Constructing and validating of m6a-related genes prognostic signature for stomach adenocarcinoma and immune infiltration: Potential biomarkers for predicting the overall survival
Jing Yang,Zixuan Wu,Xiaoxi Wu,Siya Chen,Xinhua Xia,Jianguo Zeng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1050288
2022-12-22
Abstract:Background: Stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) arises from the mutations of stomach cells and has poor overall survival. Chemotherapy is commonly indicated for patients with stomach cancer following surgical resection. The most prevalent alteration that affects cancer growth is N6-methyladenosine methylation (m6A), although the possible function of m6A in STAD prognosis is not recognized. Method: The research measured predictive FRGs in BLCA samples from the TCGA and GEO datasets. Data on the stemness indices (mRNAsi), gene mutations, copy number variations (CNV), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and corresponding clinical characteristics were obtained from TCGA and GEO. STAD from TCGA and GEO at 24 m6A was investigated. Lasso regression was used to construct the prediction model to assess the m6A prognostic signals in STAD. In addition, the correlation between m6a and immune infiltration in STAD patients was discussed using GSVA and ssGSEA analysis. Based on these genes, GO and KEGG analyses were performed to identify key biological functions and key pathways. Result: A significant relationship was discovered between numerous m6A clusters and the tumor immune microenvironment, as well as three m6A alteration patterns with different clinical outcomes. Furthermore, GSVA and ssGSEA showed that m6A clusters were significantly associated with immune infiltration in the STAD. The low-m6Ascore group had a lower immunotherapeutic response than the high-m6Ascore group. ICIs therapy was more effective in the group with a higher m6Ascore. Three writers (VIRMA, ZC3H13, and METTL3) showed significantly lower expression, whereas five authors (METTL14, METTL16, WTAP, RBM15, and RBM15B) showed considerably higher expression. Three readers (YTHDC2, YTHDF2, and LRPPRC) had higher levels of expression, whereas eleven readers (YTHDC1, YTHDF1, YTHDF3, HNRNPC, FMR1, HNRNPA2B1, IGFBP1, IGFBP2, IGFBP3, and RBMX) had lower levels. As can be observed, the various types of m6 encoders have varied ramifications for STAD control. Conclusion: STAD occurrence and progression are linked to m6A-genes. Corresponding prognostic models help forecast the prognosis of STAD patients. m6A-genes and associated immune cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment (TME) may serve as potential therapeutic targets in STAD, which requires further trials. In addition, the m6a-related gene signature offers a viable alternative to predict bladder cancer, and these m6A-genes show a prospective research area for STAD targeted treatment in the future.