Research Paper Volume 15, Issue 14 pp 7098—7123
Comparative analyses of the prognosis, tumor immune microenvironment, and drug treatment response between left-sided and right-sided colon cancer by integrating scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data
- 1 Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology of Shaanxi Province, Northwest University, Xi’an, China
- 2 Key Laboratory of Resource Biology and Biotechnology in Western China, Ministry of Education, School of Life Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an, China
- 3 Shenzhen Nucleus Gene Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China
Received: February 8, 2023 Accepted: June 30, 2023 Published: July 21, 2023
https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.204894How to Cite
Copyright: © 2023 Cao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Background: In this study, we compared the prognosis, tumor immune microenvironment (TIM), and drug treatment response between left-sided (LCC) and right-sided (RCC) colon cancer to predict outcomes in patients with LCC and RCC.
Methods: Based on identified differentially expressed genes and using single-cell RNA sequencing data, we constructed and validated a prognostic model for LCC and RCC patients in the TCGA-COAD cohort and GSE103479 cohort. Moreover, we compared the differences of TIM characteristics and drug treatment response between LCC and RCC patients.
Results: We constructed and validated a five-gene prognostic model for LCC patients and a four-gene prognostic model for RCC patients, and both showed excellent performance. The RCC patients with higher risk scores were significantly associated with greater metastasis (P = 2.6×10-5), N stage (P = 0.012), advanced pathological stage (P = 1.4×10-4), and more stable microsatellite status (P = 0.007) but not T stage (P = 0.200). For LCC patients, the risk scores were not significantly associated with tumor stage and microsatellite status (P > 0.05). Additionally, immune infiltration by CD8 and regulatory T cells and M0, M1, and M2 macrophages differed significantly between LCC and RCC patients (P < 0.05). APC and TP53 mutations were significantly more common in LCC patients (P < 0.05). In contrast, KRAS, SYNE1, and MUC16 mutations were significantly more common in RCC patients (P < 0.05). In addition, tumor mutation burden values were significantly higher in RCC patients than in LCC patients (P = 5.9×10-8). Moreover, the expression of immune checkpoint targets was significantly higher in RCC patients than in LCC patients (P < 0.05), indicating that RCC patients maybe more sensitive to immunotherapy. However, LCC and RCC patients did not differ significantly in their sensitivity to eight selected chemicals or target drugs (P > 0.05). The average half-maximal inhibitory concentrations for camptothecin, teniposide, vinorelbine, and mitoxantrone were significantly lower in low-risk than in high-risk RCC patients (P < 0.05), indicating that the lower risk score of RCC patients, the more sensitive they were to these four drugs.
Conclusions: We investigated the differences in prognosis, TIM, and drug treatment response between LCC and RCC patients, which may contribute to accurate colon cancer prognosis and treatment of colon cancer.