4.6 Article

Consensus-Expressed CXCL8 and MMP9 Identified by Meta-Analyzed Perineural Invasion Gene Signature in Gastric Cancer Microarray Data

期刊

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00851

关键词

the cancer genome atlas; gene expression omnibus; fixed-effects model; random-effects model; gene expression profiling interactive analysis

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81660708]
  2. Key Project of the Tibetan Medical Administration of Tibet [2017005]
  3. [Ytp1902]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As an underrecognized route of cancer metastasis, perineural invasion (PNI) is defined as the neoplastic invasion of nerves, which can be targeted to inhibit the metastasis of malignant cancer. However, the mechanism underlying PNI in cancer is largely unknown. We constructed a PNI gene signature based on a Pathway Studio-mediated literature screen and investigated the relevant genes in a gastric cancer model. Thus, a total of 467 studies/datasets were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus database using the keyword gastric cancer, among which 13 studies that focused on gene expression profiling were further manually inspected and selected. Furthermore, the constructed PNI gene signature (104 genes) expression was meta-analyzed, and the consensus-expressed C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 8 (CXCL8) and matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP9) (p < 0.01, |log fold change| > 1) were detected. Importantly, the disease-free survival was significantly worse in patients with high expressions of CXCL8 and MMP9 than in those with low expressions (p = 0.05). Moreover, multiple linear regression analysis showed that the population region (country) was associated with the expressions of both CXCL8 and MMP9. In conclusion, these data suggest that the coexpression of CXCL8 and MMP9 could be an early detection marker for PNI, with a potential to be utilized as individual therapy targets for early treatment to prevent PNI-related cancer metastasis.

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