| Literature DB >> 36172369 |
Xiao-Mao Tian1,2,3, Bin Xiang1,2,3, Li-Ming Jin1,2,3, Tao Mi1,2,3, Jin-Kui Wang1,2,3, Chenghao Zhanghuang2,3, Zhao-Xia Zhang1,2,3, Mei-Ling Chen1,2,3, Qin-Lin Shi1,2,3, Feng Liu1,2,3, Tao Lin1,2, Guang-Hui Wei1,2,3.
Abstract
Wilms tumour (WT) is the most common kidney malignancy in children. Chemoresistance is the leading cause of tumour recurrence and poses a substantial therapeutic challenge. Increasing evidence has underscored the role of the tumour immune microenvironment (TIM) in cancers and the potential for immunotherapy to improve prognosis. There remain no reliable molecular markers for reflecting the immune landscape and predicting patient survival in WT. Here, we examine differences in gene expression by high-throughput RNA sequencing, focused on differentially expressed immune-related genes (IRGs) based on the ImmPort database. Via univariate Cox regression analysis and Lasso-penalized Cox regression analysis, IRGs were screened out to establish an immune signature. Kaplan-Meier curves, time-related ROC analysis, univariate and multivariate Cox regression studies, and nomograms were used to evaluate the accuracy and prognostic significance of this signature. Furthermore, we found that the immune signature could reflect the immune status and the immune cell infiltration character played in the tumour microenvironment (TME) and showed significant association with immune checkpoint molecules, suggesting that the poor outcome may be partially explained by its immunosuppressive TME. Remarkably, TIDE, a computational method to model tumour immune evasion mechanisms, showed that this signature holds great potential for predicting immunotherapy responses in the TARGET-wt cohort. To decipher the underlying mechanism, GSEA was applied to explore enriched pathways and biological processes associated with immunophenotyping and Connectivity map (CMap) along with DeSigN analysis for drug exploration. Finally, four candidate immune genes were selected, and their expression levels in WT cell lines were monitored via qRT-PCR. Meanwhile, we validated the function of a critical gene, NRP2. Taken together, we established a novel immune signature that may serve as an effective prognostic signature and predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response in WT patients. This study may give light on therapeutic strategies for WT patients from an immunological viewpoint.Entities:
Keywords: Wilms tumour; immune signature; immunotherapy; prognosis; tumour immune microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36172369 PMCID: PMC9510599 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.920666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Analysis flowchart. (I) Identification of differentially expressed immune-related genes (IRGs) by tumour tissue sequencing in Wilms tumour and the ImmPort database. (II) Construction and validation of immune-related gene signature in Wilms tumour. (III) Association with immune infiltration and predictive ability for the response to immunotherapy. (IV) Expression validation and functional validation.
Figure 2Identification of 117 differentially expressed IRGs in patients with Wilms tumour. (A) Volcano plot of differentially expressed mRNAs by tumour tissue sequencing. (B) Wayne Figure of mRNA sequencing data versus the ImmPort database. (C) Heatmap and clustering analysis of 117 differentially expressed IRGs in patients with Wilms tumour. -4 and 4 represent fold change. High expression is indicated by red, whereas low expression is indicated by green. Different colors represent different immune categories.
Figure 3Identification of 12 survival-related IRGs and construction of an immune-related gene signature. (A) The forest map shows 12 genes significantly correlated with progression-free survival in the univariable COX regression analyses. (B) The trajectory of each independent variable. The log value of the independent lambda is represented on the horizontal axis, while the coefficient of the independent variable is represented on the vertical axis. (C) Partial likelihood deviance of variables revealed by the Lasso regression model. The two vertical dotted lines on the left and right, respectively, reflected optimum value according to the minimum and 1-SE criterion. The red dots reflected partial likelihood of deviance values, the gray lines represented standard error (SE). (D) Distribution of the riskscore, the associated survival status and the gene expression heatmap of the gene signature in the TARGET dataset. The median riskscore was used as the cutoff value, and patients were split into high-risk (red) and low-risk (blue) groups. (E) Patients in the high-risk subgroup exhibited poorer progression-free survival compared to those in the low-risk subgroup.
Figure 4Association with clinicopathologic factors and construction of the nomogram and its accuracy verification. (A) Heatmap of the clinical relevance between the high- and low-risk subgroups in Wilms tumour. (B) The multivariate Cox regression analysis of risk factors in Wilms tumour. (C) The riskscore assessment nomogram to evaluate prognosis in Wilms tumour (3-, 5-, and 7-year survival rates). (D) On the x-axis, the calculated net benefit (y-axis) is displayed against the threshold probabilities of patients having 3-, 5-, and 7-year survival. The green line denotes the assumption that all patients have provided a survival time estimate. *, ***, and **** indicate a significance level of 0.05, 0.001, and 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 5Associations between the immune signature and immune infiltration. (A) Landscape of the immune characteristics and tumour microenvironment in the TARGET-wt cohort. (B) Scatter plots depicting correlation of the immune-based risk signature with Stromalscore, Immunescore, and Estimatescore. (C) The correlation between 21 types of immune cells and riskscore in Wims tumour. (D, E) Distribution of immune-infiltrating cells in high- and low-risk subgroups in the TARGET-wt cohort and GSE31403 cohort. *, **, ***, and **** indicate a significance level of 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, and 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 6Mutational landscape of the signature and its effect on the immune response. (A) Mutational landscape of the immune-genes in TARGET-wt cohort. (B) Survival analysis of the mutated subgroup versus unaltered subgroup in TARGET-wt cohort was provided using Kaplan-Meier curve. (C) Heatmap of immune checkpoint molecules’ expression, TIDE score, and ICB response based on the signature. (D) The correlation heatmap of eight immune-genes and riskcore with immune checkpoint molecules and TIDE score. (E) Scatter plots depicting correlation of the immune-based risk signature with TIDE score. (F) Box plot showing the differences of TIDE score between the high- and low-risk subgroups in TARGET-wt cohort. (G) Immune response difference between the high- and low-risk subgroups based on TIDE score in TARGET-wt cohort. *, and ** indicate a significance level of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Figure 7Biological function related to the immune signature and small molecule drugs exploration. (A, B) Gene set enrichment analysis of significantly enriched pathways and biological functions in the high-risk subgroup (A) and low-risk subgroup (B). (C) Genes that are expressed differently in high- and low-risk subgroups. (D) The 3D structure of prospective drugs selected from the cMap and DeSigN database.
Figure 8Expression and functional validation. (A) The mRNA expression of NRP2, EGF, NODAL, and NR2F2 in different Wilms tumour cell lines. (B) The difference in NRP2 expression patterns was confirmed by immunofluorescence staining in tumour tissue and non-tumour tissue. (C) The expression level of NRP2 in tumour tissue and non-tumour tissue. Results were analyzed by unpaired t-test. (D) qRT-PCR analysis of NRP2 expression in wit-49 cells after transfection with siRNA. (E-G) The proliferation, migration, and invasion of wit-49 cells by the CCK-8 assays, wound healing assays, and transwell assays. (H, I) Cell cycle phase distribution and cell apoptosis rate were determined by flow cytometry. *, **, and *** indicate a significance level of 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively; and ns indicate no significant level.