4.6 Article

Prognostic signature based on mitochondria quality control proteins for the prediction of lung adenocarcinoma patients survival

期刊

CELL DEATH DISCOVERY
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41420-023-01649-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer, especially lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), is a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Dysregulation of mitochondrial quality control proteins (MQCPs) in lung cancer cells may impact mitochondrial maintenance and integrity. This study developed a novel MQCP signature to predict overall survival in LUAD patients and successfully stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. In recent years, the incidence of lung cancer subtype lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) has steadily increased. Mitochondria, as a pivotal site of cell bioenergetics, metabolism, cell signaling, and cell death, are often dysregulated in lung cancer cells. Mitochondria maintenance and integrity depend on mitochondrial quality control proteins (MQCPs). During lung cancer progression, the levels of MQCPs could change and promote cancer cell adaptation to the microenvironment and stresses. Here, univariate and multivariate proportional Cox regression analyses were applied to develop a signature based on the level of MQCPs (dimeric form of BNIP3, DRP1, and SIRT3) in tumorous and non-tumorous samples of 80 patients with LUAD. The MQCP signature could be used to separate the patients with LUAD into high- and low-risk groups. Survival analysis indicated that patients in the high-risk group had dramatically shorter overall survival compared with the low-risk patients. Moreover, a nomogram combining clinicopathologic features and the MQCP signature was constructed and validated to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival of the patients. Thus, this study presents a novel signature based on MQCPs as a reliable prognostic tool to predict overall survival for patients with 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

4.6
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