Identification of differently expressed RBPs in NB patients
In this research, we performed a methodical analysis of the key role and prognostic value of RBP in NB. The NB data is downloaded from TARGET, which contains 144 tumor samples, and the normal nerve tissue data is downloaded from the GTEx database, which contains 278 samples. After analyzing the currently known 1542 RBPs, 348 RBPs with significant differences (P < 0.05, |log2FC)|>1.0) were screened out, together with 166 up-regulated RBPs and 182 down-regulated RBPs. (Fig. 1)
Enrichment analysis of the differently expressed RBPs
In order to study the functions and mechanisms of the selected RBP, we use the R package clusreprofile for enrichment analysis. The results show that biological processes are mainly enriched in mRNA processing, RNA splicing, ncRNA metabolic process, RNA phosphodiester bond hydrolysis, RNA splicing, via transesterification reactions with bulged adenosine as nucleophile, mRNA splicing, via spliceosome, RNA splicing, via transesterification reactions, nucleic acid phosphodiester bond hydrolysis, RNA catabolic process, and MF in catalytic activity, acting on RNA ribonuclease activity, nuclease activity, mRNA 3'-UTR binding, endonuclease activity, translation regulator activity, catalytic activity, acting on a tRNA, mRNA binding, double-stranded RNA binding, endoribonuclease activity, single-stranded RNA binding, and CC in ribonucleoprotein granule, cytoplasmic ribonucleoprotein granule, ribosome, ribosomal subunit, organellar ribosome, mitochondrial ribosome, P-body, mitochondrial matrix, P granule, pole plasm. The KEGG chiefly enriched in RNA transport, mRNA surveillance pathway, Ribosome biogenesis in eukaryotes, RNA degradation, Ribosome, Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis, Spliceosome, RNA polymerase, Influenza A. (Fig. 2)(Table 1,2)
PPI network building and subnet detection
In order to more study the function of differential RBP and its role in the development of NB, we used Cytoscape software to create a PPI network, which contains 311 nodes and 1766 edges. The co-expression network was analysis with the MCODE to recognize potential key section. (Fig. 3) The RBPs in the subnet 1 were mainly enriched in ribosome biogenesis in eukaryotes pathway, ribosome biogenesis, rRNA processing, ncRNA processing, ,maturation of SSU-rRNA, ribosomal small subunit biogenesis, rRNA metabolic process ,maturation of SSU-rRNA from tricistronic rRNA transcript (SSU-rRNA, 5.8S rRNA, LSU-rRNA), ribosomal large subunit biogenesis.
Prognosis-related RBPs selecting
The difference analysis identified a total of 348 key RBPs. In order to learn the prognostic significance of these RBPs and their effect on clinical outcome and survival time, we conducted univariate Cox regression analysis and get 4 candidate center RBPs related to prognosis(Fig. 4 ). Subsequently, through lasso regression, the prognostic risk equation of multi-factor Cox regression was established. (Fig. 5, Table 3).
Table 3
Two hub RBPs identifed from Cox regression analysis from TARGET dataset
id | coef | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H | pvalue |
CPEB3 | -0.60901 | 0.543889 | 0.34522 | 0.856888 | 0.008642 |
CTU1 | 0.851637 | 2.34348 | 1.528648 | 3.59265 | 9.35E-05 |
Prognosis-related RBPs model building and analysis
At last, CPEB3 and CTU1 were identified as the key prognostic genes by the multivariate Cox regression analysis. We used this two hub genes to construct the predictive model. The risk score of every child was calculated in accordance with the following formula:
Risk score = (-0.60901*expCPEB3)+ (0.851637* expCTU1).
Then, based on median value of riskscore, 144 NB patients were divided into two groups: low-risk group and high-risk group. The results showed that compared with patients in the low-risk group, patients in the high-risk group had poorer survival, which was statistically significant (P = 2.152e-04). The value of area under curve(AUC) in the TARGET model is 0.720. (Fig. 6A, 6B,Fig. 7A)
Validation of hub RBPs
With the purpose of evaluation of the prognostic value of the RBPs prediction model, we used the GSE85047 patient cohort to verify the relationship between risk score and survival time. In the GSE85047 cohort, groups were also grouped based on the median value of risk score in the TARGET model. The survival time of patients with high risk scores was poorer for patients with lower risk scores, which was significant (P = 0.1237e-08), and the AUC was 0.730. (Fig. 6C,6D,Fig. 7B)