4.4 Article

Prognostic alternative splicing regulatory network of splicing events in acute myeloid leukemia patients based on SpliceSeq data from 136 cases

期刊

NEOPLASMA
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 623-+

出版社

AEPRESS SRO
DOI: 10.4149/neo_2020_190917N922

关键词

alternative splicing; acute myeloid leukemia; The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA); prognostic signatures; splicing network

类别

资金

  1. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation [2015GXNSFDA139028]
  2. Students Innovative Project of the First Clinical Medical College of Guangxi Medical University (2018)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to create prognostic signatures to predict AML patients' survival using alternative splicing (AS) events. The AS data, RNA sequencing data, and the survival statistics of 136 AML patients were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TGGA) and TCGA SpliceSeq databases. Total 34,984 AS events generated from 8,656 genes, 2,583 of which were survival-associated AS events, were identified using univariate Cox regression. The prognostic models constructed using independent survival-associated AS events revealed that low-risk splicing better predicted patients' survival. ROC analysis indicated that the predictive efficacy of the alternate terminator model was best in the area under the curve at 0.781. Enrichment analysis revealed several important genes (TP53, BCL2, AURKB, PPP2R1B, FOS, and BIRC5) and pathways, such as the protein processing pathway in the endoplasmic reticulum, RNA transport pathway, and HTLV-I infection pathway. The splicing network of splicing events and factors revealed interesting interactions, such as the positive correlation between HNRNPH3 and CALHM2-13010-AT, which may indicate the potential splicing regulatory mechanism. Taken together, survival-associated splicing events and the prognostic signatures for predicting survival can help provide an overview of splicing in AML patients and facilitate clinical practice. The splicing regulatory network may improve the understanding of spliceosomes in AML.

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

4.4
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