Abstract
Skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is a highly aggressive tumor. The mortality and drug resistance among it are high. Thus, exploring predictive biomarkers for prognosis has become a priority. We aimed to find immune cell-based biomarkers for survival prediction. Here 321 genes were differentially expressed in immune-related groups after ESTIMATE analysis and differential analysis. Two hundred nineteen of them were associated with the metastasis of SKCM via weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Twenty-six genes in this module were hub genes. Twelve of the 26 genes were related to overall survival in SKCM patients. After a multivariable Cox regression analysis, we obtained six of these genes (PLA2G2D, IKZF3, MS4A1, ZC3H12D, FCRL3, and P2RY10) that were independent prognostic signatures, and a survival model of them performed excellent predictive efficacy. The results revealed several essential genes that may act as significant prognostic factors of SKCM, which could deepen our understanding of the metastatic mechanisms and improve cancer treatment.
Introduction
Skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is a high-mortality-rate malignant tumor caused by abnormal melanocyte proliferation in neural crest cells (; ). According to the GLOBOCAN database (gco.iarc.fr), there were more than 200,000 new cases of SKCM over the world, and a quarter of them died in 2018 (). The leading cause of death from this cancer is the metastasis of multiple organs (Zhu et al., 2016). The mortality rate of SKCM patients was significantly higher than that of other malignant tumors (). Therefore, SKCM seriously threatens public health and has become one of the evilest tumors worldwide (). The risk factors of SKCM included atypical mole or dysplastic nevus patterns and increased mole count (). The treatment of the tumor microenvironment (TME) as a new treatment strategy has attracted public attention (). It is composed of numerous cell types and is involved in the occurrence and invasion of tumors (). With the development of tumor cytology and molecular biology, a deeper understanding of TME is essential to reveal improved immunotherapy (; ). An algorithm called ESTIMATE could estimate the abundance of immune cells according to the gene expression level of tissues (; ). Research shows that targeting stromal cells and connective tissue cells can be a new way to overcome drug resistance effectively ().
Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) is a computational method often used to explore the relationship between genes and clinical characteristics (; ). The significant dominance of WGCNA is to combine genes into co-expression modules and build the relationship between clinical traits and genes (). WGCNA could analyze a mass of genes and identify expression modules related to clinical features and critical genes for further verification (; ).
This study obtained several modules and hub genes with significant differences in tumor microenvironment based on WGCNA and identified potential biomarkers that can predict SKCM prognosis (Figure 1A).
FIGURE 1
Materials and Methods
Data Sources
Any ethical issue did not involve this study because it used public data which has already been published. We extracted the expression matrix of 473 SKCM patients and their clinical information from TGGA. Only 429 SKCM patients with complete overall survival information were selected. The clinical information of these patients (including gender, weight, pathologic stage, and so on) are shown in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1. The gene expression profiles were quantified by fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads and normalized through log2-based transformation. Besides that, the immune and stromal scores of each sample were calculated by the ESTIMATE analysis. The high-immune-score group represented the high proportion of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and the low-immune-score group represented conversely. The stromal score plays the same role but represents the stromal cell. An independent test dataset that contains 54 SKCM patients was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database.
TABLE 1
| Clinical and pathological indices | Case no. | OS (%) | P-valuea |
| Specimens | 429 | ||
| Mean age | 58 | ||
| Age (years) | <0.001 | ||
| ≤58 | 216 | 52.8 | |
| >58 | 213 | 54.5 | |
| Gender | 0.135 | ||
| Male | 266 | 49.2 | |
| Female | 163 | 60.7 | |
| pTNM stage | <0.001 | ||
| I | 114 | 47.4 | |
| II | 127 | 55.9 | |
| III | 166 | 56.0 | |
| IV | 22 | 54.5 | |
| Sample type | <0.001 | ||
| Metastatic | 349 | 48.9 | |
| Primary | 80 | 73.8 |
Clinicopathological characteristics of 429 skin cutaneous melanoma patients in The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset.
aLog-rank test using the Kaplan–Meier method. P < 0.05 was considered significant. OS, overall survival.
Differential Analysis
The patients were classified into high- or low-immune-score groups and stromal score groups based on the median score of the ESTIMATE analysis. Then, differential analyses were used to filter the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the high and low groups. Finally, the raw P-value was corrected by false discovery rate (FDR). The differential analysis was performed through the “limma” R package, and the threshold was FDR < 0.05 and | log2 FC| ≥ 1 (Supplementary Table 2).
