4.6 Article

Prognostic and Immunological Role of FUN14 Domain Containing 1 in Pan-Cancer: Friend or Foe?

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01502

关键词

mitophagy; pan-cancer; database; survival analysis; immune infiltration; tumor microenvironment

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670461, 81974106, 91439207]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: FUN14 domain containing 1 (FUNDC1) plays a pivotal role in mitochondrial autophagy (mitophagy), which is closely associated with human immunity. However, the role of FUNDC1 in cancers remains unclear. This study aimed to visualize the prognostic landscape of FUNDC1 in pan-cancer and investigate the relationship between FUNDC1 expression and immune infiltration. Methods: In this study, we explored the expression pattern and prognostic value of FUNDC1 in pan-cancer across multiple databases, including ONCOMINE, PrognoScan, GEPIA, and Kaplan-Meier Plotter. Then, using the GEPIA and TIMER databases, we investigated the correlations between FUNDC1 expression and immune infiltration in cancers, especially liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC), and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC). Results: In general, compared with that in normal tissue, tumor tissue had a higher expression level of FUNDC1. Although FUNDC1 showed a protective effect on pan-cancer, a high expression level of FUNDC1 was detrimental to the survival of LIHC patients. Although different from what was found for LUSC, for LIHC, there were significant positive correlations between FUNDC1 expression and immune infiltrates, including B cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, neutrophils, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Furthermore, markers of infiltrating immune cells, such as tumor-associated-macrophages (TAMs), exhibited different FUNDC1-related immune infiltration patterns. Conclusion: The mitophagy regulator FUNDC1 can serve as a prognostic biomarker in pan-cancer and is correlated with immune infiltrates.

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