Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
AIMS
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/MBE
MBE, 19(7): 7055-7075.
Published: 12 May 2022
Research article
Identification and validation of a tumor mutation burden-related signature combined with immune microenvironment infiltration in adrenocortical carcinoma
Yong Luo, Qingbiao Chen* and Jingbo Lin*
Department of Urology, the Second People’s Hospital of Foshan, Affiliated Foshan Hospital of Southern Medical University, Foshan 528000, China
* Correspondence: Email: elvislam0738@outlook.com, QingbiaoChen@outlook.com; Tel: +8615625093895; Fax: +86075788032009.
Abstract: Tumor mutation burden (TMB), an emerging molecular determinant, is accompanied by microsatellite instability and immune infiltrates in various malignancies. However, whether TMB is related to the prognosis or immune responsiveness of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) remains to be elucidated. This paper aims to investigate the impact of TMB on the prognosis and immune microenvironment infiltration in ACC. The somatic mutation data, gene expression profile, and corresponding clinicopathological information were retrieved from TCGA. The mutation landscape was summarized and visualized with the waterfall diagram. The ACC patients were divided into low and high TMB groups based on the median TMB value and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two groups were identified. Diverse functional analyses were conducted to determine the functionality of the DEGs. The immune cell infiltration signatures were evaluated based on multiple algorithms. Eventually, a TMB Prognostic Signature (TMBPS) was established and its predictive accuracy for ACC was evaluated. Single nucleotide polymorphism and C > T were found to be more common than other missense mutations. In addition, lower TMB levels indicated improved survival outcomes and were correlated with younger age and earlier clinical stage. Functional analysis suggested that DEGs were primarily related to the cell cycle, DNA replication, and cancer progression. Additionally, significant differences in infiltration levels of activated CD4+ T cells, naive B cells, and activated NK cells were observed in two TMB groups. We also found that patients with higher TMBPS showed worse survival outcomes, which was validated in the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Our study systematically analyzed the mutation and identified a
TMBPS combined with immune microenvironment infiltration in ACC. It is expected that this paper can promote the development of ACC treatment strategies.
Keywords: tumor mutation burden; immune microenvironment infiltration; adrenocortical carcinoma; prognosis
1. Introduction
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare endocrine malignancy. It afflicts one in every million people each year, and the median overall survival is merely 3-4 years [1]. For individuals with local or locally progressive illness, radical resection is presently the sole curative option [2]. However, the cumulative recurrence rate is still high even after surgery [3]. The most widely used TNM (tumor, lymph node, and metastasis) classification was not satisfactory owing to the lack of predominant genomic and molecular characteristics [4,5]. Therefore, identifying pivotal genomic determinants to enhance the predictive accuracy is important for ACC treatment and survival analysis.
In recent years, multiple acknowledged biomarkers for immune responsiveness, including microsatellite instability (MSI), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and tumor mutation burden (TMB), especially the immune microenvironment infiltration and TMB, have shown great potential in the prediction of advanced or aggressive cancers [6-8]. TILs constitute the most crucial part of immunity since they can mediate the response of the immune system to chemotherapy, and they have revolutionized the treatments for many malignancies [7,9]. In addition, TILs have been confirmed to have a considerable impact on the development of tumors and clinical outcomes in various cancers, including lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and colorectal cancer [10-12]. It has been found that high mast cell infiltration indicates a better survival rate in ACC patients [13]. TMB represents the total number of somatic missense mutations in one megabase of genomic regions and has been determined as an emerging biomarker accompanied by immune infiltrates in various malignancies [14-16]. Notably, previous studies revealed that the TMB level could predict immunotherapy effect and survival outcomes across most cancer types [17-19]. High TMB in kidney renal clear cell carcinoma patients indicated an awfully poor survival outcome and inhibited immune cell infiltration [20]. Yan et al. constructed a prognostic signature by combining TMB and immune cell infiltrates to predict survival outcomes in cutaneous melanoma [21].
Increasing evidence revealed that polygenic mutation was related to the carcinogenesis and aggressive progression in ACC, indicating the predictive potential of TMB [1,22]. Mutations were transcribed and translated into novel antigens, which could be recognized and targeted by the tumor-immune system [23]. More mutations contribute to more antigens, making tumors more immunogenic and responsive to the immune system [17]. Nevertheless, merely about 20% of cancer patients could benefit from the immune strategy, which may be due to the involvement of TILs and the status of the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) [24]. What is worse is that no biosignatures for evaluating the status of immune microenvironment infiltration in ACC have been found based on TMB level. Accordingly, it is of critical necessity to investigate the underlying molecular mechanism of immune infiltrates and the role of TMB based on an effective model containing multiple biomarkers for ACC.
In this research, we intended to explore the prognostic role of TMB with the combination of the
characteristics of immune infiltrates in an attempt to provide a distinctive perspective for the further development of ACC treatment strategies.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data acquisition and analysis
First of all, the somatic mutation data of 92 ACC patients were extracted from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/). After that, the “Masked Somatic Mutation” data was selected and processed by VarScan software. The Mutation Annotation Format of somatic mutation data was prepared and implemented by the “maftools” R package, which provided a wide range of analysis modules to execute a feature-rich customizable visualization [25]. Then, the gene expression data of 92 ACC samples in HTSeq-FPKM format were obtained. Moreover, we retrieved the corresponding clinical data of all samples. In order to facilitate downstream analysis, all Ensembl gene IDs were converted to gene symbols using an annotation GTF file obtained from GENCODE. Meanwhile, we downloaded transcriptome expression profiles and clinical information of GSE76019, GSE33371, and GSE10927 from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) for validation. The probe matrix of the GSE76019 cohort, including 34 patients, was converted to a gene matrix using the GPL13158 platform. Additionally, the GSE33371 and GSE10927 datasets, containing 23 and 24 samples, respectively, were generated using the GPL570 platform.
2.2. TMB value calculation and prognostic evaluation
TMB refers to the total number of somatic missense mutations in a megabase of the genomic region, comprising base substitutions, insertions, and deletions. The Perl scripts were developed using the JAVA platform to specifically calculate the mutation frequency of all samples. The average length of the human exons is 38 megabase (Mb). Accordingly, the TMB estimate is equal to the total number of variants/38 for each sample. The calculation of TMB for 92 ACC patients was shown in Table S1. The ACC samples were divided into the low and high TMB groups. Then, the Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to compare the survival differences between two groups using the “survival” R package. We further assessed the relationship between TMB levels and clinical variables via Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
2.3. Differentially expressed gene (DEG) and functional enrichment analyses
The “Limma” package was selected for differential gene expression analysis without normalization between the two TMB groups with the screening criteria of | Fold change (FC) | > 1 [26]. The heatmap of all DEGs was analyzed and visualized utilizing the “Pheatmap” R package. Then, we used “org.Hs.eg.db” R package to convert all gene symbols into Entrez IDs for each DEG and implemented the Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis using “enrichplot”, “ggplot2”, and “clusterProfiler” packages [27-29]. Additionally, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was conducted by JAVA software. The “c2.cp.kegg.v7.2 symbols.gmt gene sets” obtained from the MSigDB database were chosen as the reference gene set [30]. False Discovery Rate (FDR) < 0.05 was considered as a threshold.
