4.5 Article

Analysis of gene expression profiles of non-small cell lung cancer at different stages reveals significantly altered biological functions and candidate genes

期刊

ONCOLOGY REPORTS
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 1736-1746

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5380

关键词

non-small cell lung cancer; stages; pathways; key nodes; coexpression gene pairs; tumor-related genes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We attempt to dissect the pathology of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at different stages and discover the novel candidate genes. Microarray data (GSE21933) were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The differential expression profiles of lung tumor tissues during different stages were analyzed. The significantly altered functions and pathways were assessed and the key nodes in a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network were screened out. Then, the coexpression gene pairs and tumor-related genes were assessed. RT-PCR analysis was performed to validate the candidate gene, natural killer-tumor recognition sequence (NKTR). The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for stage IB, IIB, IIIA and IV tumors were 499, 602, 592 and 457, respectively. Most of the DEGs were NSCLC-related genes identified through literature research. A few genes were commonly downregulated in all the 4 stages of tumors, such as CNTN6 and LBX2. The DEGs in early-stage tumors were closely related with the negative regulation of signal transduction, the apoptosis pathway and the p53 signaling pathway. DEGs in late-stage tumors were significantly enriched in transcription, response to organic substances and synapse regulation-related biological processes. A total of 16 genes (including NKTR) made up the significant coexpression network. NKTR was a key node in the PPI network and was significantly upregulated in lung cancer cells. The mechanism of NSCLC progression in different tumor stages may be different. NKTR may be the target candidate for NSCLC prevention and treatment.

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

4.5
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