Comprehensive analysis of tumor immune microenvironment and prognosis of m6A-related lncRNAs in gastric cancer.
Gastric cancer
Immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy
Long non-coding RNAs
N6-methyladenosine
Prognosis
Tumor immune microenvironment
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Mar 2022
24 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
25
05
2021
accepted:
01
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
5
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play pivotal roles in gastric cancer (GC) progression. The emergence of immunotherapy in GC has created a paradigm shift in the approaches of treatment, whereas there is significant heterogeneity with regard to degree of treatment responses, which results from the variability of tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). How the interplay between m6A and lncRNAs enrolling in the shaping of TIME remains unclear. The RNA sequencing and clinical data of GC patients were collected from TCGA database. Pearson correlation test and univariate Cox analysis were used to screen out m6A-related lncRNAs. Consensus clustering method was implemented to classify GC patients into two clusters. Survival analysis, the infiltration level of immune cells, Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and the mutation profiles were analyzed and compared between two clusters. A competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) network and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis were applied for the identification of pathways in which m6A-related lncRNAs enriched. Then least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) COX regression was implemented to select pivotal lncRNAs, and risk model was constructed accordingly. The prognosis value of the risk model was explored. In addition, the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy were compared between different risk groups. Finally, we performed qRT-PCR to detect expression patterns of the selected lncRNAs in the 35 tumor tissues and their paired adjacent normal tissues, and validated the prognostic value of risk model in our cohort (N = 35). The expression profiles of 15 lncRNAs were included to cluster patients into 2 subtypes. Cluster1 with worse prognosis harbored higher immune score, stromal score, ESTIMATE score and lower mutation rates of the genes. Different immune cell infiltration patterns were also displayed between the two clusters. GSEA showed that cluster1 preferentially enriched in tumor hallmarks and tumor-related biological pathways. KEGG pathway analysis found that the target mRNAs which m6A-related lncRNAs regulated by sponging miRNAs mainly enriched in vascular smooth muscle contraction, cAMP signaling pathway and cGMP-PKG signaling pathway. Next, eight lncRNAs were selected by LASSO regression algorithm to construct risk model. Patients in the high-risk group had poor prognoses, which were consistent in our cohort. As for predicting responses to ICIs therapy, patients from high-risk group were found to have lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) scores and account for large proportion in the Microsatellite Instability-Low (MSI-L) subtype. Moreover, patients had distinct immunophenoscores in different risk groups. Our study revealed that the interplay between m6A modification and lncRNAs might have critical role in predicting GC prognosis, sculpting TIME landscape and predicting the responses to ICIs therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play pivotal roles in gastric cancer (GC) progression. The emergence of immunotherapy in GC has created a paradigm shift in the approaches of treatment, whereas there is significant heterogeneity with regard to degree of treatment responses, which results from the variability of tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). How the interplay between m6A and lncRNAs enrolling in the shaping of TIME remains unclear.
METHODS
METHODS
The RNA sequencing and clinical data of GC patients were collected from TCGA database. Pearson correlation test and univariate Cox analysis were used to screen out m6A-related lncRNAs. Consensus clustering method was implemented to classify GC patients into two clusters. Survival analysis, the infiltration level of immune cells, Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and the mutation profiles were analyzed and compared between two clusters. A competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) network and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis were applied for the identification of pathways in which m6A-related lncRNAs enriched. Then least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) COX regression was implemented to select pivotal lncRNAs, and risk model was constructed accordingly. The prognosis value of the risk model was explored. In addition, the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy were compared between different risk groups. Finally, we performed qRT-PCR to detect expression patterns of the selected lncRNAs in the 35 tumor tissues and their paired adjacent normal tissues, and validated the prognostic value of risk model in our cohort (N = 35).