Homoplastically, the immune-related genes retrieved from the Immport were conducted by the “VennDiagram” package to select immune-related DEGs between two groups [31].
2.4. Survival analysis
A total of 48 immune-related DEGs were screened out and the prognostic values in the two TMB groups were further evaluated. Ultimately, six core genes associated with survival outcomes were identified by the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Additionally, the Cox regression analysis was applied to verify the prognostic potential of these core genes.
2.5. Analysis of the immune infiltrates of the core immune-related genes in ACC
The CIBERSORT method was utilized to estimate the immune infractions, which was a newly developed tool that can convert gene expression data of each patient into immune infractions [32]. Detailed differential distributions of immune cells were analyzed and shown by the heatmap. Additionally, multiple algorithms containing EPIC, XCELL, MCPCOUNTER, QUANTISEQ, CIBERSORT-ABS, CIBERSORT, and TIMER were commanded to determine the differential abundances of immune infiltrates of core immune-related genes in ACC.
Altered in 69 (75%) of 92 samples.
1776
0
17
0
TP53
CTNNB1
MUC16
MUC4
TTN
CNTNAP5
NF1
PKHD1
ASXL3
DST
HMCN1
PCDH15
PRKAR1A
ANK2
CCDC168
CMYA5
FBN2
MEN1
SVEP1
ADGRG4
AHNAK2 ATRX
DNAH5
EYS
FAT3
FAT4
GNAS
HUWE1
KMT2B
LAMA1
LRP1
OBSCN
TLN2
WDFY4
Frame_Shift_Del
Frame_Shift_Ins
Missense_Mutation
Splice_Site
In_Frame_Del
· Multi_Hit
Nonsense_Mutation
2.6. Establishment of TMB prognostic signature (TMBPS)
We established a novel TMBPS containing six core immune-related genes and assessed its predictive accuracy for all ACC patients. The formula of TMBPS was as follows: TMBPS = E (Bi x Expi) (I = 6). Moreover, the ROC curve was utilized to evaluate the predictive value of multiple clinical parameters in ACC.
2.7. Statistical analysis
The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was mainly used for comparisons between two groups based on the non-parametric hypothesis test. Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to analyze two or more categories. All statistical analyses were implemented using the R software (Version 4.1.1), and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
3. Results
3.1. The landscape of mutation profiles in ACC
The somatic mutation profiles in ACC were analyzed for a comprehensive landscape of mutation profiles. The percentages (≥5%) of the top 34 mutated genes and mutation types marked in different colors were shown in the waterfall plot (Figure 1). On the whole, missense mutation, comprising single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and C > T, was the predominant mutation type (Figure 2A-C). The median number of variants in each sample was 21.5 (Figure 2D), and the variant classifications were represented by different colors (Figure 2E). The simultaneous and exclusive correlation of mutated genes was depicted in Figure 2F. In order to reveal the mutation difference in TMB levels, the landscapes in two TMB groups were compared, as illustrated in Figure 3. Moreover, the gene expression data obtained from TCGA, consisting of 92 ACC patients (32 males and 60 females), along with their clinicopathological features, were summarized in Table 1. The average age of these patients was 47.16 ± 16.30.
3.2. The correlation of TMB with clinical prognosis
The distributed patterns of clinical features of ACC in two TMB groups were depicted by the heatmap. TMB levels were closely associated with survival status and tumor stage (Figure 4A). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis suggested that ACC patients in the high TMB group tended to have a significantly worse survival outcome (Figure 4B,C). This finding is contrary to the result of previous studies [21,33]. Similarly, we assessed the correlation between clinical features and TMB values and found that a higher TMB level was correlated to older age and advanced tumor stage and AJCC-T stage (Figure 4D-F). Nevertheless, no significant correlation was observed between TMB level and gender, AJCC-N stage or AJCC-M stage (Figure 4G-I).
A
Variant Classification
B Variant Type
C SNV Class
Missense_Mutation
T>G
250
Nonsense_Mutation
SNP
Frame_Shift_Del
T>A
672
Splice_Site
INS
T>C
989
Frame_Shift_Ins
In_Frame_Del
C>T
3758
Nonstop_Mutation
C>G
1123
In_Frame_Ins
DEL
Translation_Start_Site
C>A
3220
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
D
Variants per sample
E
Variant Classification summary
1776
Median: 21.5
72
1184
48
592
24
0
0
CTNNB1 [14]
MUC16 [13]
MUC4 [13]
CNTNAP5 [ 8]
F
TP53 [17]
TTN [11]
NF1 [ 8]
PKHD1 [ 8]
ASXL3 [ 7]
DST [ 7]
HMCN1 [7]
PCDH15 [ 7]
PRKAR1A [ 7]
ANK2 [ 6]
CCDC168 [ 6]
CMYA5 [ 6]
FBN2 [ 6]
MEN1 [ 6]
SVEP1 [ 6]
FAT4 [ 5]
FAT4 [ 5]
SVEP1 [ 6]
MEN1 [6]
FBN2 [ 6]
CMYA5 [ 6]
CCDC168 [ 6]
ANK2 [ 6]
* P < 0.01
PRKAR1A [ 7]
P < 0.05
PCDH15 [ 7]
HMCN1 [7]
DST [ 7]
ASXL3 [ 7]
PKHD1 [ 8]
NF1 [ 8]
CNTNAP5 [ 8]
TTN [11]
-log10(P-value)
>3 (Co-occurance)
MUC4 [13]
2
1
MUC16 [13]
CTNNB1 [14]
-
TP53 [17]
2
> 3 (Mutually exclusive)
A
B
Variant Classification
Variant Type
SNV Class
Variant Classification
Variant Type
SNV Class
Missense_Mutation
T>G
31
Missense_Mutation
Frame_Shift_Del
SNP
Nonsense_Mutation
SNP
T>G
219
Nonsense_Mutation
T>A
58
Frame_Shift_Del
T>A
614
Splice_Site
T>C
174
Splice_Site
T>C
815
Frame_Shift_Ins
INS
Frame_Shift_Ins
INS
C>T
188
in_Frame_Del
C>T
3300
In_Frame_Del
C>G
119
Nonstop_Mutation
In_Frame_Ins
C>G
1004
DEL
Translation_Start_Site
DEL
Nonstop_Mutation
C>A
132
In_Frame_Ins
C>A
3055
0-
100-
200
300
400
500
500
0-
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75-
1.00
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.00
0.25-
0.50
0.75-
1.00
Variants per sample
Variant Classification summary
Variants per sample Median: 48
Variant Classification summary
22
Median: 14
21
1776-
142
14.
