4.7 Article

A ceRNA-associated risk model predicts the poor prognosis for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86048-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Key Research and Development Program of Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province [2019C03081]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China [LQ21H160027, LQ21H140001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study constructed a ceRNA-based risk model for HNSCC, revealing biological processes related to the extracellular matrix and identified RNAs correlated with overall survival of HNSCC.
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of the most malignant cancers with poor prognosis worldwide. Emerging evidence indicates that competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) are involved in various diseases, however, the regulatory mechanisms of ceRNAs underlying HNSCC remain unclear. In this study, we retrieved differentially expressed long non-coding RNAs (DElncRNAs), messenger RNAs (DEmRNAs) and microRANs (DEmiRNAs) from The Cancer Genome Atlas database and constructed a ceRNA-based risk model in HNSCC by integrated bioinformatics approaches. Functional enrichment analyses showed that DEmRNAs might be involved in extracellular matrix related biological processes, and protein-protein interaction network further selected out prognostic genes, including MYL1 and ACTN2. Importantly, co-expressed RNAs identified by weighted co-expression gene network analysis constructed the ceRNA networks. Moreover, AC114730.3, AC136375.3, LAT and RYR3 were highly correlated to overall survival of HNSCC by Kaplan-Meier method and univariate Cox regression analysis, which were subsequently implemented multivariate Cox regression analysis to build the risk model. Our study provides a deeper understanding of ceRNAs on the regulatory mechanisms, which will facilitate the expansion of the roles on the ceRNAs in the tumorigenesis, development and treatment of HNSCC.

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

4.7
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