ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
The analysis of gene co-expression network and immune infiltration revealed biomarkers between triple-negative and non-triple negative breast cancer.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Loss of long-range co-expression is a common feature in cancer.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- Precision tumor targeting: gamma-irradiated ellagic acid therapy for ferroptosis and necroptosis modulation via GPX4/ALOX/RIPK/MLKL pathway inhibition.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease with a worse prognosis. Despite ongoing efforts, existing therapeutic approaches show limited success in improving early recurrence and survival outcomes for TNBC patients. Therefore, there is an urgent need to discover novel and targeted therapeutic strategies, particularly those focusing on the immune infiltrate in TNBC, to enhance diagnosis and prognosis for affected individuals. Methods: The gene co-expression network and gene ontology analyses were used to identify the differential modules and their functions based on the GEO dataset of GSE76275. The Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) was used to describe the correlation patterns among genes across multiple samples. Subsequently, we identified key genes in TNBC by assessing genes with an absolute correlation coefficient greater than 0.80 within the eigengene of the enriched module that were significantly associated with breast cancer subtypes. The diagnostic potential of these key genes was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with three-fold cross-validation. Furthermore, to gain insights into the prognostic implications of these key genes, we performed relapse-free survival (RFS) analysis using the Kaplan-Meier plotter online tool. CIBERSORT analysis was used to characterize the composition of immune cells within complex tissues based on gene expression data, typically derived from bulk RNA sequencing or microarray datasets. Therefore, we explored the immune microenvironment differences between TNBC and non-TNBC by leveraging the CIBERSORT algorithm. This enabled us to estimate the immune cell compositions in the breast cancer tissue of the two subtypes. Lastly, we identified key transcription factors involved in macrophage infiltration and polarization in breast cancer using transcription factor enrichment analysis integrated with orthogonal omics. Results: The gene co-expression network and gene ontology analyses revealed 19 modules identified using the dataset GSE76275. Of these, modules 5, 11, and 12 showed significant differences between in breast cancer tissue between TNBC and non-TNBC. Notably, module 11 showed significant enrichment in the WNT signaling pathway, while module 12 demonstrated enrichment in lipid/fatty acid metabolism pathways. Subsequently, we identified SHC4/KCNK5 and ABCC11/ABCA12 as key genes in module 11 and module 12, respectively. These key genes proved to be crucial in accurately distinguishing between TNBC and non-TNBC, as evidenced by the promising average AUC value of 0.963 obtained from the logistic regression model based on their combinations. Furthermore, we found compelling evidence indicating the prognostic significance of three key genes, KCNK5, ABCC11, and ABCA12, in TNBC. Finally, we also identified the immune cell compositions in breast cancer tissue between TNBC and non-TNBC. Our findings revealed a notable increase in M0 and M1 macrophages in TNBC compared to non-TNBC, while M2 macrophages exhibited a significant reduction in TNBC. Particularly intriguing discovery emerged with respect to the transcription factor FOXM1, which demonstrated a significant regulatory role in genes positively correlated with the proportions of M0 and M1 macrophages, while displaying a negative correlation with the proportion of M2 macrophages in breast cancer tissue. Conclusion: Our research provides new insight into the biomarkers and immune infiltration of TNBC, which could be useful for clinical diagnosis of TNBC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.