14
1184-
94
7.
7
592
47
0
0
m
AF
NJ
0.
0
D
C
CTNNB1 [7]
MEN1 [4]
MUC4 [4]
PRKARIA [4]
TP53 [4]
MUC 16 [3]
SVEP1 [3]
ASXL3 [2]
CDKL5 [2]
CNTNAP5 [2]
DNAJC13 [2]
FLG [2]
MXRA5 [2]
NF1 [2]
NLRP3 [2]
OPTN [2]
PKHD1 [2]
SLC4A11 [2]
SMC3 [2]
D
TP53 [13]
MUC 16 [10]
SI [2]
TTN [10]
MUC4 [ 9]
CTNNB1 [ 7]
CCDC168 [ 6]
CNTNAP5 [ 6]
DST [ 6]
HMCN1 [6]
NF1 [ 6]
PCDH15 [ 6]
PKHD1 [ 6]
ADGRG4 [ 5]
ANK2 [ 5]
CMYA5 [ 5]
EYS [ 5]
FAT3 [ 5]
FAT4 [ 5]
FBN2 [ 5]
OBSCN [5]
SMC3 [2]
OBSCN [ 5]
SLC4A11 [2]
FBN2 [ 5]
SI [2]
FAT4 [ 5]
. *
PKHD1 [2]
FAT3 [ 5]
OPTN [2]
EYS [ 5]
NLRP3 [2]
CMYA5 [ 5]
NF1 [2]
*P <0.01
ANK2 [ 5]
* P <0.01
MXRA5 [2]
P < 0.05
ADGRG4 [ 5]
. P < 0.05
FLG [2]
PKHD1 [ 6]
DNAJC13 [2]
PCDH15 [ 6]
CNTNAP5 [2]
NF1 [6]
CDKL5 [2]
HMCN1 [ 6]
ASXL3 [2]
DST [ 6]
SVEP1 [3]
CNTNAP5 [ 6]
MUC16 [3]
TP53 [4]
-log10(P-value)
>3 (Co-occurance)
CCDC168 [ 6]
-log10(P-value)
>3 (Co-occurance)
2
CTNNB1 [ 7]
PRKARTA [4]
2
1
MUC4 [ 9]
1
MUC4 [4]
0
TTN [10]
0
MEN1 [4]
1
MUC16 [10]
1
CTNNB1 [7]
2
TP53 [13]
2
> 3 (Mutually exclusive)
> 3 (Mutually exclusive)
E
Altered in 34 (70.83%) of 48 samples.
F
Altered in 41 (93.18%) of 44 samples.
22.
1776
0
7
0.
CTNNB1
15%
0
0
13
TP53
MEN1
MUC16
30%
MUC4
PRKARLG
8%
TTN
2375
MUCA
8%
CINNAY
R
MUC16
CCDC168
16%
6%
SVEPT A9X13
6% 4%
CNTNAPS
14%
DST
6
14% 14%%
COKE5
4%
HM
EN1
C
CNTNAP5
4%
14%
DNAJC1
4%
NF
PCOH15
14% 14%
LG
16
MXRAS
4%
ADGRG
NF1
4% 4%
AHNAK2 ANK2
11%
NLRP3
11%
ANKE
PKHD1
S
4
CMYA5
SLC4A1
2
11%
2
Q
SPATA31E1
FATA
1
2
HUWE1
ABCCY
ABER
KM128
ACACB
OBSCN
11%
LN2
COMOS
11%
GANZª
SLC25437
ZNRF3
2%
SPTAT
9%
2%
WDFY4
9%
. Missense_Mutation
In_Frame_Del
· Missense_Mutation
. Frame_Shift_Del
Frame_Shift_Del
Nonsense_Mutation
Splice_Site
- Frame_Shift_Ins
= Multi_H4
In_Frame_Del
Nonsense_Mutation = Multi_Hit
Splice_Site
” Frame_Shift_Ins
| varibles | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Status | |
| Alive | 58 (63.04) |
| Dead | 34 (36.96) |
| Age (year) | 47.16± 16.30 |
| Gender | |
| Female | 60 (65.22) |
| Male | 32 (34.78) |
| AJCC-T | |
| 1 | 9 (9.78) |
| 2 | 49 (53.26) |
| 3 | 11 (11.96) |
| 4 | 21 (22.83) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.17) |
| AJCC-N | |
| 0 | 80 (86.96) |
| 1 | 10 (10.87) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.17) |
| AJCC-M | |
| 0 | 72 (78.26) |
| 1 | 18 (19.57) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.17) |
| Stage | |
| Ⅰ | 9 (9.78) |
| II | 44 (47.83) |
| III | 19 (20.65) |
| IV | 18 (19.57) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.17) |
A
TMB
Survival ***
Age
Gender
Stage*
TMB
Survival ***
Age
Gender
Stage*
high
Alive
⇐ 50
Female
Stage I
low
Dead
>50
Male
Stage II
Stage III
Stage IV
unknow
B
TMB
+ High +
Low
Overall Survival (OS)
TMB Progression Free Survival (PFS) )
TMB
+ High * Low
1.00-
1.00-
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
p<0.001
0.25
p<0.001
0.00
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TMB
High LOW
44
48
40
46
26
39
18 32
Time(years)
9
27
7
22
4
15
2
11
0
8
9
0
4
0 2
Time(years)
0
2
High- Low
44
48
21
42
12
26
4
4
34
6
20
18
2
12
1
8
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6
0 5
0 3
0
2
0
2
Time(years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Time(years)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
D
Age
E
Stage
F
T
4
10
10
*
*
3
8
8
TMB
TMB
6
TMB
6
2
4
4
1
2
2
0
0
0
⇐ 50
>50
I
II
III
IV
T1
T2
T3
T4
G
Gender
H
N
M
3
3
10
..
8
TMB
2
TMB
2
TMB
6
1
1
4
2
0
0
0
Female
Male
NO
N1
MO
M1
3.3. Identification of DEGs correlated to TMB
The heatmap showed that the levels of DEGs were generally lower in the low TMB group (Figure 5A). A total of 859 DEGs were determined by differential analysis for the following investigation (Table S2). To elucidate the potential biological functionality and pathways of DEGs, GO and KEGG enrichment analyses were performed. Nuclear division, DNA helicase activity, and microtubule binding were enriched in the GO category (Figure 5C; Table S3). Additionally, KEGG pathway enrichment analysis and the GSEA revealed that cell cycle, DNA replication, p53 signaling pathway, and pathways in cancer were enriched (Figure 5D,E; Tables S4 and S5). Owing to the fact that TMB was associated with the immune microenvironment, 48 immune-related genes were determined for the next analysis (Figure 5B; Table 2).
