4.6 Article

Identification of Key Gene Modules in Human Osteosarcoma by Co-Expression Analysis Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis (WGCNA)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 118, 期 11, 页码 3953-3959

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.26050

关键词

OSTEOSARCOMA; CO-EXPRESSION; MODULES; GENE EXPRESSION; FUNCTION

资金

  1. Scientific Programs of Shanghai Minhang District Health And Family Planning Commission [2013MW03]
  2. Scientific Programs of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health And Family Planning [201440509]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteosarcoma is the eighth-most common form of childhood cancer, comprising about 20% of all primary bone cancers. To date, systemic co-expression analysis for this cancer is still insufficient to explain the pathogenesis of poorly understood OC. The objective of this study was to construct a gene co-expression network to predict clusters of candidate genes involved in the pathogenesis of osteosarcoma. First, we contributed co-expression modules via weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) and investigated the functional enrichment analysis of co-expression genes in terms of GO and KEGG. In result, seven co-expression modules were identified, containing 2,228 differentially expressed genes identified from the 22 human osteosarcoma samples. Subsequently, correlation study showed that the hub-genes between pair-wise modules displayed significant differences. Lastly, functional enrichment analysis of the co-expression modules showed that the module 5 enriched in progresses of immune response, antigen processing, and presentation. In conclusion, we identified essential genes in module 5 which were associated to human osteosarcoma. The key genes in our findings might provide the framework of co-expression gene modules of human osteosarcoma. Further, the functional analysis of these associated genes provides references to understand the mechanism of Osteosarcoma. J. Cell. Biochem. 118: 3953-3959, 2017. (c) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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