Comprehensively analysis of the FGD family with potential effects on prognosis and immune infiltration in lung adenocarcinoma
Liangyu Zhang,Fengqiang Yu,Maohao Guan,Xuan Huang,Nanlong Lin,Fei He,Fancai Lai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2529550/v1
2023-01-01
Abstract:Abstract Background：The FGD family consists of six genes, namely FGD1/2/3/4/5/6. Their roles in lung adenocarcinoma have been unidentified. This research focused on determining the diagnostic efficacy, prognostic value, and immune-related functions of them in lung adenocarcinoma(LUAD). Methods：From the TCGA database, mRNA data for the FGD gene family and clinical data for the patients were obtained. Immunohistochemistry was performed to validate representative FGD gene’s expression. A relationship between the FGD genes and immune system molecules was examined using the TIMER and GEPIA databases, the ssGSEA and the MCPcounter methods. Clinical prognosis in LUAD were analyzed by searching for TCGA, KMplotter and GEPIA databases. The TIDE algorithm, TCIA, KMplotter, ROCplotter and ICBatlas databases were used to analyze the value of FGD2 in predicting the efficacy of immunotherapy. TIGER database was used to analyze single-cell RNA-sequencing data. The immune-related prognostic model was constructed using 3 machine learning algorithms: K-means clustering, LASSO regression, and WGCNA analysis. Results: All the six FGD genes’ protein and mRNA were aberrant expressed in the tissues of LUAD in contrast to healthy ones, and our external experiment confirmed FGD2’s expression pattern. Low expression of FGD2, 3, 5 resulted in a shorter OS time and were determined as independent prognostic factors via multivariate analyses. FGD2, 3, 5 were markedly linked to immune infiltration while FGD1, 4, 6 were not. Sc-RNA sequencing analysis indicating that FGD2, 3, 5 were mainly expressed in immunocytes. NSCLC patients with higher FGD2 may more responsive to ICB therapy. The functions of FGD2, 3, 5 and FGD1, 4, 6 in LUAD are heterogeneous, and patients can be separated in to two groups based on these six FGDs’ expression. A prognostic model constructed by immune-related DEGs between these two groups had good predictive value in one training set and 4 testing sets. Conclusions: FGD2, FGD3 and FGD5 can be used as diagnostic, prognostic, and immune-implicated biomarkesr for patients with LUAD and FGD2 may help to predict the ICB therapy efficacy. The immune-related prognostic model had satisfactory predictive value.