| Literature DB >> 36069792 |
Chunyi Lyu1, Qian Wang2, Xuewei Yin1, Zonghong Li1, Teng Wang3, Yan Wang3,4, Siyuan Cui4, Kui Liu4, Zhenzhen Wang3,4, Chang Gao1, Ruirong Xu3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heat shock factor 1 (HSF1) is now considered to have the potential to be used as a prognostic biomarker in cancers. However, its clinical significance and potential function in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain underexplored.Entities:
Keywords: HSF1; acute myeloid leukemia; biomarker; heat shock factor 1; prognosis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36069792 PMCID: PMC9512492 DOI: 10.18632/aging.204267
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.955
Figure 1The expression level, diagnostic efficacy and prognostic significance of HSF family in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) based on data from the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) and the genotype–tissue expression (GETx) processed using the TOIL pipeline. The validation datasets were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE). (A–C) The expression level, diagnostic efficacy and prognostic significance of HSF1 in AML. (D–F) The expression level, diagnostic efficacy and prognostic significance of HSF2 in AML. (G–I) The expression level, diagnostic efficacy and prognostic significance of HSF4 in AML. (J–L) The expression level, diagnostic efficacy and prognostic significance of HSF5 in AML. (M) The expression level of HSFs examined in leukemia cell lines. ****P < 0.001.
Figure 2The expression level, diagnostic value and prognostic significance of HSF1 in AML based on data from gene expression omnibus (GEO). (A and B) The expression level and diagnostic value of HSF1 in AML based on data from GSE9476. (C) The prognostic significance of HSF1 based on data from GSE12417. ***P < 0.01.
Association between HSF1 expression and clinical parameters.
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Gender | 1.140 (0.600–2.171) | 0.689 | 1.104 (0.650–1.875) | 0.713 |
| Age | 2.000 (1.041–3.894) | 0.039 | 1.027 (1.011,1.043) | 0.001 |
| WBC count (×109/L) | 1.306 (0.688–2.491) | 0.414 | 1.002 (0.996–1.007) | 0.573 |
| BM blast proportion (%) | 1.276 (0.664–2.461) | 0.465 | 0.994 (0.982–1.007) | 0.364 |
| PB blast proportion (%) | 2.722 (1.419–5.316) | 0.003 | 1.002 (0.990–1.014) | 0.740 |
| Cytogenetic risk (Poor vs. Favorable and Intermediate) | 1.843 (0.865–4.035) | 0.117 | 0.786 (0.433–1.427) | 0.429 |
| FLT3 mutation (Positive vs. Negative) | 1.755 (0.866–3.621) | 0.122 | 0.825 (0.433–1.573) | 0.560 |
| NPM1 mutation (Positive vs. Negative) | 1.044 (0.481–2.277) | 0.912 | 0.757 (0.386–1.486) | 0.429 |
Figure 3Acute myeloid leukemia subgroup overall survival analyses. Forest plot of Cox analyses of HSF1 for different subgroups based on data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) (A) and Vizome (B).
Figure 4The fifty genes with the strongest positive and negative correlations with HSF1. (A) Network of HSF1 and correlated genes. Positively correlated genes are marked in red. Negatively correlated genes are marked in blue. (B) Network analysis of HSF1 and correlated genes using GeneMANIA.
Figure 5The underlying mechanisms related to HSF1 are shown. (A) Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) of the deferentially expressed genes between the HSF1 high–expression versus HSF1 low–expression group in AML. (B) Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analysis of HSF1 related genes.
Figure 6The function of HSF1 was analyzed at single–cell level based on the CancerSEA database.
Figure 7Correlation analyses between HSF1 and immune infiltration. (A) Lollipop plot showing the expression of HSF1 exhibits a strong correlation with the infiltration abundance of NK CD56dim cells (B), Tregs (C), immature DCs (iDCs) (D), B cells (E), T helper (Th) cells (F), T central memory (Tcm) cells (G) and Th2 cells (H). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.