Constructed WGCNA Network and Identified Modules
We performed WGCNA analysis on the immune-related DEGs by the “WGCNA” R package. First, the pickSoftThreshold function was used to select the soft threshold (power) to construct the non-scale network. In this study, the power was set at 10. Second, modules were detected by the hierarchical clustering function “blockwiseModules.” Then, the modules were associated with clinical characteristics by calculating gene significance (GS) and module membership (MM). Although a correlation between traits and modules has been found and the most relevant modules can be selected for analysis, the modules themselves still contain a large number of genes, so it is necessary to further search for the most important genes. All modules can be correlated with genes, and all continuous traits can also be correlated with gene expression levels. If genes significantly associated with traits are also significantly associated with a particular module, then those genes are likely to be crucial. Finally, the crucial genes in the candidate modules were filtered for further analysis. The cutoff for screening important genes was GS > 0.25 and MM > 0.8 ().
Enrichment Analysis
All the DEGs and candidate genes were subjected to an enrichment analysis using the “clusterProfile” R package (). The functional background datasets contained the Gene Ontology (GO) terms () and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways (). Functions with a FDR < 0.05 were selected for further discussion.
Validation of Candidate Genes
GEPIA1 was used to validate the immune-related DEGs. The web server collected the expression data of 9,736 tumor patients and 8,587 normal samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the GTEx projects. For the transcriptional level validation in SKCM, we set the criteria of significant results to | log2 FC| ≥ 0.585 and P < 0.05. We used the TIMER web server to verify whether the crucial genes are associated with the immune cell infiltrate levels.
Survival Analysis
Survival analysis was used to filter vital prognostic biomarkers through the “survival” R package. The signature was filtered as independent of other clinical features through multivariable Cox regression analysis. Then, the independent clinical genes were used to combine a new survival signature by the Cox regression model. The risk score was calculated by the expression of selected crucial genes, and correlation was estimated by Cox regression coefficients through the following formula:
Then, we performed an area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve index to explore the prognostic efficiency of this signature using the “pROC” R package. The OSskcm Tool, which combined the survival information of more than 1,000 SKCM patients, was used to test the prognostic ability of the candidate genes (). An independent test dataset that contains 54 SKCM patients was used to verify the prognostic efficacy of the survival model (GSE22153).
Results
Identification of Immune- and Stromal-Associated DEGs
After excluding the patients with no survival information, 429 qualified patients of the TCGA SKCM dataset were selected. Corresponding clinical traits that include overall survival information were also downloaded. Based on the ESTIMATE analysis results, we divided the SKCM patients into high- and low-immune-score or high- and low-stromal-score groups. Then, we identified DEGs between these high- and low-score groups. According to the immune scores, 321 genes were differentially expressed, including 316 up-regulated genes and five down-regulated genes (Figure 1B). Similarly, there were 205 DEGs based on stromal scores; interestingly, all of them are up-regulated (Figure 1C). We found no intersection between these immune-related DEGs and the stromal-related DEGs. It suggested that the two types of DEGs performed different functions in SKCM. Then, the heat maps hinted at the gene expression patterns of DEGs (Figures 2A,B), and it was found that the immune-related DEGs had better classification efficiency. Then, the enrichment results showed that the immune-related DEGs were mainly enriched in the chemokine signaling pathway, cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction, primary immunodeficiency (KEGG) (Figure 2C), lymphocyte-mediated immunity, T cell activation, and regulation of immune effector processes (GO terms) (Figure 2D). It showed that the results of the ESTIMATE analysis are credible. The stromal DEGs were mainly enriched in cytokine–cytokine receptor interactions, antigen processing and presentation, natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity (KEGG) (Figure 2E), regulation of inflammatory response, and cellular response to chemokine (GO terms) (Figure 2F). These results indicate that the DEGs we screened are closely related to the immune response in SKCM patients, which may be used as new biomarkers for SKCM. Because the immune-related DEGs had a better classification efficiency by the cluster analysis, we use the 321 immune-related DEGs for further analysis.
