| Literature DB >> 36177003 |
Hang Ji1,2, Zhihui Liu2, Fang Wang2, Haogeng Sun1, Nan Wang2, Yi Liu1, Shaoshan Hu2, Chao You1.
Abstract
This study aims to construct a Macrophage-Related Gene Prognostic Index (MRGPI) for glioblastoma (GBM) and explore the underlying molecular, metabolic, and immunological features. Based on the GBM dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 156), 13 macrophage-related hub genes were identified by weighted gene co-expression network (WGCNA) analysis. 5 prognostic genes screened by Kaplan-Meire (K-M) analysis and Cox regression model were used to construct the MRGPI, including GPR84, NCF2, HK3, LILRB2, and CCL18. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that the MRGPI was an independent risk factor (HR = 2.81, CI95: 1.13-6.98, p = 0.026), leading to an unfavorable outcome for the MRGPI-high group, which was further validated by 4 validation GBM cohorts (n = 728). Thereafter, the molecular, metabolic, and immune features and the clinical implications of the MRGPI-based groups were comprehensively characterized. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) found that immune-related pathways, including inflammatory and adaptive immune response, and activated eicosanoid metabolic pathways were enriched in the MRGPI-high group. Besides, genes constituting the MRGPI was primarily expressed by monocytes and macrophages at single-cell scope and was associated with the alternative activation of macrophages. Moreover, correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed the relevance between the MRGPI with the expression of immune checkpoints and T cell dysfunction. Thus, the responsiveness of samples in the MRGPI-high group to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) was detected by algorithms, including Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) and Submap. In contrast, the MRGPI-low group had favorable outcome, was less immune active and insensitive to ICI. Together, we have developed a promising biomarker to classify the prognosis, metabolic and immune features for GBM, and provide references for facilitating the personalized application of ICI in GBM.Entities:
Keywords: eicosanoid metabolism; glioblastoma; immune checkpoint inhibition; tumor microenvironment; tumor-associated macrophage
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36177003 PMCID: PMC9513135 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.941556
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Overview of the workflow of this study.
Figure 2Prognostic significance of MRGPI-based groups. (A) Multivariate Cox regression analysis of 13 differentially expressed macrophage-related hub genes. (B) Cox regression analysis of the MRGPI and clinicopathological parameters based on the TCGA cohort. Covariates including age, gender, IDH mutation, ATRX mutation, MGMT promoter methylation status, TERT promoter mutation, and MRGPI were included in the initial univariate Cox regression. Covariates with p-values less than 0.01 were further included in the multivariate Cox model. (C, D) K-M analysis of the survival and tumor progression-free interval differences between MRGPI-based groups based on TCGA, CGGA325, and Gravendeel GBM cohorts. (E, F) Immunohistochemical staining of five genes at the protein level. The tissue was divided into core of the tumor (Tumor) and the margin containing infiltrating tumor cells (Peritumor) in three patients with a pathological diagnosis of GBM. The intensity of staining for the proteins encoded by these genes at the tissue level ranged from negative to positive, with E showing genes with significantly higher IHC scores in the tumor core. The IHC scores of the five genes were shown in F (Scale bar, 100μm). (G) Pan-cancer-based MRGPI prognostic significance. Samples were split into early (PFI < 6 months) and late (PFI > 12 months) relapse groups based on PFI. OV, Ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma; LUAD, Lung adenocarcinoma; LUSC, Lung squamous cell carcinoma; PRAD, Prostate adenocarcinoma; BLCA, Bladder urothelial carcinoma; TGCT, Testicular germ cell tumors; ESCA, Esophageal carcinoma; PAAD, Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; LIHC, Liver hepatocellular carcinoma; KIRP, Kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma; SARC, Sarcoma; BRCA, Breast invasive carcinoma; MESO, Mesothelioma; COAD, Colon adenocarcinoma; STAD, Stomach adenocarcinoma; SKCM, Skin cutaneous melanoma; CHOL, Cholangiocarcinoma; KIRC, Kidney renal clear cell carcinoma; THCA, Thyroid carcinoma; UCEC, Uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma; CESC, Cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma; HNSC, Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; READ, Rectum adenocarcinoma; LGG, Lower grade glioma; KICH, Kidney chromophobe; UCS, Uterine carcinosarcoma; ACC, Adrenocortical carcinoma; PCPG, Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; UVM, Uveal melanoma. ***p < 0.001. ns, non significant.
