Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Classification of diffuse lower‐grade glioma based on immunological profiling
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Classification of diffuse lower‐grade glioma based on immunological profiling
Do you wish to request the book?
Classification of diffuse lower‐grade glioma based on immunological profiling
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Classification of diffuse lower‐grade glioma based on immunological profiling
2020
Overview
Transcriptomic data derived from bulk sequencing have been applied to delineate the tumor microenvironment (TME) and define immune subtypes in various cancers, which may facilitate the design of immunotherapy treatment strategies. We herein gathered published gene expression data from diffuse lower‐grade glioma (LGG) patients to identify immune subtypes. Based on the immune gene profiles of 402 LGG patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we performed consensus clustering to determine robust clusters of patients, and evaluated their reproducibility in three Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas cohorts. We further integrated immunogenomics methods to characterize the immune environment of each subtype. Our analysis identified and validated three immune subtypes—Im1, Im2, and Im3—characterized by differences in lymphocyte signatures, somatic DNA alterations, and clinical outcomes. Im1 had a higher infiltration of CD8+ T cells, Th17, and mast cells. Im2 was defined by elevated cytolytic activity, exhausted CD8+ T cells, macrophages, higher levels of aneuploidy, and tumor mutation burden, and these patients had worst outcome. Im3 displayed more prominent T helper cell and APC coinhibition signatures, with elevated pDCs and macrophages. Each subtype was associated with distinct somatic alterations. Moreover, we applied graph structure learning‐based dimensionality reduction to the immune landscape and revealed significant intracluster heterogeneity with Im2 subtype. Finally, we developed and validated an immune signature with better performance of prognosis prediction. Our results demonstrated the immunological heterogeneity within diffuse LGG and provided valuable stratification for the design of future immunotherapy. We classified diffuse lower‐grade gliomas (LGGs) into three distinct subtypes based on consensus clustering of immune‐related gene expression profiles. Each of the three immune subtypes was associated with distinct molecular and cellular features, and clinical outcomes. The identification of immune‐related subtypes may facilitate the optimal selection of LGG patients responsive to immunotherapy.