FIGURE 2
Identification of Gene Co-expression Modules That Associated With Clinical Traits
After differential analyses, we selected the 321 immune-related DEGs to build the gene co-expression network by WGCNA. The cutoff of soft power was set at 10 because it could make the scale-free topology model fit R2 reach 0.85, and the mean connectivity is less than 20. This indicates that we have built a scale-free network (Supplementary Figures 1A–D). Then, we set the minimum module size at 30 to filter the co-expression modules. Finally, turquoise and gray co-expression modules were built (Figure 3A). The heat map described the topological overlap matrix (TOM) of input genes and showed the relationship between the two modules (Supplementary Figure 1E). The results showed that the 321 immune-related DEGs were expressed in two patterns.
FIGURE 3
Identification of Crucial Modules
We calculated the relationship between the two modules and clinical traits (Supplementary Figures 1E,F) and then selected the essential genes. The results showed that the turquoise module, which contains 219 genes, was significantly associated with sample type (Figure 3B). Sample type stands for the primary tumor or the metastatic one. Based on the cutoff (GS > 0.25 and MM > 0.8), we identified 26 crucial genes out of the 219 turquoise module genes (Figure 3C). The enrichment result of the 26 genes showed that they were enriched in the primary immunodeficiency pathway and immune cell-associated signaling pathways. It suggested that these genes may play a crucial role in the metastasis of SKCM (Figure 3D).
Validation of the Crucial Candidate Genes
We used the GEPIA (see text footnote 1) database to screen the 26 candidate DEGs that were not only immune-related DEGs but also differentially expressed between SKCM patients and normal samples. This screening procedure can help us obtain the biomarkers with more potential for clinical application. Finally, we obtained 12 crucial genes that are differentially expressed in cancer patients compared with normal samples and correlated with the tumor immune microenvironment (Figure 4 and Table 2).
FIGURE 4
TABLE 2
| Gene symbol | Full title | Module membership in turquoise module | Gene significance | P-value of differential analysis | |
| High immune score vs. Low immune score | SKCM vs. normal | ||||
| PLA2G2D | Phospholipase A2 group IID | 0.896203345 | 0.320391963 | 2.74E–51 | 9.16E–64 |
| CD19 | CD19 molecule | 0.842601708 | 0.305343554 | 5.57E–35 | 5.81E–40 |
| IKZF3 | IKAROS family zinc finger 3 | 0.862856409 | 0.300451054 | 6.19E–44 | 9.03E–52 |
| MS4A1 | Membrane Spanning 4-Domains A1 | 0.857009326 | 0.294092449 | 3.77E–36 | 3.12E–32 |
| TMEM156 | Transmembrane Protein 156 | 0.920464075 | 0.290862446 | 5.28E–55 | 7.99E–40 |
| PLAC8 | Placenta associated 8 | 0.853632449 | 0.286478015 | 3.81E–45 | 2.47E–43 |
| ZC3H12D | Zinc finger CCCH-type containing 12D | 0.926001735 | 0.283865057 | 2.74E–58 | 0.0151 |
| FCRL3 | Fc receptor like 3 | 0.934510176 | 0.272729855 | 2.08E–51 | 5.46E–46 |
| TNFRSF13B | TNF receptor superfamily member 13B | 0.867106521 | 0.268605275 | 1.70E–43 | 7.14E–32 |
| P2RY10 | P2Y receptor family member 10 | 0.950493884 | 0.258242908 | 5.55E–55 | 2.55E–36 |
| PNOC | Prepronociceptin | 0.845668597 | 0.253861151 | 2.65E–38 | 2.06E–48 |
| FCRL5 | Fc receptor like 5 | 0.846566936 | 0.250761762 | 1.12E–37 | 3.66E–47 |
Basic information of the 12 crucial genes.
