Original Article

Identification of Family with Sequence Similarity 110 Member C (FAM110C) as a Candidate Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Glioma

Abstract

Background: Gliomas are the most frequent and dangerous primary cerebral tumors. Therefore, there is a need to develop molecular targets for the diagnosis and treatment for glioma.

Methods: In September 2020, we retrieved the expression matrix of glioblastoma (GBM) sufferers and pertinent clinical data from the TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) database. Prognostic differences between various families with sequence similarity 110 member C (FAM110C) expression groups were assessed by Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test. The R platform get used to assess the accuracy of FAM110C delivery in predicting the prognosis of PDAC using a time-dependent receptor operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The delivery level of FAM110C was determined by qRT-PCR and western blot. Gene set enrichment investigated possible mechanisms between different FAM110C expression groups in GBM (GSEA). The impact of FAM110C on glioma cell movement was discovered using migration test. The drug's gene-targeting impact was validated by the CCK8 test.

Results: A total of 173 GBM samples were obtained from the TCGA database, with 148 including information on IDH1 mutations and 151 containing information on overall survival. The mRNA expression level of FAM110C was greater in wild-type GBM, according to qRT-PCR data. The connection between FAM110C expression and Hallmark, GO, and KEGG pathway gene sets was investigated using GSEA software. We used migration test to assess the impact of FAM110C on glioma motility in order to confirm the findings of the GSEA analysis.

Conclusion: FAM110C might get used as a possible diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for wild-type GBM, and its inhibition could be used to prevention and treatment wild-type GBM.

 

1. Ostrom QT, Bauchet L, Davis FG, et al (2014). The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a "state of the science" review. Neuro Oncol, 16(7):896–913.
2. Wen PY, Kesari S (2018). Malignant gliomas in adults. N Engl J Med, 359(5):492–507.
3. Nagarajan RP, Costello JF (2009). Epigenet-ic mechanisms in glioblastoma multi-forme. Semin Cancer Biol, 19(3):188–197.
4. Jhaveri N, Chen TC, Hofman FM (2016). Tumor vasculature and glioma stem cells: contributions to glioma progres-sion. Cancer Lett, 380(2):545–551.
5. Nutt CL, Mani DR, Betensky RA, et al (2003). Gene expressionbased classifica-tion of malignant gliomas correlates better with survival than histological classification. Cancer Res, 63(7):1602–1607.
6. Park YW, Kim S, Han K, et al (2023). Re-thinking extent of resection of contrast-enhancing and non-enhancing tumor: different survival impacts on adult-type diffuse gliomas in 2021 World Health Organization classification. Eur Radiol, Aug 23.
7. Hussein AA, Forouzanfar T, Bloemena E, et al (2018). A review of the most prom-ising biomarkers for early diagnosis and prognosis prediction of tongue squa-mous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer, 119(6):724–36.
8. Crocetti E, Trama A, Stiller C, et al (2012). Epidemiology of glial and non-glial brain tumours in Europe. Eur J Cancer, 48(10):1532–1542.
9. Bhatt AN, Mathur R, Farooque A, Verma A, Dwarakanath BS (2010). Cancer bi-omarkers—current perspectives. Indian J Med Res, 132:129–149.
10. Comabella M, Montalban X (2014). Body fluid biomarkers in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol, 13(1):113–126.
11. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, et al (2005). Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge‐based approach for inter-preting genome‐wide expression pro-files. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 102(43):15545‐15550.
12. Liberzon A, Birger C, Thorvaldsdottir H, Ghandi M, Mesirov JP, Tamayo P (2015). The Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst, 1(6):417‐425.
13. Mootha VK, Lindgren CM, Eriksson KF, et al (2003). PGC‐1alpha‐responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in hu-man diabetes. Nat Genet, 34(3):267‐273.
14. Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, et al (2006). The Connectivity Map: using gene‐expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science, 313(5795):1929‐1935.
15. Lamb J (2007). The Connectivity Map: a new tool for biomedical research. Nat Rev Cancer, 7(1):54‐60.
16. Zhu P, Du XL, Lu G, Zhu JJ (2017). Survival benefit of glioblastoma patients after FDA approval of temozolomide con-comitant with radiation and bevaci-zumab: apopulation-based study. Oncotar-get, 8(27):44015–31.
17. Teunissen CE, Malekzadeh A, Leurs C, Bridel C, Killestein J (2015). Body fluid biomarkers for multiple sclerosis—the long road to clinical application. Nat Rev Neurol, 11(10):585–596.
18. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al (2015). STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem, 61:1446–1452.
19. Yu X, Li Z (2016). MicroRNA expression and its implications for diagnosis and therapy of tongue squamous cell carci-noma. J Cell Mol Med, 20(1):10–16.
20. Krueger DA, Care MM, Holland K, et al (2010). Everolimus for Subependymal Giant-Cell Astrocytomas in Tuberous Sclerosis. N Engl J Med, 363(19):1801–1811.
21. Aldape KD (2014). American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 50th Annual Meeting May 30-June 3. Chicago, IL: Im-pact of Molecular Signatures on Clinical Outcome.
22. Della Puppa A, Rossetto M, Ciccarino P, Del Moro G, Rotilio A, Manara R, et al (2010). The first 3 months after BCNU wafers implantation in high-grade glio-ma patients: clinical and radiological considerations on a clinical series. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 152(11):1923–31.
23. Ulmer S, Spalek K, Nabavi A, et al (2012). Temporal changes in magnetic reso-nance imaging characteristics of Gliadel wafers and of the adjacent brain paren-chyma. Neuro Oncol, 14(4):482–90.
24. Colen RR, Zinn PO, Hazany S, et al (2011). Magnetic resonance imaging appear-ance and changes on intracavitary Gli-adel wafer placement: a pilot study. World J Radiol, 3(11):266–72.
25. Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, Vevea JM, Brady TJ (1990). Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med, 14(2):249–65.
26. Villringer A, Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, et al (1988). Dynamic imaging with lantha-nide chelates in normal brain: contrast due to magnetic susceptibility effects. Magn Reson Med, 6(2):164–74.
27. Huang RY, Neagu MR, Reardon DA, Wen PY (2015). Pitfalls in the neuroimaging of glioblastoma in the era of antiangio-genic and immuno/targeted therapy - detecting illusive disease, defining re-sponse. Front Neurol, 6:33.
Files
IssueVol 52 No 10 (2023) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v52i10.13850
Keywords
Glioma Biomarkers Molecular targets Prognosis
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Ren D, Zhuang X, Lv Y, Zhang Y, Xu J, Gao F, Chen D, Wang Y. Identification of Family with Sequence Similarity 110 Member C (FAM110C) as a Candidate Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Glioma. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(10):2117-2127.