| Literature DB >> 36077702 |
Fanchen Meng1, Yi Zhang2, Siwei Wang1, Tongyan Liu3, Mengting Sun4,5, Hongyu Zhu1, Guozhang Dong1, Zhijun Xia1, Jing You1, Xiangru Kong6, Jintao Wu1, Peng Chen1, Fangwei Yuan1, Xinyu Yu1, Youtao Xu1, Lin Xu1,5, Rong Yin1,3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Micropapillary components are observed in a considerable proportion of ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and contribute to the poor prognosis of patients with invasive lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). However, the underlying mutational processes related to the presence of micropapillary components remain obscure, limiting the development of clinical interventions.Entities:
Keywords: ground-glass opacities (GGOs); lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD); microdissection; micropapillary (MPP); whole exome sequencing (WES)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36077702 PMCID: PMC9454937 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Genetic mutation distribution of the different components in early-stage LUAD. (A) Mutation profile of the early-stage LUAD samples divided into micropapillary and non-micropapillary components. (B) The tumor mutation burdens (TMB) distribution in a micropapillary component. (C) The TMB distribution in a non-micropapillary component. (D) The schematics of the base substitution types (C>A, C>G, C>T, T>C, T>A, T>G, Ti, and Tv) in MPP and non-MPP components. (E) The copy-number aberration frequency across the MPP of 31 bulk samples. Chromosomes 1–22 and X/Y are positioned along the x-axis, while the y-axis shows the frequency of copy-number gains (pink) and losses (blue). (F) Copy-number aberrations frequency across the non-MPP of 31 bulk samples. Chromosomes 1–22 and X/Y are positioned along the x-axis, while the y-axis shows the frequency of copy-number gains (pink) and losses (blue). (G) The copy-number aberration (gain) frequency between different components in the same sample. The differences were assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. (H) The copy-number aberration (loss) frequency between different components in the same sample. The differences were assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. (I) Intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) scores of 31 paired MPP and non-MPP components. The differences were assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 2Enrichment analyses of mutation signatures and oncogenic signaling pathways with mutations. (A–E) Comparison of the alteration frequency of genes in the RTK/RAS (A), NOTCH (B), PIK3CA (C), WNT (D), and HIPPO (E) pathways between the two components. Mutated genes with oncogenic activation are filled in red, and inactivated tumor suppressor genes are filled in blue. The color intensity represents the frequency of gene replacement occurrence. (F) Mutational SBS activities of MPC inferred from base substitution signatures. (G) Mutational SBS activities of non-MPC inferred from base substitution signatures.
Figure 3Molecular phylogenetic tree for each GGO lesion. Red, blue, and green lines represent trunk, MPP branch, and non-MPP branch mutations, respectively. The length of molecular time of the trunks and branches was calculated using the number of genomic alterations (mutations and CNVs).
Figure 4Pathological component-specific mutations for each GGO lesion. Heatmaps were drawn using the distribution of MPP-component branch mutations in the samples after a phylogenetic analysis, and the differences between the two groups were tested using a McNemar chi-square test.
Figure 5Differential genomic features of MPP components and mutation assessment in pan-cancer. (A–E) Cancer cell fraction (CCF) of EGFR (A), TP53 (B), ZNF469 (C), TTN (D), and TENM4 (E) between the MPP and non-MPP components. The differences were assessed using a paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test. (F) Survival analysis for ZNF469 mutation in TCGA pan-cancer cohort. (G) ZNF469 expression between ZNF469 mutation and wild-type samples in TCGA. The differences were assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.