4.7 Article

Comprehensive Analysis Uncovers Prognostic and Immunogenic Characteristics of Cellular Senescence for Lung Adenocarcinoma

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.780461

关键词

lung adenocarcinoma; cellular senescence; senescence-associated secretory phenotype; tumor microenvironment; prognosis; immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular senescence plays a crucial role in tumorigenesis, development, and immune modulation in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). A cellular senescence-related signature (SRS) was identified as an independent prognostic predictor for LUAD patients, showing potential value in predicting clinical outcomes and immunotherapy response. High SRS scores correlated with senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) and an immunosuppressive phenotype, highlighting SRS as a robust biomarker for immunotherapeutic response and prognosis in LUAD.
Cellular senescence plays a crucial role in tumorigenesis, development and immune modulation in cancers. However, to date, a robust and reliable cellular senescence-related signature and its value in clinical outcomes and immunotherapy response remain unexplored in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients. Through exploring the expression profiles of 278 cellular senescence-related genes in 936 LUAD patients, a cellular senescence-related signature (SRS) was constructed and validated as an independent prognostic predictor for LUAD patients. Notably, patients with high SRS scores exhibited upregulation of senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) and an immunosuppressive phenotype. Further analysis showed that SRS combined with immune checkpoint expression or TMB served as a good predictor for patients' clinical outcomes, and patients with low SRS scores might benefit from immunotherapy. Collectively, our findings demonstrated that SRS involved in the regulation of the tumor immune microenvironment through SASP was a robust biomarker for the immunotherapeutic response and prognosis in LUAD.

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