4.7 Article

Exploring TCGA database for identification of potential prognostic genes in stomach adenocarcinoma

Journal

CANCER CELL INTERNATIONAL
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12935-020-01351-3

Keywords

Tumour microenvironment; Stomach adenocarcinoma; TCGA; ESTIMATE algorithm; Prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81902960, 81672726]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Beijing [7204241]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) is the fifth most prevalent cancer in the world and ranks third among cancer-related deaths worldwide. The tumour microenvironment (TME) plays an important role in tumorigenesis, development, and metastasis. Hence, we calculated the immune and stromal scores to find the potential prognosis-related genes in STAD using bioinformatics analysis. Methods The ESTIMATE algorithm was used to calculate the immune/stromal scores of the STAD samples. Functional enrichment analysis, protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis, and overall survival analysis were then performed on differential genes. And we validated these genes using data from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Finally, we used the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) databases to verify these genes at the protein levels by IHC. Results Data analysis revealed correlation between stromal/immune scores and the TNM staging system. The top 10 core genes extracted from the PPI network, and primarily involved in immune responses, extracellular matrix, and cell adhesion. There are 31 genes have been validated with poor prognosis and 16 genes were upregulated in tumour tissues compared with normal tissues at the protein level. Conclusions In summary, we identified genes associated with the tumour microenvironment with prognostic implications in STAD, which may become potential therapeutic markers leading to better clinical outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available