Research Paper Volume 16, Issue 4 pp 3554—3582

Figure 4. Construction of cuproptosis signatures. (A) Unsupervised clustering of overlapping cuproptosis regulation patterns-related DEGs to classify patients into different genomic subtypes (cuproptosis gene clusters A, B, and C). The cupcluster, genecluster, gender, age, molecular subtypes, and survival status were used as patient annotations. (B) Kaplan-Meier plotter was used to estimate the survival of patients in the cuproptosis gene clusters. (p < 0.001, Log-rank test). (C) Differential expression of cuproptosis regulators in three gene cluster. Significant results are indicated as ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, and ^***p < 0.001. (D) Correlation analysis of CupScore and other known gene signatures using Spearman analysis. (E) Differences in stroma-activated pathways between high- and low-CupScore groups. (F) Alluvial diagram showing the changes of cuproptosis clusters, molecular subtypes, gene cluster and CupScore. (G) Differences in CupScore among three cuproptosis regulation patterns in merge cohort (P < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). (H) Differences in CupScore among three gene clusters in merge cohort (P < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test).