Clinical features associated with MRGPI.
| MRGPI-high | MRGPI-low | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| >= 60 | 40 (54.79%) | 38 (49.35%) | |
| < 60 | 33 (45.21%) | 39 (50.65%) | 0.518 |
|
| |||
| Male | 47 (64.38%) | 53 (68.83%) | |
| Female | 26 (35.62%) | 24 (31.17%) | 0.606 |
|
| |||
| Mutation | 3 (4.2%) | 8 (10.96%) | |
| Wildtype | 69 (95.83%) | 65 (89.04%) | 0.208 |
|
| |||
| Methylated | 17 (32.08%) | 30 (46.88%) | |
| Unmethylated | 36 (67.92%) | 34 (53.13%) | 0.131 |
|
| |||
| ME | 51 (71.83%) | 12 (19.05%) | |
| PN | 3 (4.23%) | 15 (23.81%) | |
| CL | 13 (18.31%) | 33 (52.38%) | |
| NE | 4 (5.63%) | 3 (4.76%) | 8.876E-10 |
ME, mesenchymal; PN, proneural; CL, classical; NE, neural.
Cox regression analysis of the MRGPI in validation data sets.
| Cohort | Type | Sample size | Covariates | Uni-Cox | Multi-Cox | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | CI95 | P value | HR | CI95 | P value | |||||
| TCGA | RNA-seq | n = 156 | Age, Gender, IDH mutation, ATRX mutation, TERT promoter mutation, MGMT promoter methylation | 2.75 | 1.40-5.38 | 0.003 | 2.81 | 1.13-6.98 | 0.026 | |
| CGGA325 | RNA-seq | n = 139 | Age, Gender, IDH mutation, MGMT promoter methylation, Primary/Recurrent,1p19q co-deletion | 1.87 | 1.26-2.78 | 0.002 | 2.07 | 1.36-3.17 | 0.001 | |
| CGGA693 | RNA-seq | n = 249 | Age, Gender, IDH mutation, MGMT promoter methylation, Primary/Recurrent,1p19q co-deletion | 1.20 | 0.87-1.66 | 0.275 | NA | NA | NA | |
| Gravendeel | Microarray | n = 159 | Age, Gender, EGFR amplification, IDH1 mutant | 2.48 | 1.55-3.98 | 2e-4 | 2.16 | 1.05-4.41 | 0.036 | |
| Rembrandt | Microarray | n = 181 | Age, Gender, 1p19q co-deletion | 1.04 | 0.43-2.52 | 0.93 | NA | NA | NA | |
Figure 3Molecular underpinnings associated with the MRGPI-based groups. (A) GSEA analysis of signaling pathways enriched in each group. Pathways of interest with FDR-q < 0.1 were exhibited. The color of the box was proportional to the NES. (B) The expression pattern of genes involved in the eicosanoid metabolic pathway between groups. (C) Multivariate Cox regression analysis of genes involved in the eicosanoid pathway for the estimation of their correlation with the MRGPI. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ns, non significant.
Figure 4Immune characteristics of MRGPI groups. (A) The fraction of immune infiltration was estimated by CIBERSORT. (B) GSEA analysis of pathways enriched in each group based on the expression profile of the Mono/Macro subcluster. Pathways with FDR-q < 0.1 were exhibited. The color (red or blue) was proportional to the NES of the corresponding pathway in MRGPI-high or -low groups. (C) The expression of macrophage biomarkers in MRGPI-based groups. Mono/Macro subcluster was split into -high, -medium, and -low groups by the MRGPI. (D) Correlation between the MRGPI and different macrophages at the bulk-tumor level. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ns, non significant.
Figure 5Expression of immune checkpoints associated with MRGPI. (A) The expression of PD-L1/2, TIM3, and CTLA-4 based on the TCGA cohort. (B) Multivariate regression analysis estimating the association between the expression of immune checkpoints and M2 macrophage faction. (C) Association between MRGPI and expression of PD-L2 and TIM3 on a pan-cancer scale. ACC and UVM that had sterile lymphocyte infiltration and LUAD and LUSC that had abundant lymphocyte infiltration were used as references. ACC, Adrenocortical carcinoma; UVM, Uveal Melanoma; LUAD, Lung adenocarcinoma; LUSC, Lung squamous cell carcinoma. (D) The expression of PD-L1/2 and TIM3 at a single-cell resolution based on GSE70630.
Figure 6Potential of MRGPI in predicting ICB responsiveness. (A) Association between MRGPI and T cell dysfunction-related genes. To achieve this, 4 published gene signatures related to T cell dysfunction were collected and screened. The Spearman rho of positive (red) and negative (green) hit genes with MRGPI was exhibited. The difference in rho between positive and negative groups was compared through the two-sided Wilcoxon test. Taccum, T cell accumulation; Texhaust, T cell exhaustion; Tregulat, regulatory T cell; ICBresist, ICB resistance. (B) ROC curves evaluating the performance of MRGPI in predicting the positive and negative hit gene associated with T cell function. (C) TIDE score between the MRGPI-high and -low groups. (D) TIS score between the MRGPI-high and -low groups. (E) Correlation between the MRGPI and TIS score. (F) Submap algorithm manifested association between MRGPI-based groups and sample responsiveness to PD-1 and CTLA4 inhibitors. ***p < 0.001. ns, non significant.