A
Type
10 Type
B
KLK1
high
PTGDS
48
L2ORB
low
ZGLP1
ADMIR
5
SCGN
AP000851.2
POU4F1
HOXD13
Immune
FEZF1
0
FOXA2
PLAC1
|logFC|>1
MMP
DLX
SHOX2
-5
GAPLINC
WNT10B
RGS20
MUC1
MMP13
LINC00460
1763
811
AC025575.2
A
SONT
13057
AL 139231.1
UGT1A7
TMEM72
UGT2A3
DIO3
TNR
ADHS
IGLVB-61
KRT19
RAGALT2
CD244
LTF
SMCO3
PYDC1
KCNS1
C
organelle fission
D
nuclear division
chromosome segregation
Cell cycle
mtobc nuclear division
nuclear chromosome segregation
sister chromatid segregation
.
Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction
mitotic sister chromatid segregation
spindle organization
regulation of chromosome segregation
Oocyte meiosis
mitotic spindle organization
Count
qvalue
chromosomal region
20
Drug metabolism - cytochrome P450
spindle
0.005
condensed chromosome
40
chromosome, centromeric region
60
Progesterone-mediated oocyte maturation
0 010
condensed chromosome, centromeric region
kinetochore
8
qvalue
condensed chromosome kinetochore
mitotic spindle
Drug metabolism = other enzymes
54-04
Count
condensed nuclear chromosome
condensed nuclear chromosome, centromeric region
20-04
55
p53 signaling pathway
15
catalytic activity, acting on DNA
3e-04
20
microtubule binding
DNA helicase activity
Metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450
microtubule motor activity
3’-5’ DNA
single-stranded DNA-dependent ATP-dependent DNA helicase activity
…
6
Fanconi anemia pathway
single-stranded DNA-dependent ATPase activity
ATP-dependent DNA helicase activity
ATP-dependent helicase activity
..
DNA replication
purine NTP-dependent helicase activity
.
E
0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
GeneRatio
GeneRatio
Enrichment plot: KEGQ_CELL_CYCLE
Enrichment plot: KEGG_DNA_REPLICATION
Enrichment plot: KEGG_PATHWAYS_IN_CANCER
Enrichment plot: KEQQ_P53_SIGNALING_PATHWAY
0.5
T
7
M
A
Enrichment score (ES)
6
4
$ .
UJ
3
2
>
12
11
2
3
.
1
LA
0
#
..
#
..
1.
..
·
1
5
5
.
·
-
—
-
.
-
—
#
-
—
—
-
-
#
-
-
—
-
—
Rank in Ordered Dwamet
Rank in Ordered Ditate
Ranking maitre women
| Gene ID | Low | High | logFC | pValue | FDR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMP1 | 5.113 | 13.086 | 1.356 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| C3 | 197.186 | 53.931 | -1.870 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| SLC40A1 | 83.375 | 25.418 | -1.714 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| BIRC5 | 2.330 | 9.782 | 2.070 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| ARTN | 0.274 | 0.627 | 1.194 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| LTBP1 | 2.846 | 7.719 | 1.439 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| NR4A3 | 2.341 | 7.089 | 1.599 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| HGF | 2.130 | 0.604 | -1.819 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| PDIA2 | 0.182 | 0.418 | 1.197 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| QRFP | 0.204 | 0.537 | 1.393 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| CCL23 | 0.362 | 0.165 | -1.136 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| TMSB10 | 659.304 | 1438.088 | 1.125 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| XCL2 | 0.504 | 0.188 | -1.424 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| IL20RB | 0.259 | 2.611 | 3.333 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| CYSLTR1 | 0.282 | 0.132 | -1.099 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| BMP8B | 0.165 | 0.364 | 1.139 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| PTGER3 | 2.808 | 0.487 | -2.527 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| LTF | 0.755 | 0.084 | -3.162 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| PTGFR | 3.012 | 1.084 | -1.474 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| CTF1 | 4.790 | 1.875 | -1.353 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
TCGA-ACC (92 samples)
1
Retrieve somatic mutation data
Obtain gene expression data
!
!
Screen out differentially expressed genes between two TMB groups (n=859)
Download immune related genes from Immport
TMB-related immune genes(n=48)
Survival Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis
6 core TMB-related immune genes (TMSB15A, MMP9, BIRC5, LTBP1, CCL14, PTGFR)
3.4. Identification of core genes and their relation to the immune microenvironment
Survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were performed to identify core genes that were significantly correlated with survival outcomes. Six core genes were identified and the detailed workflow of screening was shown in Figure 6. We found ACC patients with higher expression levels of TMSB15A, MMP9, BIRC5, and LTBP1 had worse survival outcomes (Figure 7A-D), while patients with high expression levels of CCL14 and PTGFR had better prognosis (Figure 7E,F). The results of Cox regression analysis also indicated that the six core prognostic genes were significantly related to the survival outcomes in ACC patients (Figure 7G,H). To further assess the underlying relation of these core genes with immune infiltrates in ACC, multiple software was applied. It was found that the expression of the six core genes was robustly associated with the abundance of immune cell subtypes (Figure 8).
