4.4 Article

Identification and validation of tumor microenvironment-related genes of prognostic value in lung adenocarcinoma

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 1772-1780

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11735

Keywords

The Cancer Genome Atlas; Gene Expression Omnibus; lung adenocarcinoma; tumor microenvironment; survival analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundamental Science Research Project of Xi'an Jiaotong University [1191329849]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is a major subtype of non-small cell lung cancer. Despite significant progress in its diagnosis and treatment, the mortality and morbidity rate of LUAD remains high worldwide. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic investigation of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and identify TME-related genes of prognostic value in patients with LUAD. Firstly, the immune scores and stromal scores of patients with LUAD from The Cancer Genome Atlas were calculated using the Estimation of STromal and Immune cells in MAlignant Tumors using Expression data algorithm, and a total of 281 prognostic TME-related genes were identified. Subsequently, functional analysis and protein-protein interaction network analysis revealed that these genes were mainly related to immune response, inflammatory response and chemotaxis. Finally, two independent LUAD cohorts from the Gene Expression Omnibus database were used to validate these genes, and 4 genes (GTPase IMAP family member 1, T-cell surface glycoprotein CD1b, integrin alpha-L and leukocyte surface antigen CD53) were identified, and downregulation of these genes was indicated to be associated with poor overall survival rate in patients with LUAD. In conclusion, a comprehensive analysis of TME was performed and 4 prognostic TME-related genes in patients with LUAD were identified.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available