Assessment of alterations in histone modification function and guidance for death risk prediction in cervical cancer patients

• Published in: Frontiers in genetics Vol. 13; p. 1013571
• Main Authors: Zhao, Tingting, Liu, Bairong, Zhang, Mengyuan, Li, Shiguo, Zhao, Can, Cheng, Li
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 19.09.2022
• Subjects: cervical cancer; Genetics; histone modification; prediction; prognosis; signature
• ISSN: 1664-8021; 1664-8021
• DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1013571

Background: Cervical cancer is the second most lethal malignancy among women, and histone modification plays a fundamental role in most biological processes, but the prognostic value of histone modification in cervical cancer has not been evaluated. Methods: A total of 594 cervical cancer patients from TCGA-CESC, GSE44001, and GSE52903 cohorts were enrolled in the current study, along with the corresponding clinicopathological features. Patients with a follow-up time less than one month were removed. A total of 122 histone modification-associated signaling pathways were obtained from the MSigDB. The activation scores of these pathways were evaluated using the “GSVA” package, differentially expressed genes were identified by the “limma” package, and pathway enrichment was conducted using the “clusterProfiler 4.0” package. The subsequent least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis was performed using the “glmnet” package, and a prognostic nomogram was established using the “regplot” package. For the prediction of potential therapeutic drugs, we used the data from GDSC2016 and visualized them via “MOVICS”. Results: Nine of 23 histone modification-associated prognostic genes were identified to construct the prognostic signature by LASSO analysis, named the histone modification-associated gene (HMAG) signature. Cervical patients with HMAG-H in TCGA-CESC cohort showed a 2.68-fold change of death risk, with the 95% CI from 1.533 to 4.671 ( p < 0.001), as well as the increased death risk of HMAG-H in the GSE44001 cohort (HR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.370–5.849, p = 0.005) and GSE44001 cohort (HR: 4.59, 95% CI: 1.658–12.697, p = 0.003). We observed the preferable AUC values of the HMAG signature in TCGA-CESC cohort (1-year: 0.719, 3-year: 0.741, and 5-year: 0.731) and GSE44001 cohort (1-year: 0.850, 3-year: 0.781, and 5-year: 0.755). The C-index of the nomogram showed a prognostic value as high as 0.890, while the C-index for age was only 0.562, and that for grade was only 0.542. Patients with high HMAG scores were more suitable for the treatment of CHIR-99021, embelin, FTI-277, JNK-9L, JQ12, midostaurin, PF-562271, pyrimethamine, and thapsigargin, and patients with low HMAG scores were more suitable for the treatment of BMS-536924, CP466722, crizotinib, PHA-665752, rapamycin, and TAE684. Conclusion: We comprehensively evaluated the histone modification status in cervical cancer patients and revealed histone modification-associated prognostic genes to construct the HMAG signature, aiming to provide a new insight into prognosis prediction and precise clinical treatment.