决定异体 CAR T 细胞排斥与扩增的细胞和分子机制
Cellular and molecular mechanisms determining allogeneic CAR T cell rejection and expansion.
我们评估了11例接受单一批次cemacabtagene ansegedleucel(cema-cel)治疗的大B细胞淋巴瘤患者,cemacabtagene ansegedleucel是一种异体抗CD19 CAR T产品。
英文原题:Identification and Validation of a DNA Damage Repair-Related Signature for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
我们的研究识别并验证了一个14-DNA修复相关基因特征,用于DLBCL患者的分层和预后预测,这可能指导临床个性化治疗。
背景:弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)是成人最常见的非霍奇金淋巴瘤亚型,其预后评分系统仍有改进空间。DNA修复基因功能异常与DLBCL的发生和预后密切相关。本研究旨在建立并验证与DLBCL预后相关的DNA修复基因特征,并评估其临床预测价值。方法:病例来自癌症基因组图谱(TCGA)和基因表达综合数据库(GEO);从GeneCards数据库获取199组DNA修复相关基因,采用LASSO Cox回归构建基因特征。使用CIBERSORT分析免疫细胞浸润水平及该基因特征与免疫细胞的相关性;结合癌症药物敏感性基因组学(GDSC)数据库分析药物敏感性,并通过列线图和基因集变异分析(GSVA)评估临床应用价值。结果:筛选出14个DNA修复基因并纳入最终风险模型。训练和验证队列的亚组分析显示,该模型可准确预测DLBCL患者OS,高风险组预后较差。多变量分析证实风险评分是独立预后因素。CIBERSORT分析发现,高、低风险组的调节性T细胞、活化记忆CD4阳性T细胞和γδ T细胞等存在显著差异。该特征还与免疫检查点基因CD96、TGFBR1和TIGIT存在关联。通过分析GDSC药物敏感性数据,研究者确定了可供不同风险分层DLBCL患者进一步研究的潜在治疗药物。结论:本研究识别并验证了由14个DNA修复相关基因组成的特征,可用于DLBCL患者风险分层和预后预测,并可能为临床个体化治疗提供参考。
BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in adults, whose prognostic scoring system remains to be improved. Dysfunction of DNA repair genes is closely associated with the development and prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The aim of this study was to establish and validate a DNA repair-related gene signature associated with the prognosis of DLBCL and to investigate the clinical predictive value of this signature. METHODS: DLBCL cases were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. One hundred ninety-nine DNA repair-related gene sets were retrieved from the GeneCards database. The LASSO Cox regression was used to generate the DNA repair-related gene signature. Subsequently, the level of immune cell infiltration and the correlation between the gene signature and immune cells were analyzed using the CIBERSORT algorithm. Based on the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) database, the relationship between the signature and drug sensitivity was analyzed, and together with the nomogram and gene set variation analysis (GSVA), the value of the signature for clinical application was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 14 DNA repair genes were screened out and included in the final risk model. Subgroup analysis of the training and validation cohorts showed that the risk model accurately predicted overall survival of DLBCL patients, with patients in the high-risk group having a worse prognosis than patients in the low-risk group. Subsequently, the risk score was confirmed as an independent prognostic factor by multivariate analysis. Furthermore, by CIBERSORT analysis, we discovered that immune cells, such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), activated memory CD4+ T cells, and gamma delta T cells showed significant differences between the high- and low-risk groups. In addition, we found some interesting associations of our signature with immune checkpoint genes (CD96, TGFBR1, and TIGIT). By analyzing drug sensitivity data in the GDSC database, we were able to identify potential therapeutics for DLBCL patients stratified according to our signature. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified and validated a 14-DNA repair-related gene signature for stratification and prognostic prediction of DLBCL patients, which might guide clinical personalization of treatment.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。