| Literature DB >> 36262887 |
Yanyao Deng1, Yanjin Feng2, Zhicheng Lv3, Jinli He2, Xun Chen2, Chen Wang2, Mingyang Yuan2, Ting Xu2, Wenzhe Gao4, Dongjie Chen4, Hongwei Zhu4, Deren Hou2.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex, and multifactorial neurodegenerative disease. Previous studies have revealed that oxidative stress, synaptic toxicity, autophagy, and neuroinflammation play crucial roles in the progress of AD, however, its pathogenesis is still unclear. Recent researches have indicated that ferroptosis, an iron-dependent programmed cell death, might be involved in the pathogenesis of AD. Therefore, we aim to screen correlative ferroptosis-related genes (FRGs) in the progress of AD to clarify insights into the diagnostic value. Interestingly, we identified eight FRGs were significantly differentially expressed in AD patients. 10,044 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were finally identified by differential expression analysis. The following step was investigating the function of DEGs using gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Weight gene correlation analysis was performed to explore ten modules and 104 hub genes. Subsequently, based on machine learning algorithms, we constructed diagnostic classifiers to select characteristic genes. Through the multivariable logistic regression analysis, five features (RAF1, NFKBIA, MOV10L1, IQGAP1, FOXO1) were then validated, which composed a diagnostic model of AD. Thus, our findings not only developed genetic diagnostics strategy, but set a direction for further study of the disease pathogenesis and therapy targets.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; bioinformatics; diagnostic model; ferroptosis; machine learning algorithms
Year: 2022 PMID: 36262887 PMCID: PMC9575464 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.994130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
FIGURE 1The overview of the whole study.
FIGURE 2Differential expressing analysis and consensus clustering analysis of ferroptosis regulating genes (A) DEGs were demonstrated in the volcano plot. Up-regulated genes were represented in blue and down-regulated genes were represented in red. The markers of the most different expressing genes were labeled in this diagram. (B) The expression profiles for 12 labeled genes. Red represented the increasing expression and blue represented decreasing expression. (C) The expression levels of 12 labeled genes were demonstrated with boxplots in GSE5281 and GSE48350, and it showed that eight FRGs had significant expression levels compared to the AD and Normal tissues. (Median line evaluated expression level and * indicted significant difference). (D–K) The expression level of genes was analyzed in entorhinal cortex, hippocampus, postcentral gyrus and superior frontal gyrus. (L) Consistent clustering at the index k = 2. (M) The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of clustering (k = 2–5). (N) Delta area plot depicting the relative change under the CDF curve (k = 2–5). (O) The expression level of FRGs in different clusters (The left side was cluster1, while the right side was cluster2).
FIGURE 3Identification of DEGs and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis from two groups. (A) Volcano plot of DEGs between AD patients and control samples (AD vs Normal). (B) Volcano plot of DEGs between Cluster1 and Cluster2 (Cluster1 vs Cluster2). (C) A heatmap of the top 100 DEGs. (D–K) Biological functions and pathways of genes between AD and normal samples. (L–S) Biological functions and pathways of genes between cluster1 and cluster2.
FIGURE 4Weighted correlation network analysis of DEGs and Enrichment analysis result for the identified module. (A,B) Analysis of the scale independence and the mean connectivity for various soft-threshold powers. (C) The cluster dendrogram of 10,044 DEGs, with 10 modules in different colors. (D) Heatmap of the correlation between modules and phenotypes. Red shows a positive correlation and blue shows a negative correlation. Each cell contains the correlation coefficients. (E) A scatterplot of Gene Significance (GS) vs. Module Membership (MM) in the blue. Hub genes are evaluated by GS > 0.7 and MM > 0.8. (F) Gene Ontology enrichment analysis. (G) Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis.
FIGURE 5Results of Machine Learning Algorithms and ROC curve. (A) LASSO coefficient profiles of the significant hub genes. (B) Cross validation for turning parameter (lambda) selection in the LASSO regression. The LASSO model selected the log(λ) value for further analysis. (C) Screening conditions of Boruta algorithm. The green boxes confirmed the top 68 important features. The other two colors represented tentative and rejected attributes. (D) 125 hub genes identified by WGCNA were calculated by XGBoost and automatically ranked in order of importance. A list of the top 30 genes was predicted by XGboost classifier. (E) Using SVM modeling, 17 feature genes were extracted as gene biomarkers of AD from the aforementioned 125 hub genes. (F) Venn diagram to screen 5 overlapping genes presented in four Machine Learning Algorithms. (G–I) ROC curve was used to investigate the diagnostic model based on five diagnostic markers. The diagnostic model had the AUC value of 0.943 in the training set. The AUC of the test set was 0.961 and that of the validation set was 0.808. The X-axis represented the (1-specificity), and the Y-axis represented the sensitivity in the ROC curve.