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The expression profiles of 15 lncRNAs were included to cluster patients into 2 subtypes. Cluster1 with worse prognosis harbored higher immune score, stromal score, ESTIMATE score and lower mutation rates of the genes. Different immune cell infiltration patterns were also displayed between the two clusters. GSEA showed that cluster1 preferentially enriched in tumor hallmarks and tumor-related biological pathways. KEGG pathway analysis found that the target mRNAs which m6A-related lncRNAs regulated by sponging miRNAs mainly enriched in vascular smooth muscle contraction, cAMP signaling pathway and cGMP-PKG signaling pathway. Next, eight lncRNAs were selected by LASSO regression algorithm to construct risk model. Patients in the high-risk group had poor prognoses, which were consistent in our cohort. As for predicting responses to ICIs therapy, patients from high-risk group were found to have lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) scores and account for large proportion in the Microsatellite Instability-Low (MSI-L) subtype. Moreover, patients had distinct immunophenoscores in different risk groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study revealed that the interplay between m6A modification and lncRNAs might have critical role in predicting GC prognosis, sculpting TIME landscape and predicting the responses to ICIs therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35331183
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09377-8
pii: 10.1186/s12885-022-09377-8
pmc: PMC8943990
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Long Noncoding
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
316Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Mol Cancer. 2014 Feb 24;13:36
pubmed: 24568192
Lancet. 2018 May 26;391(10135):2128-2139
pubmed: 29754777
Mol Cancer. 2020 Aug 7;19(1):121
pubmed: 32767982
Mol Cancer. 2020 Mar 12;19(1):53
pubmed: 32164750
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Jan;133:25-32
pubmed: 30661655
Nat Immunol. 2017 Aug 22;18(9):962-972
pubmed: 28829444
Mol Cancer. 2019 Dec 19;18(1):186
pubmed: 31856849
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug 28;24(32):3583-3616
pubmed: 30166856
Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 21;11(1):1000
pubmed: 32081859
Mol Cancer. 2020 May 22;19(1):94
pubmed: 32443966
Elife. 2015 Aug 12;4:
pubmed: 26267216
Cancer Res. 2020 Aug 15;80(16):3200-3214
pubmed: 32606006
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec;17(12):725-741
pubmed: 32760014
Cancer Res. 2019 Sep 15;79(18):4557-4566
pubmed: 31350295
Front Immunol. 2016 Jun 08;7:222
pubmed: 27375620
Mol Cancer. 2019 Jul 4;18(1):115
pubmed: 31272462
Front Immunol. 2019 Dec 16;10:2872
pubmed: 31921137
J Mol Biol. 2016 Feb 27;428(5 Pt A):822-833
pubmed: 26343757
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D146-52
pubmed: 25378301
Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2020 Sep 4;21:299-314
pubmed: 32622331
Cells. 2020 Dec 31;10(1):
pubmed: 33396205
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;23(3):943-50
pubmed: 26530444
Gut. 2020 Jul;69(7):1193-1205
pubmed: 31582403
Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 1;28(15):2062-3
pubmed: 22718787
Genome Med. 2017 Apr 19;9(1):34
pubmed: 28420421
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D296-D302
pubmed: 29126174
Cancer Res. 2019 Sep 15;79(18):4612-4626
pubmed: 31331909
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Jul 20;22(4):
pubmed: 33320931
Nature. 2019 Feb;566(7743):270-274
pubmed: 30728504
Cancer Lett. 2018 Feb 28;415:11-19
pubmed: 29174803
Theranostics. 2021 Jan 1;11(5):2201-2217
pubmed: 33500720
Genome Res. 2003 Nov;13(11):2498-504
pubmed: 14597658
Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Nov 15;17(11):
pubmed: 27854307
Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 Jan 8;49(D1):D545-D551
pubmed: 33125081
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2020 Jun;58(3):313-325
pubmed: 31256327
Int J Cancer. 2020 Mar 1;146(5):1268-1280
pubmed: 31463974
Semin Cancer Biol. 2015 Apr;31:106-10
pubmed: 24972142
Cancer Cell. 2017 Apr 10;31(4):591-606.e6
pubmed: 28344040
Cell. 2018 Apr 5;173(2):400-416.e11
pubmed: 29625055
Mol Oncol. 2019 May;13(5):1166-1179
pubmed: 30854794
Ann Oncol. 2016 May;27(5):763-9
pubmed: 26861606
Oncogene. 2018 May;37(22):2953-2966
pubmed: 29515233
Lancet. 2020 Aug 29;396(10251):635-648
pubmed: 32861308
Protein Sci. 2019 Nov;28(11):1947-1951
pubmed: 31441146
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):27-30
pubmed: 10592173
Mol Cancer. 2019 Oct 13;18(1):142
pubmed: 31607270
JAMA Oncol. 2018 May 10;4(5):e180013
pubmed: 29543932
Nat Immunol. 2013 Oct;14(10):1014-22
pubmed: 24048123
Cell. 2017 Jun 15;169(7):1187-1200
pubmed: 28622506
Lancet. 2018 Jul 14;392(10142):123-133
pubmed: 29880231
Semin Cancer Biol. 2019 Jun;56:168-174
pubmed: 30189250
J Hematol Oncol. 2019 Nov 22;12(1):121
pubmed: 31757221