| Literature DB >> 36010686 |
Junkai Feng1,2, Menglong Hu1,2, Zongkuo Li1,2, Guiming Hu1, Yuting Han1,2, Yan Zhang1, Min Zhang1, Jingli Ren1.
Abstract
With the aim of improving the prognosis of patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), we identified the biomarker related to the sensitivity of patients to chemotherapy drugs and explored the potential mechanisms. As a cell cycle-related protein, CKS2 has an essential role to play in tumor progression and prognosis. CKS2 expression was measured using TCGA RNA-sequencing data and immunohistochemistry. The sensitivity data of tumor cells to chemotherapeutic drugs for lung cancer was acquired from the Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal (CTRP) database. A range of bioinformatics methods was used to explore the mechanisms of CKS2 upregulation. The biological functions of CKS2 were predicted using GO and KEGG enrichment analysis, as well as GSEA. CKS2 expression was up-regulated in stages I-III invasive non-mucinous lung adenocarcinoma and varied significantly between various histological subtypes. High CKS2 expression worsened the prognosis of patients. The CKS2 expression level was linked to the sensitivity of LUAD cells to carboplatin and paclitaxel. CKS2 upregulation was associated with the immune microenvironment, mRNA methylation, and competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs). CKS2 can serve as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for stages I-III invasive non-mucinous lung adenocarcinoma and modulate the effect of paclitaxel and carboplatin by regulating microtubule binding and influencing carboplatin binding to DNA.Entities:
Keywords: CKS2; carboplatin; histological subtype; invasive non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; paclitaxel; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010686 PMCID: PMC9406629 DOI: 10.3390/cells11162611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 7.666
Figure 1The expression of CKS2 and various histological subtypes in stages I–III invasive non-mucinous lung adenocarcinoma. (A) Representative immunohistochemical staining plots for CKS2 in different histological subtypes. (B) The difference in CKS2 immunohistochemical scores between 69 pairs of adjacent normal lung and tumor tissues among 90 cases from the local hospital. (C) Box plot of the CKS2 immunohistochemical scores (n = 90) in different histological subtypes. (D) ROC plot of CKS2 mRNA expression predicting LUAD tumorigenesis using TCGA combined with GTEx dataset (training cohort, n = 520, AUC value = 0.939). (E) ROC plot of CKS2 immunohistochemical scores predicting LUAD tumorigenesis (validation cohort, n = 90, AUC value = 0.849). (F) Box plot of CKS2 immunohistochemical scores (n = 90) in different histological subtypes clusters. (G) Box plot of CKS2 mRNA expression levels (n = 211) in different histological subtypes clusters.
Figure 2Prognostic significance of CKS2. (A,B) The difference in OS and RFP between CKS2-low and CKS2-high expression groups. (C,D) The difference in OS and RFP between various histological subtype clusters. (E–H) Prognosis analysis of CKS2 combined with different histological subtype clusters. (I,J) K-M survival analysis of MKI67 and PCNA based on TCGA database. (K,L) Correlation between CKS2 and MKI67 and PCNA based on TCGA database. OS, overall survival, RFP, recurrence-free progression.
Association between CKS2 immunohistochemical score with clinicopathologic parameter.
| Variables | No. of Patients | CKS2 Immunohistochemical Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Score | High Score | |||
| Total | 90 | 39 | 51 | |
| Age (year) | 0.953 | |||
| <60 | 58 | 25 | 33 | |
| ≥60 | 32 | 14 | 18 | |
| Gender | 0.172 | |||
| male | 48 | 24 | 24 | |
| female | 42 | 15 | 27 | |
| Pathological Stage | 0.029 | |||
| Ⅰ–Ⅱ | 63 | 32 | 31 | |
| Ⅲ | 27 | 7 | 20 | |
| Pathological T | 0.417 | |||
| T1 | 56 | 26 | 30 | |
| T2 | 25 | 9 | 16 | |
| T3 | 7 | 4 | 3 | |
| T4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Pathological N | 0.024 | |||
| N0 | 55 | 29 | 26 | |
| N1–N3 | 35 | 10 | 25 | |
| STAS 1 | 0.015 | |||
| Negative | 34 | 19 | 15 | |
| Positive | 35 | 9 | 26 | |
| Histological subtypes | 0.013 | |||
| Solid | 27 | 7 | 20 | |
| Micropapillary | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| Papillary | 17 | 9 | 8 | |
| Acinar | 32 | 14 | 18 | |
| Lepidic | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| Pathologic differentiation | <0.001 | |||
| Low | 43 | 8 | 35 | |
| Median | 38 | 23 | 15 | |
| High | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
1 STAS: spread through air spaces. A total of 69 slides met the assessment criteria for STAS, which required sufficient adjacent normal tissue.
Figure 3Association between the CKS2 and drug sensitivity. (A–C) Sensitivity of the CKS2-low and CKS2-high expression groups to different chemotherapeutic drugs. (D–F) Correlation between CKS2 expression and the AUC value of chemotherapeutic drugs.
Figure 4Exploration of the mechanisms for CKS2 overexpression. (A) The differences in immune cell abundance between CKS2-low and CKS2-high expression groups. (B) Correlation between immune cell abundance and CKS2 expression. (C) Heatmap of m6A-related gene expression in CKS2-low and CKS2-high expression groups. (D) Relationship between CKS2 expression level and differentially expressed m6a-related genes. (E) CeRNA regulatory network of CKS2. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. CeRNA, competing endogenous RNA.
Figure 5Enrichment analysis related to CKS2. (A) GO enrichment for the DEGs between CKS2-low and CKS2-high expression groups. (B) KEGG enrichment for these DEGs. (C) Gene Set Enrichment Analysis for these DEGs. (D) Protein–protein interactions network.