4.6 Article

The value of CEP55 gene as a diagnostic biomarker and independent prognostic factor in LUAD and LUSC

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233283

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the value of CEP55 as a diagnostic marker and independent prognostic factor in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), and to analyze its co-expression genes and related signaling pathways. Methods TCGA database and GEO database were used to analyze the expression of CEP55 in LUAD and LUSC compared with normal tissues. The co-expression genes of CEP55 in LUAD and LUSC were excavated by cBioPortal and enriched by KEGG and GO. Establishing Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the value of CEP55 as a diagnostic and prognostic factor. The association between CEP55 expression and the clinicopathological features was evaluated using chi(2) tests. ROC curves for diagnosis and prognosis detection were constructed. Prognostic values were analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Results Compared with normal lung tissues, CEP55 expression was significantly upregulated in both LUAD and LUSC. ROC curve analysis showed that CEP55 could be used as an effective diagnostic target for LUAD (AUC = 0.969) and LUSC (AUC = 0.994). When CEP55 gene was selected as an independent prognostic factor, high expression of CEP55 was more disadvantageous to OS and RFS of LUAD patients (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in LUSC patients (P>0.05). The number of co-expression genes of CEP55 in LUAD is more than that in LUSC, and is related to cell cycle, DNA replication and P53 signaling pathway. Conclusion CEP55 can be used as a diagnostic marker for LUAD and LUSC, but only as an independent prognostic factor for LUAD rather than LUSC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available