluconeogenesis and alanine–aspartate–glutamate metabolism-related genes in each subgroup. (C, D) Kaplan–Meier survival analyses (OS and DSS) of patients with GC stratified based on metabolic subgroups. (E) Violin plot demonstrating ERBB2 expression in the four metabolic subtypes. (F) Overlay of metabolic subtypes (outer ring) with well-recognised immune subtypes of GC, tumour stage and tumour grade (inner rings).
Figure 5Systematic analysis of the specific molecule functions and tumour immune microenvironment across different metabolic subtypes. (A) Functional annotation of specific molecules of the alanine–aspartate–glutamate, glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, quiescent, and mixed subtypes. (B) Violin plot demonstrating immune scores of the four metabolic subtypes evaluated using the ESTIMATE algorithm. (C) Violin plot demonstrating the abundance of immune cell infiltration among the four metabolic subtypes evaluated using the ImmuneCellAI algorithm. (D) The distribution of immune cell infiltration among the four metabolic subtypes based on the TIMER, CIBERSOFT, QUANTISEQ, MCPCOUNTER, XCELL and EPIC algorithms (Note: Only immune cells with p < 0.05 were displayed in the heatmap). (E) Expression of immune checkpoint genes among the four metabolic subtypes. * indicates p <0.05; ** indicates p < 0.01; *** indicates p < 0.001.
Figure 6Chemotherapy prediction and immunotherapy response evaluation. (A) Identification of nine targeted drugs beneficial for the glycolysis/gluconeogenesis subtype. (B) Identification of six targeted drugs beneficial for the mixed subtype. (C) Prediction of immunotherapy outcomes of each metabolic subtype using the ImmuneCellAI algorithm. (D) Violin plot demonstrating the immune escape capacity of each metabolic subtype evaluated using the TIDE platform. (E) Distribution of IPS for PD1/PDL1/PDL2 inhibitors. (F) Distribution of IPS for CTLA4 inhibitors. (G) Distribution of IPS for CTLA4 and PD1/PDL1/PDL2 inhibitors.