4.7 Article

Potential mechanisms and prognostic model of eRNAs-regulated genes in stomach adenocarcinoma

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20824-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the potential mechanism of eRNAs in stomach adenocarcinoma, identifies tumor-related genes, constructs a highly accurate prognostic prediction model, and explores the differences between high-risk and low-risk groups using multi-omics data.
Gastric Carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, in which stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) is the most common histological type. A growing amount of evidence has suggested the importance of enhancer RNAs (eRNAs) in the cancer. However, the potential mechanism of eRNAs in STAD remains unclear. The eRNAs-regulated genes (eRRGs) were identified through four different enhancer resources. The differentially expressed eRRGs were obtained by 'DESeq2' R package. The prognosis prediction model was constructed by Cox and Lasso regression analysis. The 'ChAMP' R package and 'maftools' R package were used to investigate the multi-omics characters. In this study, combining the concept of contact domain, a total of 9014 eRRGs including 4926 PCGs and 4088 lncRNAs were identified and these eRRGs showed higher and more stable expression. Besides, the functions of these genes were mainly associated with tumor-related biological processes. Then, a prognostic prediction model was constructed and the AUC values of the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival prediction reached 0.76, 0.84 and 0.84, respectively, indicating that this model has a high accuracy. Finally, the difference between high-risk group and low-risk group were investigated using multi-omics data including gene expression, DNA methylation and somatic mutations. Our study provides significant clues for the elucidation of eRNAs in STAD and may help improve the overall survival for STAD patients.

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