4.6 Article

Aberrant RNA Splicing Events Driven by Mutations of RNA-Binding Proteins as Indicators for Skin Cutaneous Melanoma Prognosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.568469

关键词

skin cutaneous melanoma; RNA-binding protein; mutation; alternative splicing; prognosis

类别

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1306900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81874327]
  3. Key Research and Development Program of Hunan Province [2019SK2251]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide incidence of skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is increasing at a more rapid rate than other tumors. Aberrant alternative splicing (AS) is found to be common in cancer; however, how this process contributes to cancer prognosis still remains largely unknown. Mutations in RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) may trigger great changes in the splicing process. In this study, we comprehensively analyzed DNA and RNA sequencing data and clinical information of SKCM patients, together with widespread changes in splicing patterns induced by RBP mutations. We screened mRNA expression-related and prognosis-related mutations in RBPs and investigated the potential affections of RBP mutations on splicing patterns. Mutations in 853 RBPs were demonstrated to be correlated with splicing aberrations (p < 0.01). Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these alternative splicing events (ASEs) may participate in tumor progress by regulating the modification process, cell-cycle checkpoint, metabolic pathways, MAPK signaling, PI3K-Akt signaling, and other important pathways in cancer. We also constructed a prediction model based on overall survival-related AS events (OS-ASEs) affected by RBP mutations, which exhibited a good predict efficiency with the area under the curve of 0.989. Our work highlights the importance of RBP mutations in splicing alterations and provides effective biomarkers for prediction of prognosis of SKCM.

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