A
TMSB15A High Low
B
MMP9 High Low
C
BIRCS -High Low
Survival probability
1.00
Survival probability
1.00
Survival probability
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
p=0.001
0.25
p=0.003
0.25
p<0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
C
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
N
C
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TMSB15A
Time(years)
Time(years)
Time(years)
MMP9
BIRC5
17
0
A
a
O
4
8
17
1
2
A
3
2
1
Low
1 8*
No
O
2
Pc
a
2
4
2
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Time(years)
Time(years)
Time(years)
11
12
D
LTBP1
High
Low
E
CCL14 High Low
F
PTGFR_ High Low
Survival probability
1.004
Survival probability
1.004
Survival probability
1.004
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
p<0.001
0.25
p=0.004
0.25
p<0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
C
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Time(years)
Time(years)
Time(years)
LTBP1
CCL14
PTGFR
High
5
8
16
4
L
IN
High
Low
3
37
10
4
a
3
1
High Low
30
27
18
13
2
2
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Time(years)
12
Time(years)
Time(years)
G
pvalue
Hazard ratio
H
pvalue
Hazard ratio
TMSB15A 0.001
1.532(1.286-1.824)
TMSB15A 0.001
1.409(1.163-1.705)
MMP9
0.001
1.033(1.018-1.048)
MMP9
0.032
1.027(1.002-1.052)
BIRC5
0.001
1.180(1.123-1.240)
BIRC5
0.021
1.079(1.012-1.150)
CCL14
0.023
0.394(0.177-0.880)
CCL14
0.130
0.450(0.160-1.266)
LTBP1
0.001
1.106(1.060-1.155)
LTBP1
0.002
1.115(1.041-1.195)
PTGFR
0.045
0.815(0.668-0.996)
PTGFR
0.096
0.868(0.735-1.025)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Hazard ratio
Hazard ratio
A
TMSB15A
B
MMP9
TMS815A
TMSBISA
MMPS
MMPP
group
group
-
0
Neutrophil_TIMER
20
Methods
0 Methods
ABS
CRERSORT-ARS
XCELL
MCPCOUNTER
Concor associatod foroblast_XGELL
Macrophago MI_XCELL
T cell CD4+ Th1_XCELL
Menwayto_XCELL
T cel CD4+ Th2_XCELL
· cul naive_XCELL
Youll CD44 THQ_XCELL
Cancer associated fibroblast_EPIC
T call CD4+ EPIC
Methods
Methods
C
BIRC5
D
LTBP1
BIRCS
BIRCS 25
LTBP1
LTBPS
group
group
20
5
5
group
group
Methods
nign
Methods
MAPCOUNTER
QUANTSEO
MCPCOUNTER
XCELL
-
Methods
Methoes
E
CCL14
F
PTGFR
CCL14
PTOFR
PIGPR
group
12
Macrophage_TIMER
group
B cell naive_CIBERSORT
0
group
hugh
CRERSORT
CIBERSORT-ABS
COUNTER
EPIC
XCELL
EPIC
B cel_QUANTISEQ
Macrophage M2_QUANTISEQ
Myeloid dendrite cell_QUANTISEQ
T cell CDB ._ MOPCOUNTER
Myeloid dendrite cell MOPCOUNTER
Toel CD4+ eflector memory_XCELL
Marrighaga M2_XCSLL
Monocyte_XCELL
Toel NK XCELL
T cel CD4+ Th1_XCELL
T cell CD4+ TRZ_XCELL
B cel_EPIC
Methods
Methods
3.5. Relationship between TMB and immune cells in ACC
We evaluated the proportions of 22 immune cells in all ACC samples based on the CIBERSORT method with P < 0.05 (Table S6), which were visualized in the heatmap and box plot (Figure 9A,B). We could find memory resting CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and M2 macrophage are the predominant immune cell types, while activated dendritic cells and M0 macrophage showed high abundance in the high TMB group. The violin diagram showed that infiltration levels of naive B cells and activated NK cells were relatively higher in the low TMB group, while activated memory CD4+ T cells showed a higher expression level in the high TMB group (Figure 9C).
A
type
type
T cells CD8
0.6
high TMB
Monocytes
Mast cells resting
0.5
low TMB
T cells CD4 naive
0.4
B cells naive
NK cells activated
0.3
Macrophages M1
NK cells resting
0.2
Eosinophils
0.1
Plasma cells
T cells follicular helper
0
Mast cells activated
Dendritic cells resting
T cells CD4 memory activated
T cells regulatory (Tregs)
Neutrophils
B cells memory
T cells gamma delta
Macrophages MO
Dendritic cells activated
T cells CD4 memory resting
Macrophages M2
DrSV-LO-VDOLL
B
C
100%
. B cells naive
. B cells memory
0.6
Low TMB
Relative Percent
. Plasma cells
80%
. T cells CDB
. T cells CD4 naive
0.5
High TMB
resting
. T cells CD4 memory activated
60%
follicular helper
50.4.
+ armory (Tregs)
8
. NK cells resting
SU
0.3
40%
. NK cells activated
LL
-
. Monocytes
-
Macrophages MO
. M1
0.2
20%
· Macrophages M2
. Dendritic cells resting
. Dendritic cells activated
0.1
calls resting
-
0%
Mast cells activated
0.0
C
TCGA-OR-ASLA
TCGA-OR-ASKZ
TCGA-OR-ASKT
TCGA-OR-A5J8
TCGA-PK-ASHA
TCGA-P6-A50G
TCGA-OR-A5JO
TCGA-OR-A5.28
TCGA-OR-ASJI
TCGA-PA-ASYG
TCGA-OR-A5LX
Eosinophils
. Neutrophils
8 con nove
B oets memory
Plaseria Oil
Youts COS
T cells CDA nad
T cells CD4 memory resting
Tollx CD4 memory activated
T ods folicular helyet
T collo enguastory (Theqs)
T cats gamma ouila
NK cels sesilog
SK outs actives
Monocytes
Macrophages Mo
Macrophages ves
Macrophages M2
Derdrac cols ressing
Dendroc colls activate
Mast ants toneg
Mest cats actesed
3.6. Construction and assessment of TMBPS for ACC patients
In view of the relationship between variants of TMB-related immune genes with poor prognosis and higher immune infiltration, we established a TMBPS comprising the above six core genes and assessed its predictive efficiency for ACC. Based on the Cox regression model, TMBPS was calculated as follows: TMBPS = (0.343290 x TMSB15A + 0.026519 x MMP9 + 0.075941 x BIRC5 + 0.109634 × LTBP1 - 0.798708 × CCL14 - 0.142566 x PTGFR) (Table S7). The relations among survival status, prognostic scores, and core gene expression based on the TMBPS were shown in Figure 10A. ROC curve was introduced and the robust predictive accuracy of TMBPS was illustrated, with AUC = 0.897, higher than that of any other clinical parameters (Figure 10B). In addition, survival analysis revealed that ACC patients with high TMBPS suffered from an unfavorable prognosis (Figure 10C). Similarly, the Cox analysis of the above clinical factors was employed to verify that TMBPS could be an independent and robust prognostic predictor for ACC (Figure 10D,E). In order to validate our results, GSE76019, GSE33371, and GSE10927 derived from the GEO database were applied to assess the effectiveness of ACC prediction by TMBPS (Figure 11).
A
B
C
0
High TMBPS
0
TMBPS High - Low
TMBPS
. Low TMBPS
1.00
4 6
Survival time (years)
True positive rate
0,8
Survival probability
0.75
N
0.6
0.50
0
0
20
40
60
80
0.4
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
TMBPS (AUC=0.897)
0.2
Age (AUČ=0,607)
0.25
p<0.001
Gender (AUC=0.512)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Stage (AUC=0.611)
Dead
T (AUC-0.600)
0.00
0.0
N (AUC=0.438)
Alive
M (AUC=0.503)
7
TMBPS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
Time(years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
High
39
35
22
14
5
4
LOW
2
1
1 7
1
1
1 1
1
40
40
36
30
25
20
14
10
6
3
1
False positive rate
6
1
3
1
A
K
A
7
W
6
12
Time(years)
10 11
D
E
0
20
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
40
60
80
pvalue Hazard ratio
pvalue Hazard ratio
type
type
age
0.328 1.012(0.988-1.038)
age
0.418 1.013(0.982-1.045)
PTGFR
TMSB15A
gender 0.972 0.986(0.451-2.154)
gender 0.790 1.126(0.470-2.701)
CCL14
MMP9
stage
<0.001 2.914(1.860-4.565)
stage
<0.0012.694(1.652-4.394)
BIRC5
LTBP1
TMBPS <0.001 1.034(1.019-1.049)
TMBPS 0.002 1.024(1.009-1.040)
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
NA
4
Hazard ratio
Hazard ratio
4. Discussion
Tumorigenesis is the result of the accumulation of genetic alterations in the DNA interacting with immune infiltrates [34]. It has been found that TIME paves a novel way for tumor progression and immune response. TILs have been determined as an emerging indicator that affects the prognosis and therapeutic response in various human cancers [35-37]. Although patients with locally progressive ACC generally have a high recurrence rate after radical resection, PD-L1 inhibitors could reactivate dormant TILs and a high PD-L1 expression level indicated a longer postoperative survival, which represented a promising strategy for ACC [38]. Nevertheless, the therapeutic strategies of ACC are still limited and effective biomarkers for immune responses are lacking.
