Development and Validation of a Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation-Related Gene Signature as Prognostic Biomarker for Low-Grade Gliomas

Ning, Lidong; Zhao, Guanyan; Xie, Changji; Lan, Huan; Chen, Jiefei; Tan, Hu; Wei, ChengCong; Zhou, Zhiyu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1487165

Disease Markers

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

The Relationship Between Oral and Systemic Diseases

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1487165 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1487165

Development and Validation of a Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation-Related Gene Signature as Prognostic Biomarker for Low-Grade Gliomas

Lidong Ning,¹Guanyan Zhao,¹Changji Xie,¹Huan Lan,¹Jiefei Chen,¹Hu Tan,¹ChengCong Wei,¹and Zhiyu Zhou¹

Academic Editor: Simin Li

Received14 Jul 2022

Revised29 Aug 2022

Accepted13 Sept 2022

Published23 Sept 2022

Abstract

Aim. To explore whether the liquid-liquid phase separation- (LLPS-) related genes were potential prognostic markers that could contribute to the further classification of low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Methods. The LLPS-related genes were subjected to functional enrichment analysis. The univariable, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and multivariable stepwise Cox regression analyses were performed to develop an LLPS-related gene signature (GS) in the discovery data set. The biological characteristics of the high-risk LGG were explored using gene set enrichment analysis. Two independent external data sets were used to validate the LLPS-related GS. Results. LLPS-related genes are involved in multiple important cancer-related biological processes and pathways in LGG. Nine LLPS-related genes were identified to construct the LLPS-related GS, which was significantly associated with the prognosis of LGG patients. The LLPS-related GS could successfully divide patients with LGG into high- and low-risk groups, and the high-risk group showed a poorer prognosis than the low-risk group. Furthermore, the LLPS-related GS was independent of IDH and 1p19q status. Several cancer-related pathways may be more active in high-risk LGGs, such as IL6 JAK STAT3 signaling pathway. The LLPS-related GS was successfully validated with two independent external data sets. Conclusion. We developed and validated a novel LLPS-related GS for risk stratification of LGG. Our findings may provide more precise management for LGGs and a useful reference for LLPS mechanism to link LGG studies.

1. Introduction

Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) account for 10–20% of all primary brain tumors [1]. Following the identification of key molecular alterations (e.g., IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion) [2, 3] of LGG, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated the central nervous system (CNS) tumor classification in 2016 [4], and the understanding of LGG behavior has rapidly evolved. Although the conventional WHO grade of I–IV still remains, the term of LGG is now often used to refer to both grade II and III gliomas. Nonetheless, LGG remains a highly heterogeneous disease [5]. Hence, there is much interest in finding other molecular signatures for further classification for identifying the ideal management of LGG.

In the conventional WHO grading system, the morphology of the nucleoli of tumor cells is one of the critical bases. Nucleoli, like other membraneless condensates inside eukaryotic cells, are mainly formed through a liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) mechanism [6]. The LLPS represents the dynamic concentration of biomolecules from a homogeneous environment into a relatively dense phase to form a sparse phase and a dense phase [7]. The proteins involved in LLPS aggregates usually have intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs). These IDRs may mediate weak affinity and nonspecific interactions of multiple targets to trigger LLPS [8–10]. Various critical biological processes, including chromatin organization, transcription, autophagy, DNA damage response, and tumorigenesis, have been reported to use LLPS to generate the corresponding membraneless condensates and play their specific functions [11–13]. It was shown that the aberration of liquid-liquid phase separation involves in many human diseases, including neurodegenerative diseases [14] and cancer [15]. Previous studies suggested that LLPS-related gene signature can be used as a prognostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma [16] and ovarian cancer [17]. Thus, we hypothesized that LLPS-related genes may be potential prognostic markers that could contribute to the further classification of LGG. In the present study, to confirm our hypothesis, we developed an LLPS-related gene signature independent of known features to identify high-risk LGG.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Processing

The gene expression profiles and clinical information of LGG were downloaded from the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (http://www.cgga.org.cn/) [18]. This study included three data sets, namely, mRNAseq_693, mRNAseq_325, and mRNA-array_301. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the sample included both gene expression profiles and prognosis information, and (2) the sample was primary LGG (WHO grade II and III glioma). The processed gene expression profiles based on RNA-sequencing technology were normalized used log2 (expression ). The LLPS-related genes were obtained from LLPSDB v2.0 [19], and the only the unambiguous genes were included in our present study. As all data of the present are publicly available, ethical approval from the ethics committee of National Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region was not necessary for the present study. The workflow of the present study is shown Figure 1.

