Back to all available

Investigation and validation of prognostic features associated with transient receptor potential channel genes in gastric cancer

biochemistry
bioinformatics
genomics
oncology

Abstract

Background. An increasing body of evidence suggests a potential association between Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) channels and cancer development, yet the prognostic value of TRGs in Gastric carcinoma (GC) has not been published.

Methods. Incorporating data from public databases TCGA-STAD, GSE84433, and TRGs, this study screened for prognostic genes related to TRP channels in GC and constructed a risk model. Furthermore, functional analysis, immune correlation analysis, and construction of molecular regulatory networks were conducted to further explore potential mechanisms related to GC prognosis. Finally, the expression of the prognostic genes was clinically authenticated by reverse transcription quantitative chain reaction (RT-qPCR).

Results: The study screened seven genes related to GC prognosis, namely HTR2C, MAGEA11, MAGEA3, ASPA, GAD1, HHIP, and AHNAK. A risk model constructed from these prognostic genes enables effective prediction of patient outcomes. Furthermore, a close association was observed between these prognostic genes and differential immune cells, such as the strongest negative correlation found between AHNAK and Tfh. Additionally, the prognostic genes are significantly negatively correlated with the immune checkpoint CD274 Lastly, complex regulatory relationships among prognostic genes were observed in the regulatory network . For example, EPB41L4A-AS1 and ERICD were found to regulate the expression of AHNAK via hsa-miR-106a-5p. Lastly, the expression validation results obtained via RT-qPCR established that the expression of MAGEA11 was congruent with the findings from public databases.

Conclusions: In this study, seven prognostic genes (HTR2C, MAGEA11, MAGEA3, ASPA, GAD1, HHIP, and AHNAK) related to TRP channels were identified in GC, providing insights into the prognostic mechanisms and personalized treatment of GC.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].