The effective biomarkers can help to identify patients whose immune system would respond so as to avoid waste of money and severe toxicities for non-responders. TMB has proven to be a novel biomarker to predict immune responses in various malignancies, such as prostate adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, and lung cancer [15,39-40]. Luo et al. found that a higher TMB level indicated worse BCR-free survival and TMB was associated with the immune infiltrates in prostate cancer [15]. Jiang et al. showed that a combination of TMB, immune infiltrates, and PD-L1 expression is feasible for the prediction of early-stage lung squamous cell carcinoma [41]. Nevertheless, there were few discussions about the role of TMB and its underlying connection to immune infiltrates in ACC.
In this research, we comprehensively analyzed and visualized the landscape of mutation profiles of ACC patients. It was found that 75% of ACC patients showed various mutation forms, with missense mutations comprised of SNP and C > T mutations accounting for the most. The two most common mutated genes were TP53 and CTNNB1. It was shown that TP53 was a tumor suppressor
protein responding to different cellular stresses through regulating the expression of target genes, inducing cell cycle capture, apoptosis, senescence, and metabolism alterations [42,43]. CTNNB1 was a protein regulating cell growth and adhesion between cells [44,45]. Analysis of the association between TMB level and survival outcomes indicated that ACC patients with high TMB suffered from a worse prognosis. The results demonstrated that higher TMB levels were closely associated with older age and advanced tumor stage and AJCC-T stage. Accordingly, TMB is an effective predictor that could provide valuable information for immunotherapy in various kinds of cancers, including ACC [46,47].
A
GSE76019
GSE33371
GSE10927
TMBPS
0 2 4 6 8 10
B
0 2 4 6 8 10
C
0 2 4 6 8 10
· High TMBPS
· High TMBPS
High TMBPS
. Low TMBPS
TMBPS
. Low TMBPS
TMBPS
. Low TMBPS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
Survival time (years)
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
01234567
Survival time (years)
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
Survival time (years)
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
-
5
Dead
Dead
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Dead
· Alive
10
· Alive
· Alive
40
0
0
·
0
5
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
10
15
20
5
Patients (increasing TMBPS)
10
15
20
type
35 type
=
type
2.4 type
type
24 type
1.
Pensa
3
PTOFR
22
2
MMpp
22
-
LTBPT
2
25
COL14
1.8
TBP1
16
18 18
PTGFR
2
MMP9
MS815A
MMPS
LTBPT
L
BIRCS
I
TMS815A
TMS815A
PTOFR
BIRCS
BIRCS
COL54
-
D
TMBPS
High
Low
E
TMBPS High Low
F
TMBPS
High
Low
Survival probability
1.00
Survival probability
1.00
Survival probability
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
p=0.008
0.25
p
0
001
0.25
P<0,001
0.00
0.00
0.00
TMBPS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TMBPS
0
1
2
3
4
5
E
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TMBPS
0
#
2
3
4
5
5
1
8
9
10
11
12
Time(years)
Time(years)
Time(years)
ligh
SE
12
8
a
5
8
2
0
High
2
3
0
0
LOW
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HAigh
LOW
12 12
4
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0 1
0 1
0
LOW
15
11
1
1
0
12
8
7
7
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
11
9
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
À
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Time(years)
Time(years)
Time(years)
G
ROC curve(AUC=0.735)
I
ROC curve(AUC=0.976)
ROC curve(AUC=0.948)
0
1.0
0.
True positive rate
0.8
True positive rate
0.8
True positive rate
0,8
0.6
0.6
06
0.4
0.4
0,4
0.2
0.2
0,2
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0,2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
False positive rate
1.0
0.0
0.4
1.0
False positive rate
0.2
False positive rate
To further elucidate the potential biological functionality and mechanisms of 859 DEGs between two TMB groups, we conducted differential analysis to single out TMB-related DEGs. GO
enrichment analysis showed that DEGs were primarily involved in cell mitosis. KEGG pathway enrichment analysis and GSEA revealed that DEGs were mainly correlated with cancer progression and immune cell response to tumors, such as DNA replication, cell mitosis, and cell cycle. DNA replication and cell mitosis were the fundamental biological processes in which dysregulation could cause genome instability [48]. The accumulative errors of DNA replication and cell mitosis could cause tumorigenesis, including ACC [49]. These functions were also correlated with the occurrence of cancer, the influence of the tumor microenvironment, and the differentiation and activation of immune cells. Given that the physiological process of cell mitosis demands the homeostasis of the cell cycle, its dysregulation would bring about the disorder of cell growth and the occurrence of cancer [50].
Survival analysis was performed and six core prognostic TMB-related immune genes in ACC were identified. CCL14 was a chemokine inducing the activation of immune cells and a potential prognostic biomarker and tumor suppressor via regulating the cell cycle and promoting apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma [51]. BIRC5, as an immune-related gene, was greatly related to multiple immune cell infiltrates in diverse cancers and could inhibit apoptosis and facilitate cell proliferation [52]. We found BIRC5 was greatly related to abundant immune cell subtypes. On the whole, expression levels of these core immune genes were correlated to the abundance of immune infiltrates, including neutrophil cells, macrophage, cancer-associated fibroblast, B cells, and T cells.
We also analyzed the correlation between TMB level and immune infiltrates to reflect the status of the TIME in ACC. In this study, infiltration levels of naive B cells and activated NK cells in the low TMB group were higher, while activated memory CD4+ T cells showed a higher infiltration level in the high TMB group. The possible reason is that the increased amount of neoantigens caused by genomic mutation promoted the immune activation and recognition of memory CD4+ T cells. It has been shown that CD4+ TILs were extraordinarily associated with antigen processing, and the infiltration of memory T cells was involved in the prognosis of multiple malignancies [53-54]. Activated memory CD4+ T cells, which were stimulated by the proliferation of inactive ones, were able to release inflammatory cytokines, thereby promoting tumor growth and accelerating tumor metastasis [55]. These findings verified that immune cells played an extremely important role in antitumor immunity in ACC patients. The identification of effective immunological biomarkers can help to avoid immunotherapy resistance and improve the therapeutic effect, and would become a novel promising therapeutic strategy for ACC patients.
