A New CCCH-type Zinc Finger-Related Lncrna Signature Predicts the Prognosis of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients
Cheng Shen,Zhan Chen,Jie Jiang,Yong Zhang,Wei Xu,Rui Peng,Wenjing Zuo,Qian Jiang,Yihui Fan,Xingxing Fang,Bing Zheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1034567
IF: 3.7
2022-01-01
Frontiers in Genetics
Abstract:Background: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the main component of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and advanced ccRCC frequently indicates a poor prognosis. The significance of the CCCH-type zinc finger (CTZF) gene in cancer has been increasingly demonstrated during the past few years. According to studies, targeted radical therapy for cancer treatment may be a revolutionary therapeutic approach. Both lncRNAs and CCCH-type zinc finger genes are essential in ccRCC. However, the predictive role of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) associated with the CCCH-type zinc finger gene in ccRCC needs further elucidation. This study aims to predict patient prognosis and investigate the immunological profile of ccRCC patients using CCCH-type zinc finger-associated lncRNAs (CTZFLs). Methods: From the Cancer Genome Atlas database, RNA-seq and corresponding clinical and prognostic data of ccRCC patients were downloaded. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to acquire CTZFLs for constructing prediction models. The risk model was verified using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the overall survival (OS) of high-risk and low-risk groups. Multivariate Cox and stratified analyses were used to assess the prognostic value of the predictive feature in the entire cohort and different subgroups. In addition, the relationship between risk scores, immunological status, and treatment response was studied. Results: We constructed a signature consisting of eight CTZFLs (LINC02100, AC002451.1, DBH-AS1, AC105105.3, AL357140.2, LINC00460, DLGAP1-AS2, AL162377.1). The results demonstrated that the prognosis of ccRCC patients was independently predicted by CTZFLs signature and that the prognosis of high-risk groups was poorer than that of the lower group. CTZFLs markers had the highest diagnostic adequacy compared to single clinicopathologic factors, and their AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.806. The overall survival of high-risk groups was shorter than that of low-risk groups when patients were divided into groups based on several clinicopathologic factors. There were substantial differences in immunological function, immune cell score, and immune checkpoint expression between high- and low-risk groups. Additionally, Four agents, including ABT737, WIKI4, afuresertib, and GNE 317, were more sensitive in the high-risk group. Conclusion: The Eight-CTZFLs prognostic signature may be a helpful prognostic indicator and may help with medication selection for clear cell renal cell carcinoma.