4.6 Article

Genome-wide identification of lncRNAs as novel prognosis biomarkers of glioma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 120, 期 12, 页码 19518-19528

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.29259

关键词

-

资金

  1. Graduate innovation research project of Harbin Medical University [YJSCX2017-8HYB]
  2. Heilongjiang Province Outstanding Youth Foundation [JC2018023]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672670]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Glioma is the primary cancer of the central nervous system, and defining the prognosis of glioma is of great significance in the clinical. The long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) emerge as important regulators of pathological processes. This study aimed to identify lncRNAs which could function as potential prognosis biomarkers of glioma. Material and Methods Glioma RNA-seq data from TCGA and CGGA were analyzed to identify neoplasm grade associated lncRNAs by DEseq. 2R and weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Consensus module genes were analyzed in Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway to predict lncRNAs biological functions. Then neutrophil immune estimations were analyzed by Tumor Immune Estimation Resource. Transcrption factors of these lncRNAs were predicted by PROMO. Overall survival and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were applied to test the accuracy of predicted lncRNAs as the markers of prognosis. Results We identified four lncRNAs most correlated with both higher neoplasm grade and worse prognosis, including AC064875.2, HOTAIRM1, LINC00908, and RP11-84A19.3. Neutrophil-mediated immunity and cell adhesion junction were considered as the main biological functions of these lncRNAs. In addition, the correlation of these four lncRNAs with glioma prognosis was validated. Conclusion Neutrophil immune infiltration is implicated in higher neoplasm grade and worse prognosis of glioma. AC064875.2, HOTAIRM1, LINC00908, and RP11-84A19.3 may serve as potential prognosis biomarkers of glioma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据