Finally, a new risk score signature containing six core genes was established and its predictive value for ACC was assessed with AUC. It was found that ACC patients with high TMBPS had a poor prognosis than those with low TMBPS. Our results were validated in the other three independent ACC patient cohorts retrieved from the GEO database. Therefore, we confirmed the superiority and effectiveness of our risk signature for the diagnosis and treatment of ACC, and it was expected to be applied in clinical practice in the future.
5. Conclusions
In summary, we revealed a systematic landscape of TMB and identified a TMBPS combined with immune microenvironment infiltration in ACC. This paper will provide a reference for the development of ACC treatment strategies.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Fund Project (B2022332, B2020127) granted to Qingbiao Chen and Foshan Science and Technology Innovation Project (2020001005794) granted to Jingbo Lin.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interest.
References
1. J. Crona, F. Beuschlein, Adrenocortical carcinoma-towards genomics guided clinical care, Nat. Rev. Endocrinol., 15 (2019), 548-560. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0221-7
2. G. G. F. Ranvier, W. B. R. Inabnet, Surgical management of adrenocortical carcinoma, Endocrinol. Metab. Clin., 44 (2015), 435-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecl.2015.02.008
3. N. Georgantzoglou, S. Kokkali, G. Tsourouflis, S. Theocharis, Tumor microenvironment in adrenocortical carcinoma: Barrier to immunotherapy success, Cancers, 13 (2021), 1798. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081798
4. M. Fassnacht, S. Johanssen, M. Quinkler, P. Bucsky, H. S. Willenberg, F. Beuschlein, et al., Limited prognostic value of the 2004 international union against cancer staging classification for adrenocortical carcinoma: Proposal for a revised TNM classification, Cancer, 115 (2009), 243-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24030
5. G. Assié, A. Jouinot, M. Fassnacht, R. Libé, S. Garinet, L. Jacob, et al., Value of molecular classification for prognostic assessment of adrenocortical carcinoma, JAMA Oncol., 5 (2019), 1440-1447. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1558
6. P. Zhao, L. Li, X. Jiang, Q. Li, Mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high as a predictor for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy efficacy, J. Hematol. Oncol., 12 (2019), 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-019-0738-1
7. S. T. Paijens, A. Vledder, M. de Bruyn, H. W. Nijman, Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in t he immunotherapy era, Cell. Mol. Immunol., 18 (2021), 842-859. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41 423-020-00565-9
8. T. A. Chan, M. Yarchoan, E. Jaffee, C. Swanton, S. A. Quezada, A. Stenzinger, et al., Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: Utility for the oncology clinic, Ann. Oncol., 30 (2019), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy495
9. S. E. Stanton, M. L. Disis, Clinical significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer, J. Immunother. Cancer, 4 (2016), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-016-0165-6
10. R. M. Bremnes, L. Busund, T. L. Kilvær, S. Andersen, E. Richardsen, E. E. Paulsen, et al., The role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in development, progression, and prognosis of n on-small cell lung cancer, J. Thorac. Oncol., 11 (2016), 789-800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jt ho.2016.01.015
11. M. Poch, M. Hall, A. Joerger, K. Kodumudi, M. Beatty, P. P. Innamarato, et al., Expansion of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) from bladder cancer, Oncoimmunology, 7 (2018), e1476816. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2018.1476816
12. L. Ye, T. Zhang, Z. Kang, G. Guo, Y. Sun, K. Lin, et al., Tumor-infiltrating immune cells act as a marker for prognosis in colorectal cancer, Front. Immunol., 10 (2019), 2368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02368
13. X. Tian, W. Xu, Y. Wang, A. Anwaier, H. Wang, F. Wan, et al., Identification of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and prognostic validation of tumor-infiltrating mast cells in adrenocortical carcinoma: Results from bioinformatics and real-world data, Oncoimmunology, 9 (2020), 1784529. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2020.1784529
14. L. Fancello, S. Gandini, P. G. Pelicci, L. Mazzarella, Tumor mutational burden quantification from targeted gene panels: major advancements and challenges, J. Immunother. Cancer, 7 (2019), 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-019-0647-4
15. C. Luo, J. Chen, L. Chen, Exploration of gene expression profiles and immune microenvironment between high and low tumor mutation burden groups in prostate cancer, Int. Immunopharmacol., 86 (2020), 106709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106709
16. H. Zhou, L. Chen, Y. Lei, T. Li, H. Li, X. Cheng, Integrated analysis of tumor mutation burden and immune infiltrates in endometrial cancer, Curr. Probl. Cancer, 45 (2021), 100660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100660
17. N. A. Rizvi, M. D. Hellmann, A. Snyder, P. Kvistborg, V. Makarov, J. J. Havel, et al., Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer, Science, 348 (2015), 124-128. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1348
18. M. D. Hellmann, T. Ciuleanu, A. Pluzanski, J. S. Lee, G. A. Otterson, C. Audigier-Valette, et al., Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden, N. Engl. J. Med., 378 (2018), 2093-2104. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801946
19. M. D. Hellmann, M. K. Callahan, M. M. Awad, E. Calvo, P. A. Ascierto, A. Atmaca, et al., Tumor mutational burden and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and in combination with ipilimumab in small-cell lung cancer, Cancer Cell, 33 (2018), 853-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.04.001
20. C. Zhang, Z. Li, F. Qi, X. Hu, J. Luo, Exploration of the relationships between tumor mutation burden with immune infiltrates in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, Ann. Transl. Med., 7 (2019), 648. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.10.84
21. J. Yan, X. Wu, J. Yu, Y. Zhu, S. Cang, Prognostic role of tumor mutation burden combined with immune infiltrates in skin cutaneous melanoma based on multi-omics analysis, Front. Oncol., 10 (2020), 570654. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.570654
22. J. D. Wasserman, A. Novokmet, C. Eichler-Jonsson, R. C. Ribeiro, C. Rodriguez-Galindo, G. P. Zambetti, et al., Prevalence and functional consequence of TP53 mutations in pediatric adrenocortical carcinoma: A children’s oncology group study, J. Clin. Oncol., 33 (2015), 602-609. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.6863
23. N. Riaz, L. Morris, J. J. Havel, V. Makarov, A. Desrichard, T. A. Chan, The role of neoant igens in response to immune checkpoint blockade, Int. Immunol., 28 (2016), 411-419. https: //doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxw019
24. D. A. Braun, K. P. Burke, E. M. Van Allen, Genomic approaches to understanding response and resistance to immunotherapy, Clin. Cancer Res., 22 (2016), 5642-5650. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0066