2.2. Functional Enrichment Analysis

The 131 genes both in the unambiguous system of LLPSDB v2.0 and mRNAseq_693 data set were identified and performed to functional enrichment analysis. This would help us understand the potential biological functions of LLPS-related genes. The functional enrichment analysis was performed using the clusterProfiler [20] package.

2.3. Development of an LLPS-Related Gene Signature for Risk Stratification

Firstly, the univariable Cox regression analysis was performed for screening the prognosis-related genes. Secondly, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression was performed for variable selection and shrinkage using glmnet [21] package. The LASSO Cox regression can select the features with a strong predictive value and low correlation between each other to prevent overfitting. In the LASSO analysis, the relevant parameters were set to “,” “,” and “.” Thirdly, the multivariable stepwise Cox regression analysis was applied to develop the LLPS-related gene signature (GS). The LLPS-related GS score for each individual was calculated using the following formula: .

The prognostic value of the LLPS-related GS score was evaluated using the univariable Cox regression and time-dependent ROC (tROC) curve analysis. The patients with LGG were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups according to the best cutoff, which was identified using the survminer package (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survminer). The prognostic value of the novel risk stratification system and other known prognostic features were included in multivariable Cox regression analysis to confirm whether it is an independent prognostic factor.

2.4. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA)

The GSEA [22, 23] was performed to preliminarily reveal the biological mechanism underlying high-risk LGG. Hallmark gene sets [24] and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) [25] canonical pathway gene sets were used as reference gene sets. Gene sets with false discovery were considered significant enrichment. The GSEA was performed using the GSEA Java software.

2.5. Validation of the LLPS-Related GS

The patients of LGG from data sets of mRNAseq_325 and mRNA-array_301 were used as the test sets to validate the LLPS-related GS. Each patient was assigned an LLPS-related GS score according to the above formula. Then, the patients were divided into low- or high-risk groups based on to the best cutoff.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All these analyses were performed using R (version 4.0.2) software (https://www.r-project.org/). The overall survival (OS) between the low- and high-risk groups were compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve with log-rank method. We considered values < 0.05 to be statistically significant, unless otherwise stated.

3. Results

3.1. LLPS-Related Genes Are Involved in Multiple Important Biological Processes and Pathways

The results of functional enrichment analysis indicated that the 131 LLPS-related genes are involved in multiple important biological processes and pathways. In the cellular component perspective (Figure 2(a)), the LLPS-related genes were significantly involved in cytoplasmic ribonucleoprotein granule, ribonucleoprotein granule, and cytoplasmic stress granule. In the biological process perspective (Figure 2(b)), the LLPS-related genes were significantly involved in RNA metabolic- and cell cycle-related processes. Molecular functions of the LLPS-related genes include but are not limited to transcription coregulator activity, modification-dependent protein binding, and ubiquitin-like protein ligase binding (Figure 2(c)). The LLPS-related genes involve in multiple cancer-related pathways (Figure 2(d)), such as FGFR2 alternative splicing and mRNA splicing.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.2. LLPS-Related GS as a Novel and Independent Risk Stratification System for LGG

A total of 271 patients with LGG from mRNAseq_693 data set were included in the development of the LLPS-related GS according to our inclusion criteria. In the univariable Cox regression analysis, thirty-seven LLPS-related genes were considered prognosis-related genes (Table 1). Thirteen LLPS-related genes were identified as nonzero features in the LASSO Cox regression (Table 1 and Figure 3(a)). Finally, nine LLPS-related genes (ABL1, AR, CDK1, DAXX, ELN, KMT2D, POU5F1, SH3KBP1, and SYN1) were identified and used to construct the LLPS-related GS through the multivariable stepwise Cox regression analysis (Table 1). The LLPS-related GS was significantly associated with prognosis (hazard ratio , 95% confidence interval (CI) for , ). The tROC curve analysis indicated that the LLPS-related GS may possess a high prognostic value with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.756, 0.793, and 0.775 for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (Figure 3(b)). The high-risk patients had significantly shorter OS than the low-risk patients (Figure 3(c)). Furthermore, compared to some other known prognostic factors, the novel risk stratification based on the LLPS-related GS remained a significant prognostic factor (Figure 3(d)). Moreover, the LLPS-related GS could identify high-risk IDH-mutant LGGs (Figure 4). This suggested that our LLPS-related GS could further risk stratifying IDH-mutant LGGs.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3