The Crucial Genes are Potential Prognostic Biomarkers
Then, all the 12 essential genes (PLA2G2D, IKZF3, FCRL3, FCRL5, PNOC, PLAC8, P2RY10, TMEM156, ZC3H12D, MS4A1, CD19, and TNFRSF13B) were tested by survival analysis. We divided the patients into high- or low-expression groups based on the median expression level of the genes and performed a survival test. It found that all of them have a good prognostic efficacy in SKCM (survival P < 0.05). Interestingly, all the 12 genes are protective factors (Figure 5). A test dataset including 1,085 SKCM patients in the OSskcm Tool also testified the prognostic ability of these candidate genes (Supplementary Figure 2A). Then, we performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis and found that six of these genes (PLA2G2D, IKZF3, MS4A1, ZC3H12D, FCRL3, and P2RY10) were independent prognostic signatures (Figure 6A). Next, we combined these genes into a Cox proportional hazard model to construct a survival signature (Signature-1). We explored the survival efficiency of Signature-1 (p < 0.05, Figure 6B). Then, an ROC analysis was used to compare the prognostic value between Signature-1 and TNM stage, and we found that Signature-1 had a better prognostic efficacy than the TNM stage (Figure 6C). Next, the test dataset that contained 54 SKCM patients was used to verify the efficacy of the signature, and the result showed that Signature-1 kept its prognostic value in the test dataset (Supplementary Figure 2B). All the results hinted that the six genes had an excellent prognostic efficacy in SKCM, and we developed a survival model associated with tumor microenvironment and metastasis which may be applied to the clinic.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
Discussion
Thousands of people worldwide suffer melanoma every year, and the number of SKCM is growing faster than any other type of malignancy. The numbers of research demonstrate the role of the immune cells on tumor cells, and the immune components in melanoma tissue can be used to evaluate the therapeutic and prognostic efficacy in melanoma (). Patients with primary tumors usually have higher than a 5-year survival rate (). Bioinformatics analysis is widely used in the discovery of various biomarkers (). Thus, obtaining predictive biomarkers for prognosis has become a priority.
WGCNA is an algorithm used to find crucial modules from a gene expression (). Candidate therapeutic biomarkers are identified based on the relationship between the modules and the phenotype. Here we constructed the co-expression modules via WGCNA using the DEGs in high-immune-score SKCM patients compared with low-immune-score SKCM patients. Then, we obtained 12 crucial genes associated with the metastasis of SKCM, and six of them were independent prognostic biomarkers. The survival model of the six genes had a good predictive efficacy. We also used the TIMER web to verify the association between the six genes and immune cells (Supplementary Figure 3); all of them are associated with immune cell infiltrate levels. In addition, FCRL3 can promote IL-10 expression in B cells through the SHP-1 and p38 MAPK signaling pathways and is highly expressed on CD4 + CD26- T cells (; ). IKZF3 is a predictor for survival in multiple myeloma stage III patients (). MS4A1 is associated with apoptosis of B-cell lymphoma Ramos cells (). P2RY10 has been reported to be a tumor microenvironment-associated gene and a potential diagnostic biomarker of metastatic melanoma (, ). PLA2G2D has been reported to moderate inflammation and could be a potential biomarker for treating inflammatory disorders (). ZC3H12D is associated with inflammation (). In SKCM, we first found that these crucial genes are involved in metastasis and perform similar functions in our WGCNA network. At the same time, they have a good prognostic efficacy. All of these genes have potential clinical applications as key prognostic biomarkers.
All in all, our findings may improve our fundamental knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of SKCM, and these prognostic biomarkers may improve the treatment of this cancer.
Conclusion
Firstly, we filtered the immune-associated DEGs by the ESTIMATE analysis and got a metastasis-associated module through WGCNA. We then obtained overlapping DEGs in SKCM patients compared with normal samples and in the immune microenvironment, and 12 genes were screened. Next, we used survival analysis to obtain crucial prognostic biomarkers, and six genes with independent prognostic efficacy were filtered. The results may be helpful for future studies concerning SKCM to find potential prognostic targets.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
YL, SL, and SH conceived and devised the study. YL and SL performed the bioinformatic and statistical analysis. ZG, WZ, PW, and YS found related data and analysis tools. YL, JH, and SH supervised the research and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict 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.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.687979/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Figure 1Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) in the study. (A,B) Topology of the co-expression network. (C,D) Scale-free topology based on the cutoff of power (power = 10). (E) Visualization of the WGCNA network. Heat map showing the TOM among all modules. (F) The clinical trait information of 429 skin cutaneous melanoma patients.
Supplementary Figure 2Test datasets were used to present the prognostic efficacy of six crucial genes. (A) Survival analysis of six crucial genes in a dataset of 1,085 SKCM patients. (B) A test dataset used to show the prognostic efficacy of Signature-1.
Supplementary Figure 3Correlation of six hub genes with immune infiltration in melanoma.
