Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Evaluation of Biomarkers in Glioma by Immunohistochemistry on Paraffin-Embedded 3D Glioma Neurosphere Cultures
Published on: January 9, 2019
Identification and validation of a novel robust glioblastoma prognosis model based on bioinformatics
Le Zhang1,2, Xiaoling Yan3, Yahong Wang4
1Clinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Background:
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a very common primary malignant tumor of the central nervous system (CNS). Aging, macrophage, autophagy, and methylation related genes are hypothesized to be crucial to its pathogenesis. In this study, we aimed to explore the role of these genes in the prognosis of GBM.
Methods:
The RNA sequence (RNA-seq) and clinical information were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas database (TCGA) and the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas database (CGGA). We performed univariate and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify risk signatures related to overall survival (OS). We further developed a nomogram to predict individual outcomes. In addition, the immune microenvironment was analyzed by CIBERSORT.
Results:
256 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained based on aging, macrophage, autophagy, and methylation related genes between GBM samples and normal tissues in TCGA-GBM cohort. We identified five optimal risk signatures with prognostic values in TCGA-GBM cohort and established a prognostic risk score model. The validity of the model was verified in the CGGA cohort and Huanhu cohort. Finally, we constructed a nomogram for clinical application by combining age, O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status, and risk score. Activated NK cells and resting mast cells were highly expressed and memory B cells, plasma cells, resting NK cells, M1 macrophages, and neutrophils exhibited low expression in the high-risk score group. GBM patients with a low-risk score had a higher Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) score. The risk score of hot tumors was higher than that of the cold tumors. Additionally, 29 genes involved in glucose and lipid metabolism were highly expressed with a high-risk score. 31 metabolism-related pathways were significantly different between high-risk and low-risk groups.
Conclusions:
We constructed and validated a novel prognostic model for GBM. Aging, macrophage, autophagy, and methylation related genes may serve as prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers. The model developed may assist in guiding treatment for GBM patients. Our research had great significance in accurately predicting the prognosis of GBM and may offer reference for immunotherapy decision for GBM patients.
