4.6 Article

Overexpression of HOXA10 is associated with unfavorable prognosis of acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07088-6

关键词

Acute myeloid leukemia; Survival analysis; Gene expression profiling

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: HOXA family genes were crucial transcription factors involving cell proliferation and apoptosis. While few studies have focused on HOXA10 in AML. We aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of HOXA10. Methods: We downloaded datasets from GEO and BeatAML database, to compare HOXA expression level between AML patients and controls. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the impact of HOXA10 expression on AML survival. The differentially expressed genes, miRNAs, lncRNAs and methylated regions between HOXA10-high and -low groups were obtained using R (version 3.6.0). Accordingly, the gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was accomplished using MSigDB database. Moreover, the regulatory TFs/microRNAs/lncRNAs of HOXA10 were identified. A LASSO-Cox model fitted OS to clinical and HOXA10-associated genetic variables by glmnet package. Results: HOXA10 was overexpressed in AML patients than that in controls. The HOXA10-high group is significantly associated with shorter OS and DFS. A total of 1219 DEGs, 131 DEmiRs, 282 DElncRs were identified to be associated with HOXA10. GSEA revealed that 12 suppressed and 3 activated pathways in HOXA10-high group. Furthermore, the integrated regulatory network targeting HOXA10 was established. The LASSO-Cox model fitted OS to AML-survival risk scores, which included age, race, molecular risk, expression of IKZF2/LINC00649/LINC00839/ FENDRR and has-miR-424-5p. The time dependent ROC indicated a satisfying AUC (1-year AUC 0.839, 3-year AUC 0.871 and 5-year AUC 0.813). Conclusions: Our study identified HOXA10 overexpression as an adverse prognostic factor for AML. The LASSOCOX regression analysis revealed novel prediction model of OS with superior diagnostic utility.

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