25. A. Mayakonda, D. Lin, Y. Assenov, C. Plass, H. P. Koeffler, Maftools: Efficient and comprehensive analysis of somatic variants in cancer, Genome Res., 28 (2018), 1747-1756. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.239244.118
26. M. E. Ritchie, B. Phipson, D. Wu, Y. Hu, C. W. Law, W. Shi, et al., Limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies, Nucleic Acids Res., 43 (2015), e47. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv007
27. Gene Ontology Consortium, Gene Ontology Consortium: Going forward, Nucleic Acids Res., 43 (2015), D1049-D1056. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1179
28. G. Yu, L. Wang, Y. Han, Q. He, ClusterProfiler: An R package for comparing biological th emes among gene clusters, Omics: J. Integr. Biol., 16 (2012), 284-287. https://doi.org/10.10 89/omi.2011.0118
29. M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes, Nucleic Acids Res., 28 (2000), 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27
30. A. Subramanian, P. Tamayo, V. K. Mootha, S. Mukherjee, B. L. Ebert, M. A. Gillette, et al., Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102 (2005), 15545-15550. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506580102
31. K. A. Zalocusky, M. J. Kan, Z. Hu, P. Dunn, E. Thomson, J. Wiser, et al., The 10,000 immunomes project: Building a resource for human immunology, Cell Rep., 25 (2018), 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.09.021
32. B. Chen, M. S. Khodadoust, C. L. Liu, A. M. Newman, A. A. Alizadeh, Profiling tumor infiltrating immune cells with CIBERSORT, Methods Mol. Biol., 1711 (2018), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7493-1_12
33. Y. Ma, X. Feng, W. Yang, C. You, Exploring the pathological mechanism of bladder cancer based on tumor mutational burden analysis, Biomed. Res. Int., 2019 (2019), 1093815. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1093815
34. S. Turajlic, A. Sottoriva, T. Graham, C. Swanton, Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer, Nat. Rev. Genet., 20 (2019), 404-416. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0114-6
35. Y. Ino, R. Yamazaki-Itoh, K. Shimada, M. Iwasaki, T. Kosuge, Y. Kanai, et al., Immune cell infiltration as an indicator of the immune microenvironment of pancreatic cancer, Br. J. Cancer, 108 (2013), 914-923. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.32
36. M. V. Dieci, F. Miglietta, V. Guarneri, Immune infiltrates in breast cancer: Recent updates and clinical implications, Cells, 10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020223
37. X. Liu, S. Wu, Y. Yang, M. Zhao, G. Zhu, Z. Hou, The prognostic landscape of tumor-infiltrating immune cell and immunomodulators in lung cancer, Biomed. Pharmacother., 95 (2017), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.08.003
38. E. Billon, P. Finetti, A. Bertucci, P. Niccoli, D. Birnbaum, E. Mamessier, et al., PDL1 expression is associated with longer postoperative, survival in adrenocortical carcinoma, Oncoimmunology, 8 (2019), e1655362. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2019.1655362
39. C. Zhang, L. Shen, F. Qi, J. Wang, J. Luo, Multi-omics analysis of tumor mutation burden combined with immune infiltrates in bladder urothelial carcinoma, J. Cell. Physiol., 235 (2020), 3849-3863. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.29279
40. K. Sakai, M. Tsuboi, H. Kenmotsu, T. Yamanaka, T. Takahashi, K. Goto, et al., Tumor mutation burden as a biomarker for lung cancer patients treated with pemetrexed and cisplatin (the JIPANG-TR), Cancer Sci., 112 (2021), 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.14730
41. T. Jiang, J. Shi, Z. Dong, L. Hou, C. Zhao, X. Li, et al., Genomic landscape and its correlations with tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 expression, and immune cells infiltration in Chinese lung squamous cell carcinoma, J. Hematol. Oncol., 12 (2019), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-019-0762-1
42. A. Parrales, T. Iwakuma, Targeting oncogenic mutant p53 for cancer therapy, Front. Oncol., 5 (2015), 288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00288
43. M. Kanapathipillai, Treating p53 mutant aggregation-associated cancer, Cancers, 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10060154
44. A. Chassot, M. Le Rolle, M. Jourden, M. M. Taketo, N. B. Ghyselinck, M. Chaboissier, Constitutive WNT/CTNNB1 activation triggers spermatogonial stem cell proliferation and germ cell depletion, Dev. Biol., 426 (2017), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2017.04.010
45. D. Messerschmidt, W. N. de Vries, C. Lorthongpanich, S. Balu, D. Solter, B. B. Knowles, B-catenin-mediated adhesion is required for successful preimplantation mouse embryo development, Development, 143 (2016), 1993-1999. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.133439
46. S. Devarakonda, F. Rotolo, M. Tsao, I. Lanc, E. Brambilla, A. Masood, et al., Tumor mutation burden as a biomarker in resected non-small-cell lung cancer, J. Clin. Oncol., 36 (2018), 2995-3006. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.1963
47. X. Wang, M. Li, Correlate tumor mutation burden with immune signatures in human cancers, BMC Immunol., 20 (2019), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-018-0285-5
48. H. Kitao, M. Iimori, Y. Kataoka, T. Wakasa, E. Tokunaga, H. Saeki, et al., DNA replication stress and cancer chemotherapy, Cancer Sci., 109 (2018), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13455
49. S. Zheng, A. D. Cherniack, N. Dewal, R. A. Moffitt, L. Danilova, B. A. Murray, et al., Comprehensive pan-genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma, Cancer Cell, 29 (2016), 723-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.002
50. M. Ingham, G. K. Schwartz, Cell-cycle therapeutics come of age, J. Clin. Oncol., 35 (2017), 2949-2959. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.0032
51. M. Zhu, W. Xu, C. Wei, J. Huang, J. Xu, Y. Zhang, et al., CCL14 serves as a novel prognostic factor and tumor suppressor of HCC by modulating cell cycle and promoting apoptosis, Cell Death Dis., 10 (2019), 796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-019-1966-6
52. L. Xu, W. Yu, H. Xiao, K. Lin, BIRC5 is a prognostic biomarker associated with tumor immune cell infiltration, Sci. Rep., 11 (2021), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79736-7
53. Y. Vahidi, Z. Faghih, A. Talei, M. Doroudchi, A. Ghaderi, Memory CD4(+) T cell subsets in tumor draining lymph nodes of breast cancer patients: A focus on T stem cell memory cells, Cell. Oncol., 41 (2018), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13402-017-0352-6
54. K. Hiraoka, M. Miyamoto, Y. Cho, M. Suzuoki, T. Oshikiri, Y. Nakakubo, et al., Concurrent infiltration by CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells is a favourable prognostic factor in non-small-cell lung carcinoma, Br. J. Cancer, 94 (2006), 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602934
55. L. E. Harrington, K. M. Janowski, J. R. Oliver, A. J. Zajac, C. T. Weaver, Memory CD4 T cells emerge from effector T-cell progenitors, Nature, 452 (2008), 356-360. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature06672
AIMS
AIMS Press
@2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)