4.7 Article

An analysis of the significance of the Tre2/Bub2/CDC 16 (TBC) domain protein family 8 in colorectal cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-15629-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. China National Natural Scientific Fund [81904110]
  2. Foundation Research Project of Jiangsu Province [BK20191086]
  3. Advantageous Disciplines Program of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine [ZYX03KF022, ZYX03KF019]
  4. Science and Technology Project of Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine [Y2020CX62]
  5. State Administration of Chinese Medicine Project [20085-9-3]
  6. Jiangsu Provincial Science and Technology Department Project [BE2019771]
  7. Jiangsu Province Postgraduate Research Innovation Program Project [KYCX21-1677]
  8. Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine Peak Academic Professionals Program [y2021rc19, y2021rc46]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identifies the role of TBC1D8 gene in colorectal cancer, potentially involving molecular mechanisms such as hypoxia and immune cell infiltration.
The TBC (Tre-2/Bub2/Cdc16, TBC) structural domain is now considered as one of the factors potentially regulating tumor progression. However, to date, studies on the relationship between TBC structural domains and tumors are limited. In this study, we identified the role of TBC1 domain family member 8 (TBC1D8) as an oncogene in colorectal cancer (CRC) by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and Cox regression analysis, showing that TBC1D8 may independently predict CRC outcome. Functional enrichment and single-cell analysis showed that TBC1D8 levels were associated with hypoxia. TBC1D8 levels were also positively correlated with M2 macrophage infiltration, which may have a complex association with hypoxia. Taken together, these results show that the TBC1D8 gene is involved in colorectal carcinogenesis, and the underlying molecular mechanisms may include hypoxia and immune cell infiltration.

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