Research Paper Volume 12, Issue 21 pp 22078—22094

Figure 5. Consensus clustering analysis shows two clusters of KIRP patients with differential prognosis. (A) Cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves for the consensus score (k = 2 to 9). (B) Relative change in area under the CDF curve for k = 2 to 7. (C) The tracking plot for k = 2 to 9. (D) Consensus clustering matrix for the optimal cluster number, k = 2. (E) Principal component analysis shows the gene expression differences between clusters 1 and 2. (F) Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis shows OS rates in cluster 1 and 2 KIRP patients. As shown, OS is significantly shorter for KIRP patients in cluster 2 compared to those in cluster 1. (G) The heatmap shows the expression of the three prognostic risk-related m6A methylation regulatory genes in cluster 1 and cluster 2 patients that were stratified according to the clinicopathological parameters, namely, survival status (alive or dead), age (>65 y or <65 y), gender (male or female), AJCC stages (stages I, II, III or IV), T stage (T1-T4), N stage (N0, N1 or N2), and M stage (M0 or M1). As shown, the expression of the three prognostic genes are significantly altered in cluster 1 and cluster 2 patients stratified based on the N stage, AJCC stage and the survival status. * P<0.05; ** P<0.01.