The development of the liquid-liquid phase separation- (LLPS-) related gene signature (GS) in the mRNAseq_693 data sets. (a) Thirteen genes were identified using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression analysis. (b) The time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. (c) The patients with high LLPS-related GS score had significantly shorter overall survival than those with low LLPS-related GS score. (d) The LLPS-related GS-based risk stratification is a prognostic factor independent of routine clinicopathological characteristics.

3.3. High-Risk LGG-Specific Gene Sets

GSEA showed that the hallmark gene set of “angiogenesis,” “epithelial mesenchymal transition,” “IL6 JAK STAT3 signaling,” “inflammatory response,” and “interferon gamma response” is significantly enriched in the high-risk LGGs (Figure 5(a)). Several cancer-related pathways may be more active in high-risk LGGs (Figure 5(b)), such as IL6 JAK STAT3 signaling pathway and ECM receptor interaction.

(a)

(b)

3.4. The LLPS-Related GS Was Confirmed in Two Independent External Data Sets

In the data set of mRNAseq_325, 137 patients with LGG were included and validated the LLPS-related GS with , 95% CI for , and . The tROC curve analysis obtained an AUC of 0.817, 0.845, and 0.834 for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (Figure 6(a)). The high-risk patients had significantly shorter OS than the low-risk patients (Figure 6(b)). In the data set of mRNA-array_301, 140 patients with LGG were included and validated the LLPS-related GS with , 95% CI for , and . The tROC curve analysis obtained an AUC of 0.711, 0.659, and 0.618 for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (Figure 6(c)). The high-risk patients had significantly shorter OS than the low-risk patients (Figure 6(d)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

4. Discussion

Prediction of prognosis in gliomas was considered much more challenging than with other malignancies. Signs or biomarkers of progression in other malignancies, such as serum CEA and CA199 in colorectal cancer [26], are not present in gliomas. Several clinicopathological features have been considered demonstrating a “higher risk” for progression and poorer prognosis in various studies, including years, tumor cm, neurological deficits prior to surgery, and tumor that crosses the midline [27, 28]. In recent years, molecular features have been found more reliable than these routine prognostic features. For instance, the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation has been recognized to be correlated to a better prognosis in LGG [29]. The 1p19q codeletion predicts a longer progression-free survival and overall survival [30, 31]. In our present study, we developed and validated a novel molecular signature for predicting the prognosis of LGG. The LLPS-related GS was also independent to IDH and 1p19q status, which can provide more precise management for IDH-mutant or 1p19q codeletion LGGs.

LLPS has emerged as a novel concept to elaborate the organization of living cells [6]. The potential prognostic value of LLPS-related molecular has also received increasing attention. Qiu et al. constructed a LLPS-related GS as a prognostic tool for epithelial ovarian cancer [17]. Our analysis might firstly develop the novel LLPS-related GS for predicting the prognosis of LGG. The LLPS-related GS was constructed using nine genes (ABL1, AR, CDK1, DAXX, ELN, KMT2D, POU5F1, SH3KBP1, and SYN1). Actually, functional studies of these nine genes in LGG are few. This suggests that it is helpful for our discovery of candidate key molecules of LGG from the perspective of LLPS. The associations of these genes to other cancers may help us study their functions in LGG. It was reported that ABL1 promotes cancer cell growth, survival, adhesion, and migration depending on the cellular context [32]. AR has been found to be associated with the occurrence, progression, prognosis, and drug resistance of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer [33]. The upregulation of CDK1 can promote the growth and the proliferation of melanoma tumor cells [34]. SH3KBP1 was considered promoting glioblastoma tumorigenesis by activating EGFR signaling [35]. Deregulated expression of SYN1 may maintain a cancer stem-like phenotype that contributes to the development of gliomas [36]. POU5F1 was reported play a carcinogenic role in liver hepatocellular carcinoma [37]. Whether these genes affect the prognosis of LGG through a similar mechanism or just through the LLPS mechanism remains to be further investigated.

