| Literature DB >> 36002858 |
Hai-Bin Zhang1, Zhuo-Kai Sun2, Fang-Min Zhong1,3, Fang-Yi Yao1, Jing Liu1, Jing Zhang1, Nan Zhang1, Jin Lin1, Shu-Qi Li1, Mei-Yong Li1, Jun-Yao Jiang1, Ying Cheng1,3, Shuai Xu1,3, Xue-Xin Cheng1, Bo Huang4, Xiao-Zhong Wang5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common malignancy of the hematological system, and there are currently a number of studies regarding abnormal alterations in energy metabolism, but fewer reports related to fatty acid metabolism (FAM) in AML. We therefore analyze the association of FAM and AML tumor development to explore targets for clinical prognosis prediction and identify those with potential therapeutic value.Entities:
Keywords: Acute myeloid leukemia; Fatty acid metabolism; Personalized treatment; Prognosis; Tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36002858 PMCID: PMC9404605 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-022-01687-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 4.315
Fig. 1The workflow of this project
Fig. 2Molecular characterization and prognostic analysis of fatty acid metabolism. A Differences in the overall survival (OS) of patients in the high and low FAMscore groups determined using the log-rank test. B The difference in the molecular features of the lipid metabolism-related gene (FAMG) expression between acute myeloid leukemia and normal samples determined using the Wilcoxon test. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.001. C Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway enrichment analysis of the FAMGs. D Gene Ontology annotation of the FAMGs
Fig. 3Identification of fatty acid metabolism (FAM)-related molecular subtypes. A Consensus matrices for k = 3. B Survival analysis of the different FAM-related molecular subtypes performed using the log-rank test. C–H The enrichment score of the signaling pathway or infiltration level of the tumor microenvironment cells in the different FAM-related molecular subtypes; C: lipid metabolism pathways, D: hypoxia pathway, E: reactive oxygen species pathway, F: 22 tumor microenvironment cells, G: other cancer–promoting pathways, and H: myeloid-derived suppressor cells and CD8 + effector T-cells. Kruskal–Wallis test, * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.001
Fig. 4Construction and validation of the risk-score model. A Determination of the log(λ) corresponding to the minimum tenfold cross-validation error point. B The non-0 coefficient corresponding to the same log(λ) value. C Survival analysis between the high-risk and low-risk score groups in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort performed using the log-rank test. D Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of the risk score in the TCGA cohort. E Survival analysis between the high-risk and low-risk score groups in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) cohort performed using the log-rank test. F Time-dependent ROC curve analysis of the risk score in the GEO cohort. G, I Univariate independent prognostic analyses of the clinicopathologic factors and risk score; G: TCGA cohort and I: GEO cohort. H, J Multivariate independent prognostic analyses of the clinicopathologic factors and risk score; H: TCGA cohort, and J: GEO cohort
Fig. 5Differences in the risk scores among patients with different clinicopathological characteristics. A Risk-score differences in different individual characteristics such as age, gender, French-American-British classification, cytogenetic risk, white blood cell or platelet count, and bone marrow or peripheral blood blast count. B Risk-score differences in the different somatic variation signatures (e.g., RAS-activating, FLT3/IDH mutation, or cytoplasmic nucleophosmin profile). * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.001
Fig. 6Correlation analysis between the tumor microenvironment characteristics and the risk score. A Correlation analysis between the FAMscore and the risk score. B Differences in the risk scores of the clustering subtypes. C Correlation analysis between lipid metabolism and the risk score. D Correlation analysis between the proportion of immune cell infiltration and the risk score. E Differences in the risk scores between the different immune functions. F Correlation analysis between other cancer-promoting signaling pathways and the risk score. G Differences in the risk scores of different immune checkpoints. H Correlation analysis between the infiltration level of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and the risk score. I Correlation analysis between the infiltration level of CD8 + effector T-cells and the risk score. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.001
Fig. 7Prediction of drugs for the high-risk and low-risk score groups. A, B Sensitivity analysis of anti-cancer drugs in the high and low FSMscore groups performed using the Wilcoxon test; A: The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort and B: The Gene Expression Omnibus cohort. In the red dashed box are drugs with the same sensitivity differences predicted by both the TCGA and GEO cohorts
Fig. 8Identification of the significant difference pathways and key genes between the high- and low-risk score groups. A The gene set enrichment analysis revealed pathways with significant enrichment differences between the high- and low-risk score groups. B The heatmap showed the expression of genes with significant differences between the high- and low-risk score groups. C A protein–protein interaction network showed the interaction and subnetworks of the differentially expressed genes. D Identification of the core genes with the highest connectivity in the subnetwork. The green subnetwork is on the left, and the red subnetwork is on the right