Footnotes
References
1
AwwadM. H. S.KriegsmannK.PlaumannJ.BennM.HillengassJ.RaabM. S.et al (2018). The prognostic and predictive value of IKZF1 and IKZF3 expression in T-cells in patients with multiple myeloma.Oncoimmunology7:e1486356. 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1486356
2
BalchC. M.GershenwaldJ. E.SoongS. J.ThompsonJ. F.AtkinsM. B.ByrdD. R.et al (2009). Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification.J. Clin. Oncol.276199–6206. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4799
3
BrayF.FerlayJ.SoerjomataramI.SiegelR. L.TorreL. A.JemalA. (2018). Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.CA Cancer J. Clin.68394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492
4
ChenS. T.GellerA. C.TsaoH. (2013). Update on the epidemiology of melanoma.Curr. Dermatol. Rep.224–34. 10.1007/s13671-012-0035-5
5
ChenY.LiaoL. D.WuZ. Y.YangQ.GuoJ. C.HeJ. Z.et al (2020). Identification of key genes by integrating DNA methylation and next-generation transcriptome sequencing for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Aging121332–1365. 10.18632/aging.102686
6
CuiX.LiuC. M.LiuQ. B. (2020). FCRL3 promotes IL-10 expression in B cells through the SHP-1 and p38 MAPK signaling pathways.Cell Biol. Int.44, 1811–1819. 10.1002/cbin.11373
7
DennisG.Jr.ShermanB. T.HosackD. A.YangJ.GaoW.LaneH. C.et al (2003). DAVID: database for annotation, visualization, and integrated discovery.Genome Biol.4:3.
8
EkwuemeD. U.GuyG. P.Jr.LiC.RimS. H.ParelkarP.ChenS. C. (2011). The health burden and economic costs of cutaneous melanoma mortality by race/ethnicity-United States, 2000 to 2006.J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.65(5 Suppl. 1), S133–S143. 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.04.036
9
GershenwaldJ. E.ScolyerR. A.HessK. R.SondakV. K.LongG. V.RossM. I.et al (2017). Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.CA Cancer J. Clin.67472–492. 10.3322/caac.21409
10
HanahanD.WeinbergR. A. (2000). The hallmarks of cancer.Cell10057–70. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9
11
HemminkiK.HuangW.SundquistJ.SundquistK.JiJ. (2020). Autoimmune diseases and hematological malignancies: exploring the underlying mechanisms from epidemiological evidence.Semin. Cancer Biol.64114–121. 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.06.005
12
HuangW. Q.YiK. H.LiZ.WangH.LiM. L.CaiL. L.et al (2018). DNA Methylation Profiling Reveals the Change of Inflammation-Associated ZC3H12D in Leukoaraiosis.Front. Aging Neurosci.10:143. 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00143
13
KanehisaM.FurumichiM.TanabeM.SatoY.MorishimaK. (2017). KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs.Nucleic Acids Res.45D353–D361. 10.1093/nar/gkw1092
14
KawabataK. C.EhataS.KomuroA.TakeuchiK.MiyazonoK. (2013). TGF-beta-induced apoptosis of B-cell lymphoma Ramos cells through reduction of MS4A1/CD20.Oncogene322096–2106. 10.1038/onc.2012.219
15
LadanyiA. (2015). Prognostic and predictive significance of immune cells infiltrating cutaneous melanoma.Pigment Cell Melanoma Res.28490–500. 10.1111/pcmr.12371
16
LangfelderP.HorvathS. (2008). WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis.BMC Bioinform.9:559. 10.1186/1471-2105-9-559
17
LiB.SeversonE.PignonJ. C.ZhaoH.LiT.NovakJ.et al (2016). Comprehensive analyses of tumor immunity: implications for cancer immunotherapy.Genome Biol.17:174. 10.1186/s13059-016-1028-7
18
LiG.QinZ.ChenZ.XieL.WangR.ZhaoH. (2017). Tumor microenvironment in treatment of glioma.Open Med.12247–251. 10.1515/med-2017-0035
19
LiangW.SunF.ZhaoY.ShanL.LouH. (2020). Identification of susceptibility modules and genes for cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients using WGCNA analysis.J. Diabetes Res.2020:4178639. 10.1155/2020/4178639
20
LuoZ.WangW.LiF.SongyangZ.FengX.XinC.et al (2019). Pan-cancer analysis identifies telomerase-associated signatures and cancer subtypes.Mol. Cancer18:106. 10.1186/s12943-019-1035-x