According to the results, the high-risk groups may have more active angiogenesis and may benefit from antiangiogenic treatment, such as bevacizumab [38]. We also found that the inflammatory response was more active in the high-risk LGG. Whether immunotherapy is more effective in these subgroups deserves further study [39]. We also found that other cancer-related pathways were enriched in the high-risk group. The more active epithelial-mesenchymal transition in the high-risk group may contribute to its biological behavior more similar to other cancers. Not surprisingly, we found case reports of patients benefiting from other unconventional treatments. Our analysis may provide a reference for the identification of these patients.

Although our present study may provide a new insight into the LLPS and LGG and the LLPS-related GS may improve the management of LGG, there were several notable limitations. Firstly, the LLPS-related GS was proposed based a retrospective study; it requires prospective studies to validate or even improve before going into clinical decision-making. Secondly, our study is mainly focused on Chinese LGG; whether the results are applicable to other races needs further study. Thirdly, molecular function experiments were lacking in the present study; thus, it remains elusive whether these LLPS-related genes are causal or merely prognostic markers in LGG.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, we developed and validated a novel LLPS-related GS for risk stratification of LGG. Our findings may provide more precise management for LGGs and a useful reference for LLPS mechanism to link LGG studies.

Data Availability

The raw analyses from this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Lidong Ning and Guanyan Zhao contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Chongzuo City Science and Technology Project (No. Chongke FA2020024) and the Self-Raised Scientific Research Funds of Medicine and Health of Guangxi Province (Grant No. Z20200879).

