Identification of m6A-related genes and m6A RNA methylation regulators in pancreatic cancer and their association with survival.
m6A RNA methylation regulators
m6A modification
m6A relative genes
pancreatic cancer
survival
Journal
Annals of translational medicine
ISSN: 2305-5839
Titre abrégé: Ann Transl Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101617978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
2
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification holds an important position in tumorigenesis and metastasis because it can change gene expression and even function in multiple levels including RNA splicing, stability, translocation and translation. In present study, we aim to conducted comprehensive investigation on m6A RNA methylation regulators and m6A-related genes in pancreatic cancer and their association with survival time. Based on Univariate Cox regression analysis, protein-protein interaction analysis, LASSO Cox regression, a risk prognostic model, STRING, Spearman and consensus clustering analysis, data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) database was used to analyze 15 m6A RNA methylation regulators that were widely reported and 1,393 m6A-related genes in m6Avar. We found that 283 candidate m6A RNA methylation-related genes and 4 m6A RNA methylation regulatory factors, including RNA binding motif protein 15 (RBM15), methyltransferase like 14 (METTL14), fat mass and obesity-associated protein (FTO), and α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase AlkB homolog 5 (ALKBH5), differed significantly among different stages of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Protein-protein interaction analysis indicated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), plectin-1 (PLEC), BLM RecQ like helicase (BLM), and polo like kinase 1 (PLK1) were closely related to other genes and could be considered as hub genes in the network. The results of LASSO Cox regression and the risk prognostic model indicated that AJCC stage, stage T and N, KRAS mutation status and x8q23.3 CNV fragment mutation differed significantly between the high-risk and the low-risk subgroups. The AUCs of 1 to 5 years after surgery were all more than 0.7 and increased year by year. Finally, we found KRAS mutation status and AJCC stage differed significantly among these groups after TCGA samples divided into subgroups with k=7. Moreover, we identified four m6A RNA methylation related genes expressed significantly differently among these seven subgroups, including collagen type VII alpha 1 chain (COL7A1), branched chain amino acid transaminase 1 (BCAT1), zinc finger protein 596 (ZNF596), and PLK1. Our study systematically analyzed the m6A RNA methylation related genes, including expression, protein-protein interaction, potential function, and prognostic value and provides important clues to further research on the function of RNA m6A methylation and its related genes in pancreatic cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification holds an important position in tumorigenesis and metastasis because it can change gene expression and even function in multiple levels including RNA splicing, stability, translocation and translation. In present study, we aim to conducted comprehensive investigation on m6A RNA methylation regulators and m6A-related genes in pancreatic cancer and their association with survival time.
METHODS
METHODS
Based on Univariate Cox regression analysis, protein-protein interaction analysis, LASSO Cox regression, a risk prognostic model, STRING, Spearman and consensus clustering analysis, data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) database was used to analyze 15 m6A RNA methylation regulators that were widely reported and 1,393 m6A-related genes in m6Avar.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that 283 candidate m6A RNA methylation-related genes and 4 m6A RNA methylation regulatory factors, including RNA binding motif protein 15 (RBM15), methyltransferase like 14 (METTL14), fat mass and obesity-associated protein (FTO), and α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase AlkB homolog 5 (ALKBH5), differed significantly among different stages of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Protein-protein interaction analysis indicated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), plectin-1 (PLEC), BLM RecQ like helicase (BLM), and polo like kinase 1 (PLK1) were closely related to other genes and could be considered as hub genes in the network. The results of LASSO Cox regression and the risk prognostic model indicated that AJCC stage, stage T and N, KRAS mutation status and x8q23.3 CNV fragment mutation differed significantly between the high-risk and the low-risk subgroups. The AUCs of 1 to 5 years after surgery were all more than 0.7 and increased year by year. Finally, we found KRAS mutation status and AJCC stage differed significantly among these groups after TCGA samples divided into subgroups with k=7. Moreover, we identified four m6A RNA methylation related genes expressed significantly differently among these seven subgroups, including collagen type VII alpha 1 chain (COL7A1), branched chain amino acid transaminase 1 (BCAT1), zinc finger protein 596 (ZNF596), and PLK1.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study systematically analyzed the m6A RNA methylation related genes, including expression, protein-protein interaction, potential function, and prognostic value and provides important clues to further research on the function of RNA m6A methylation and its related genes in pancreatic cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32355831
doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.98
pii: atm-08-06-387
pmc: PMC7186697
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
387Informations de copyright
2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Hypertens Res. 2020 Feb;43(2):153-154
pubmed: 31578458
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2018 Nov;22(4):305-309
pubmed: 30588520
Anticancer Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;27(6B):4149-57
pubmed: 18229422
Front Oncol. 2019 Apr 09;9:251
pubmed: 31024852
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;79(7):1285-1292
pubmed: 30894375
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017 Jan;18(1):31-42
pubmed: 27808276
Transl Oncol. 2018 Aug;11(4):852-863
pubmed: 29753186
Mol Cancer. 2019 May 29;18(1):103
pubmed: 31142332
Cell. 1975 Apr;4(4):379-86
pubmed: 164293
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D139-D145
pubmed: 29036329
EMBO Rep. 2019 Dec 5;20(12):e48170
pubmed: 31599491
Science. 2016 Sep 9;353(6304):1161-5
pubmed: 27609895
Nat Commun. 2018 Mar 9;9(1):1016
pubmed: 29523790
Cell. 2017 Jun 15;169(7):1187-1200
pubmed: 28622506
Cell Cycle. 2016;15(5):711-9
pubmed: 26890815
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Sep;26(5):
pubmed: 26931363
Cell Death Dis. 2018 Jan 26;9(2):124
pubmed: 29374143
BMC Cancer. 2013 Jul 08;13:337
pubmed: 23835106
Curr Drug Metab. 2019;20(12):958-966
pubmed: 31755384
Nat Rev Genet. 2014 May;15(5):293-306
pubmed: 24662220
Genes Dev. 2015 Jul 1;29(13):1343-55
pubmed: 26159994
Nanoscale. 2017 Oct 19;9(40):15622-15634
pubmed: 28991294
EBioMedicine. 2018 Apr;30:129-137
pubmed: 29574092
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Oct;71(10):3971-5
pubmed: 4372599
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D303-D307
pubmed: 29106616
Biomed Pharmacother. 2019 Apr;112:108613
pubmed: 30784918
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(Suppl 3):S153
pubmed: 31576360
Genes Dev. 2019 Jul 1;33(13-14):814-827
pubmed: 31171703
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;48(2):838-846
pubmed: 30032148
Nat Commun. 2018 Jan 2;9(1):16
pubmed: 29295989
J Cancer. 2016 Jul 07;7(11):1497-514
pubmed: 27471566
Pathol Res Pract. 2019 Nov;215(11):152666
pubmed: 31606241
Oncol Lett. 2019 Feb;17(2):2473-2478
pubmed: 30719115
J Gastroenterol. 2017 Mar;52(3):327-340
pubmed: 27169843