| Literature DB >> 36159424 |
De-Hua Zhou1, Qian-Cheng Du2, Zheng Fu2, Xin-Yu Wang1, Ling Zhou1, Jian Wang2, Cheng-Kai Hu2, Shun Liu2, Jun-Min Li3, Meng-Li Ma3, Hua Yu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are many therapeutic methods for lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), but the 5-year survival rate is still only 15% at later stages. Epithelial- mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been shown to be closely associated with local dissemination and subsequent metastasis of solid tumors. However, the role of EMT in the occurrence and development of LUAD remains unclear. AIM: To further elucidate the value of EMT-related genes in LUAD prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: Epithelial–mesenchymal transition; Gene signature; Lung adenocarcinoma; Overall survival
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159424 PMCID: PMC9477694 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i26.9285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.534
Gene sets enriched in lung adenocarcinoma
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SARRIO_EPITHELIAL_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_DN | 144 | -1.66 | 0.040 | 0.040 |
| GOBP_CARDIAC_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION | 30 | -1.98 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| GOBP_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION | 150 | -1.71 | 0.045 | 0.045 |
| GOBP_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_INVOLVED_IN_ENDOCARDIAL_CUSHION_FORMATION | 16 | -2.05 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| GOBP_POSITIVE_REGULATION_OF_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_INVOLVED_IN_ENDOCARDIAL_CUSHION_FORMATION | 5 | -1.65 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| GOBP_REGULATION_OF_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_INVOLVED_IN_ENDOCARDIAL_CUSHION_FORMATION | 6 | -1.61 | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| HOLLERN_EMT_BREAST_TUMOR_DN | 121 | 1.90 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| JECHLINGER_EPITHELIAL_TO_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_DN | 62 | -1.80 | 0.042 | 0.042 |
| SARRIO_EPITHELIAL_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION_UP | 166 | 2.03 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
GS: Gene set; MSigDB: Molecular Signatures Database; NES: Normalized enrichment score; NOM: Normalized; FDR: False discovery rate
Figure 1Enrichment plots of the gene set enrichment analysis results of 9 gene sets. GSEA: Gene set enrichment analysis.
Figure 2A flow chart of the study. TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas; LUAD: Lung adenocarcinoma; DEGs: Differentially expressed genes; EMT: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition; GEO: Gene Expression Omnibus.
Clinical baseline data of lung adenocarcinoma patients
|
|
|
|
| Patients ( | 445 | 439 |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 245 (55.1%) | 218 (49.7%) |
| Male | 200 (44.9%) | 221 (50.3%) |
| Age, yr | ||
| < 65 | 199 (44.7%) | 213 (48.5%) |
| ≥ 65 | 246 (55.3%) | 226 (51.5%) |
| TNM stage | ||
| Ι | 241 (54.2%) | 274 (62.4%) |
| Ⅱ | 107 (24.0%) | 95 (21.6%) |
| Ⅲ | 74 (16.4%) | 67 (15.3%) |
| Ⅳ | 24 (5.4%) | 0 |
| Unknown | 0 | 3 (0.7%) |
| T stage | ||
| T1 | 154 (34.6%) | 149 (33.9%) |
| T2 | 234 (52.6%) | 248 (56.5%) |
| T3 | 37 (8.3%) | 28 (6.4%) |
| T4 | 17 (3.8%) | 11 (2.5%) |
| Tx | 3 (0.7%) | 3 (0.7%) |
| Survival status | ||
| OS time, median days | 653 | 1418 |
| Censored (%) | 170 (38.2%) | 233 (53.1%) |
OS: Overall survival; TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas; GEO: Gene Expression Omnibus; TNM: Tumor, node and metastasis.
Figure 3Identification of the potential epithelial-mesenchymal transition-associated genes in the derivation cohort. A: Venn diagram to classify differentially expressed genes between tumor and adjacent normal tissue that were related to overall survival (OS); B: Thirty-one of the 33 overlapping genes were upregulated in cancer tissue; C: Forest plots presenting the outcomes of univariate Cox regression analysis between gene expression and OS; D: Protein-protein interaction network downloaded from the STRING database showing the interactions among the potential genes; E: The correlation network of the potential genes: correlation coefficients are shown with different colors; the number of lines indicates the correlation strength.
Figure 4Prognostic analysis of the 7 epithelial-mesenchymal transition-associated gene signature model in the derivation cohort. A: The median value and distribution of the risk scores. B: The results of principal component analysis (PCA) indicated that patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) were significantly distributed in two regions according to the risk score; C: The results of t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) analysis suggested that LUAD patients clustered in two different regions; D: The distributions of the overall survival (OS) status; the results showed that patients with a higher risk score had shorter survival times than those with lower risk scores; E: Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS for patients in the high-risk group and the low-risk group in the derivation cohort. F: The area under the curve (AUC) of the time-dependent receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) verified the predictive performance of the prognostic risk score in the derivation cohort.
Baseline data of the patients in the different risk groups
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sex | 0.235 | 0.015 | ||||
| Female | 116 | 129 | 96 | 122 | ||
| Male | 106 | 94 | 123 | 98 | ||
| Age, yr | 0. 742 | 0.416 | ||||
| < 65 | 101 | 98 | 102 | 111 | ||
| ≥ 65 | 121 | 125 | 117 | 109 | ||
| TNM stage | 0.001 | 0.017 | ||||
| Ι + Ⅱ | 159 | 189 | 174 | 195 | ||
| Ⅲ + Ⅳ | 63 | 34 | 44 | 23 | ||
| Unknown | 1 | 2 | ||||
| T stage | 0.002 | < 0.001 | ||||
| T1 | 57 | 97 | 49 | 100 | ||
| T2 | 132 | 102 | 142 | 106 | ||
| T3 | 23 | 14 | 21 | 7 | ||
| T4 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | ||
| Tx | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Status | < 0.001 | 0.003 | ||||
| Surviving | 116 | 159 | 87 | 119 | ||
| Non-surviving | 106 | 64 | 132 | 101 | ||
TNM: Tumor, node and metastasis.
Figure 5Validation of the 7 epithelial-mesenchymal transition-associated gene signature model in the validation cohort. A: The median value and distribution of the risk scores in the validation cohort; B: Principal component analysis (PCA) plot; C: Results of t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) analysis; D: The distributions of overall survival (OS) status for the high-risk group and the low-risk group; E: Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS for lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients in the high-risk group and the low-risk group; F: The area under the curve (AUC) of the time-dependent receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) validated the predictive performance of the prognostic risk score in the validation cohort.
Figure 6Results of univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. A: Derivation cohort; B: Validation cohort.
Figure 7Representative results of Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis. A and C: Most significant or available enriched GO terms in the derivation cohort and validation cohort; C and D: KEGG pathways in the two cohorts.
Figure 8Development and estimation of a prognostic nomogram. A: The nomogram predicted the one-year overall survival (OS), two-year OS, and three-year OS probabilities; B: Calibration plot of the nomogram predicting the one-year OS probability; C: Calibration plot of the nomogram predicting the two-year OS probability; D: Calibration plot of the nomogram predicting the three-year OS probability.
Figure 9Three-dimensional structures of the ten most significant drugs. A: 6-Thioguanosine; B: 8-Azaguanine; C: Chlorpromazine; D: GW-8510; E: Medrysone; F: Menadione; G: Meticrane; H: Morantel; I: Phenoxybenzamine; J: Resveratrol.