References

S. Kesari, D. Schiff, J. Drappatz et al., “Phase II study of protracted daily temozolomide for low-grade gliomas in adults,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 330–337, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, “Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 26, pp. 2481–2498, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Eckel-Passow, D. H. Lachance, A. M. Molinaro et al., “Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 26, pp. 2499–2508, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. N. Louis, A. Perry, G. Reifenberger et al., “The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary,” Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 803–820, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Tom, D. P. Cahill, J. C. Buckner, J. Dietrich, M. W. Parsons, and J. S. Yu, “Management for different glioma subtypes: are all low-grade gliomas created equal?” American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, vol. 39, pp. 133–145, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. P. Brangwynne, C. R. Eckmann, D. S. Courson et al., “Germline P granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation,” Science, vol. 324, no. 5935, pp. 1729–1732, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Xiao, C. K. McAtee, and X. Su, “Phase separation in immune signalling,” Nature Reviews. Immunology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 188–199, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. N. Uversky, “Intrinsically disordered proteins in overcrowded milieu: membrane-less organelles, phase separation, and intrinsic disorder,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 44, pp. 18–30, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. W. Pak, M. Kosno, A. S. Holehouse et al., “Sequence determinants of intracellular phase separation by complex coacervation of a disordered protein,” Molecular Cell, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 72–85, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Borcherds, A. Bremer, M. B. Borgia, and T. Mittag, “How do intrinsically disordered protein regions encode a driving force for liquid-liquid phase separation?” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 67, pp. 41–50, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Shin and C. P. Brangwynne, “Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease,” Science, vol. 357, no. 6357, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. Banani, H. O. Lee, A. A. Hyman, and M. K. Rosen, “Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry,” Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 285–298, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Nozawa, T. Yamamoto, M. Takahashi et al., “Nuclear microenvironment in cancer: control through liquid-liquid phase separation,” Cancer Science, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 3155–3163, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Murakami, S. Qamar, J. Q. Lin et al., “ALS/FTD mutation-induced phase transition of FUS liquid droplets and reversible hydrogels into irreversible hydrogels impairs RNP granule function,” Neuron, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 678–690, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Taniue and N. Akimitsu, “Aberrant phase separation and cancer,” The FEBS Journal, vol. 289, no. 1, pp. 17–39, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Fang, Z. Zhang, Z. J. Liang et al., “Liquid-liquid phase separation-related genes associated with tumor grade and prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: a bioinformatic study,” International Journal of General Medicine, vol. 14, pp. 9671–9679, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Qiu, M. Pan, and X. Chen, “A liquid-liquid phase separation-related gene signature as prognostic biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, article 671892, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhao, K. N. Zhang, Q. Wang et al., “Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA): a comprehensive resource with functional genomic data from Chinese glioma patients,” Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang, X. Zhou, Q. Yan et al., “LLPSDB v2.0: an updated database of proteins undergoing liquid-liquid phase separationin vitro,” Bioinformatics, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 2010–2014, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Wu, E. Hu, S. Xu et al., “clusterProfiler 4.0: a universal enrichment tool for interpreting omics data,” Innovation, vol. 2, no. 3, article 100141, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, “Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent,” Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 33, no. 1, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Subramanian, P. Tamayo, V. K. Mootha et al., “Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, no. 43, pp. 15545–15550, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. K. Mootha, C. M. Lindgren, K. F. Eriksson et al., “PGC-1α-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes,” Nature Genetics, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 267–273, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Liberzon, C. Birger, H. Thorvaldsdottir, M. Ghandi, J. P. Mesirov, and P. Tamayo, “The molecular signatures database hallmark gene set collection,” Cell Systems, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 417–425, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kanehisa and S. Goto, “KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27–30, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lakemeyer, S. Sander, M. Wittau, D. Henne-Bruns, M. Kornmann, and J. Lemke, “Diagnostic and prognostic value of CEA and CA19-9 in colorectal cancer,” Diseases, vol. 9, no. 1, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pignatti, M. van den Bent, D. Curran et al., “Prognostic factors for survival in adult patients with cerebral low-grade glioma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2076–2084, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Gorlia, W. Wu, M. Wang et al., “New validated prognostic models and prognostic calculators in patients with low-grade gliomas diagnosed by central pathology review: a pooled analysis of EORTC/RTOG/NCCTG phase III clinical trials,” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1568–1579, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Houillier, X. Wang, G. Kaloshi et al., “IDH1 or IDH2 mutations predict longer survival and response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas,” Neurology, vol. 75, no. 17, pp. 1560–1566, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. G. Baumert, M. E. Hegi, M. J. van den Bent et al., “Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1521–1532, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Smith, A. Perry, T. J. Borell et al., “Alterations of chromosome arms 1p and 19q as predictors of survival in oligodendrogliomas, astrocytomas, and mixed oligoastrocytomas,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 636–645, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang and A. M. Pendergast, “The emerging role of ABL kinases in solid tumors,” Trends in Cancer, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 110–123, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wu, K. Yu, Z. Lian, and S. Deng, “Molecular regulation of androgen receptors in major female reproductive system cancers,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 23, no. 14, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Ravindran Menon, Y. Luo, J. J. Arcaroli et al., “CDK1 interacts with sox 2 and promotes tumor initiation in human melanoma,” Cancer Research, vol. 78, no. 23, pp. 6561–6574, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Song, Y. Wang, C. Shi, J. Lu, T. Yuan, and X. Wang, “SH3KBP1 promotes glioblastoma tumorigenesis by activating EGFR signaling,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 10, article 583984, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yucebas, S. Yilmaz Susluer, H. Onur Caglar et al., “Expression profiling of RE1-silencing transcription factor (REST), REST corepressor 1 (RCOR1), and Synapsin 1 (SYN1) genes in human gliomas,” Journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 964–972, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
D. He, X. Zhang, and J. Tu, “Diagnostic significance and carcinogenic mechanism of pan-cancer gene POU5F1 in liver hepatocellular carcinoma,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 8782–8800, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Bartels, C. Hawkins, M. Jing et al., “Vascularity and angiogenesis as predictors of growth in optic pathway/hypothalamic gliomas,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 314–320, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Haddad, J. S. Young, J. Y. Oh, H. Okada, and M. K. Aghi, “The immunology of low-grade gliomas,” Neurosurgical Focus, vol. 52, no. 2, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Lidong Ning et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies