4.7 Article

Recognition of a Novel Gene Signature for Human Glioblastoma

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23084157

关键词

glioblastoma; astrocytoma; oligodendrocytoma; glioma; biomarker signature; gene signature; survival; machine learning

资金

  1. China Medical University, Taiwan [CMU110-ASIA-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a 33-gene signature of glioblastoma (GBM) was identified through gene differential analysis, which may have significant implications in the diagnosis, treatment, prognosis prediction, and therapeutic development for GBM.
Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most common malignant and incurable brain tumors. The identification of a gene signature for GBM may be helpful for its diagnosis, treatment, prediction of prognosis and even the development of treatments. In this study, we used the GSE108474 database to perform GSEA and machine learning analysis, and identified a 33-gene signature of GBM by examining astrocytoma or non-GBM glioma differential gene expression. The 33 identified signature genes included the overexpressed genes COL6A2, ABCC3, COL8A1, FAM20A, ADM, CTHRC1, PDPN, IBSP, MIR210HG, GPX8, MYL9 and PDLIM4, as well as the underexpressed genes CHST9, CSDC2, ENHO, FERMT1, IGFN1, LINC00836, MGAT4C, SHANK2 and VIPR2. Protein functional analysis by CELLO2GO implied that these signature genes might be involved in regulating various aspects of biological function, including anatomical structure development, cell proliferation and adhesion, signaling transduction and many of the genes were annotated in response to stress. Of these 33 signature genes, 23 have previously been reported to be functionally correlated with GBM; the roles of the remaining 10 genes in glioma development remain unknown. Our results were the first to reveal that GBM exhibited the overexpressed GPX8 gene and underexpressed signature genes including CHST9, CSDC2, ENHO, FERMT1, IGFN1, LINC00836, MGAT4C and SHANK2, which might play crucial roles in the tumorigenesis of different gliomas.

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