21
MikiY.YamamotoK.TaketomiY.SatoH.ShimoK.KobayashiT.et al (2013). Lymphoid tissue phospholipase A2 group IID resolves contact hypersensitivity by driving antiinflammatory lipid mediators.J. Exp. Med.2101217–1234. 10.1084/jem.20121887
22
QianJ.WangC.WangB.YangJ.WangY.LuoF.et al (2018). The IFN-gamma/PD-L1 axis between T cells and tumor microenvironment: hints for glioma anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.J. Neuroinflam.15:290. 10.1186/s12974-018-1330-2
23
RadulescuE.JaffeA. E.StraubR. E.ChenQ.ShinJ. H.HydeT. M.et al (2020). Identification and prioritization of gene sets associated with schizophrenia risk by co-expression network analysis in human brain.Mol. Psychiatry25791–804. 10.1038/s41380-018-0304-1
24
SiegelR. L.MillerK. D.JemalA. (2020). Cancer statistics, 2020.CA Cancer J. Clin.707–30. 10.3322/caac.21590
25
WangL. X.LiY.ChenG. Z. (2018). Network-based co-expression analysis for exploring the potential diagnostic biomarkers of metastatic melanoma.PLoS One13:e0190447. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190447
26
WangS.ZhengX.ChenX.ShiX.ChenS. (2020). Prognostic and predictive value of immune/stromal-related gene biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma.Oncol. Lett.20308–316. 10.3892/ol.2020.11574
27
WysockaM.KossenkovA. V.BenoitB. M.TroxelA. B.SingerE.SchafferA.et al (2014). CD164 and FCRL3 are highly expressed on CD4+CD26- T cells in Sezary syndrome patients.J. Invest. Dermatol.134229–236. 10.1038/jid.2013.279
28
YangL.SongX.GongT.JiangK.HouY.ChenT.et al (2018). Development a hyaluronic acid ion-pairing liposomal nanoparticle for enhancing anti-glioma efficacy by modulating glioma microenvironment.Drug Deliv.25388–397. 10.1080/10717544.2018.1431979
29
YoshiharaK.ShahmoradgoliM.MartinezE.VegesnaR.KimH.Torres-GarciaW.et al (2013). Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data.Nat. Commun.4:2612. 10.1038/ncomms3612
30
YuG.WangL. G.HanY.HeQ. Y. (2012). clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters.OMICS16284–287. 10.1089/omi.2011.0118
31
YuanY.ChenJ.WangJ.XuM.ZhangY.SunP.et al (2020). Identification hub genes in colorectal cancer by integrating weighted gene co-expression network analysis and clinical validation in vivo and vitro.Front. Oncol.10:638. 10.3389/fonc.2020.00638
32
ZhangL.WangQ.WangL.XieL.AnY.ZhangG.et al (2020). OSskcm: an online survival analysis webserver for skin cutaneous melanoma based on 1085 transcriptomic profiles.Cancer Cell Int.20:176. 10.1186/s12935-020-01262-3
33
ZhuZ.LiuW.GotliebV. (2016). The rapidly evolving therapies for advanced melanoma–Towards immunotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, and beyond.Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.9991–99. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.12.002
Summary
Keywords
skin cutaneous melanoma, immune microenvironment, WGCNA, metastasis, prognostic biomarkers
Citation
Li Y, Lyu S, Gao Z, Zha W, Wang P, Shan Y, He J and Huang S (2021) Identification of Potential Prognostic Biomarkers Associated With Cancerometastasis in Skin Cutaneous Melanoma. Front. Genet. 12:687979. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.687979
Received
30 March 2021
Accepted
18 June 2021
Published
21 July 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Suman Ghosal, National Institutes of Health (NIH), United States
Reviewed by
Jin Li, Harbin Medical University, China; Shaoli Das, National Institutes of Health (NIH), United States; Sourish Ghosh, National Institutes of Health (NIH), United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Li, Lyu, Gao, Zha, Wang, Shan, He and Huang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jianzhong He, hejizh2010@163.comSuyang Huang, hsy716@163.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Computational Genomics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.