Figures & data
Figure 2. Screening prognosis-related ERs-related lncRNAs as modelling candidates. Heatmap (A) and a volcano plot (B) of differentially expressed lncRNAs in LUAD. (C) The interaction network diagram between ERs-related genes and ERs-related lncRNAs. (D) 77 ERs-related lncRNAs related to prognosis obtained by univariate Cox regression analysis. (E) Differential expression Heatmap of 77 prognosis-related ERs-related lncRNAs. *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.
![Figure 2. Screening prognosis-related ERs-related lncRNAs as modelling candidates. Heatmap (A) and a volcano plot (B) of differentially expressed lncRNAs in LUAD. (C) The interaction network diagram between ERs-related genes and ERs-related lncRNAs. (D) 77 ERs-related lncRNAs related to prognosis obtained by univariate Cox regression analysis. (E) Differential expression Heatmap of 77 prognosis-related ERs-related lncRNAs. *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.](/cms/asset/7103db6c-f132-46ac-890e-a3b41e0a833a/iann_a_2251500_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3. Identification of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) Consensus clustering grouping based on prognosis-related ERs-related LncSig. (B) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots display consensus distributions for each k. (C) Survival analysis of two cluster grouping. (D) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 77 prognostic-related ERs-related lncRNAs in the training set. (E) Cross-validation for optimal parameter selection in the LASSO regression. (F) A Sankey diagram of the distribution of samples grouped by cluster and model. CDF, cumulative distribution function.
![Figure 3. Identification of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) Consensus clustering grouping based on prognosis-related ERs-related LncSig. (B) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots display consensus distributions for each k. (C) Survival analysis of two cluster grouping. (D) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 77 prognostic-related ERs-related lncRNAs in the training set. (E) Cross-validation for optimal parameter selection in the LASSO regression. (F) A Sankey diagram of the distribution of samples grouped by cluster and model. CDF, cumulative distribution function.](/cms/asset/dc61829d-976c-4b41-820f-20c35c9fea67/iann_a_2251500_f0003_c.jpg)
Table 1. Multivariate Cox regression analysis of five prognostic lncRNAs.
Figure 4. Validation of ERs-related LncSig for survival prediction. (A-C) Different Kaplan-Meier curves in the two risk groups stratified by ERs-related LncSig in the training set (A), testing set (B), and entire TCGA set (C). (D-F) ROC curves of the ERs-related LncSig at 1 year in the training set (D), testing set (E), and entire TCGA set (F). (G-I) In training set (G), testing set (H), and entire TCGA set (I), the expression of ERs-related LncSig in each patient, the distribution of risk grade, and the survival status between the two risk groups. (J-N) Differential expression of five model lncRNAs in tumour tissues and normal tissues. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, the area under the curve; *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.
![Figure 4. Validation of ERs-related LncSig for survival prediction. (A-C) Different Kaplan-Meier curves in the two risk groups stratified by ERs-related LncSig in the training set (A), testing set (B), and entire TCGA set (C). (D-F) ROC curves of the ERs-related LncSig at 1 year in the training set (D), testing set (E), and entire TCGA set (F). (G-I) In training set (G), testing set (H), and entire TCGA set (I), the expression of ERs-related LncSig in each patient, the distribution of risk grade, and the survival status between the two risk groups. (J-N) Differential expression of five model lncRNAs in tumour tissues and normal tissues. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, the area under the curve; *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.](/cms/asset/9b0d98b2-a573-4b21-b8ec-d98bea748f0d/iann_a_2251500_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5. Correlation validation of risk model with clinical characteristics. (A) In the entire TCGA set, univariate independent prognostic analysis of ERs-related LncSig. (B) Multivariate independent prognostic analysis of ERs-related LncSig. (C) Comparison of the 1‑year ROC curve of the ERs-related LncSig and the ROC curves of other clinicopathological features in the entire TCGA set. (D) Heatmap for ERs-related LncSig and the correlation between clinical features and the risk groups. (E) A nomogram predicting 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of LUAD patients. (F) The calibration curves of the nomogram for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival in LUAD patients. (G-I) ROC curves for prognostic indicators at 1,3 and 5 years. *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.
![Figure 5. Correlation validation of risk model with clinical characteristics. (A) In the entire TCGA set, univariate independent prognostic analysis of ERs-related LncSig. (B) Multivariate independent prognostic analysis of ERs-related LncSig. (C) Comparison of the 1‑year ROC curve of the ERs-related LncSig and the ROC curves of other clinicopathological features in the entire TCGA set. (D) Heatmap for ERs-related LncSig and the correlation between clinical features and the risk groups. (E) A nomogram predicting 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of LUAD patients. (F) The calibration curves of the nomogram for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival in LUAD patients. (G-I) ROC curves for prognostic indicators at 1,3 and 5 years. *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.](/cms/asset/f239a6ff-28cc-47aa-acde-b98f251aacc5/iann_a_2251500_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6. GSEA analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) GSEA analysis of high-risk group calculated by ERs-related LncSig. (B) GSEA analysis of low-risk group calculated by ERs-related LncSig. (C) Correlation of GSEA enriched pathways with each model gene in the high-risk group. (D) Correlation of GSEA enriched pathways with each model gene in the low-risk group.
![Figure 6. GSEA analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) GSEA analysis of high-risk group calculated by ERs-related LncSig. (B) GSEA analysis of low-risk group calculated by ERs-related LncSig. (C) Correlation of GSEA enriched pathways with each model gene in the high-risk group. (D) Correlation of GSEA enriched pathways with each model gene in the low-risk group.](/cms/asset/b3ef6b83-8b18-445f-ad84-4bc6d88c7385/iann_a_2251500_f0006_c.jpg)
Figure 7. GO and KEGG analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) A Heatmap of DEGs for high- and low-risk groups. (B) A volcano plot of DEGs for high- and low-risk groups. (C-D) Bar chart and circle diagram of the most highly significant enriched results of GO analysis by risk group. (E-F) Bubble plot and circle diagram of the most highly significant enriched results of KEGG analysis by risk group. BP, biological process; CC, cellular component; MF, molecular function.
![Figure 7. GO and KEGG analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) A Heatmap of DEGs for high- and low-risk groups. (B) A volcano plot of DEGs for high- and low-risk groups. (C-D) Bar chart and circle diagram of the most highly significant enriched results of GO analysis by risk group. (E-F) Bubble plot and circle diagram of the most highly significant enriched results of KEGG analysis by risk group. BP, biological process; CC, cellular component; MF, molecular function.](/cms/asset/f0c1a46d-3b2f-44fb-944b-9e8fdcdcd319/iann_a_2251500_f0007_c.jpg)
Figure 8. Immune and TME analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) The analysis of tumour immune cell infiltration in high-risk and low-risk groups using the CIBERSORT algorithm. (B) The analysis of tumour immune cell infiltration in high-risk and low-risk groups using MCPcounter algorithm. (C) Differences in immune function between high-risk and low-risk groups. (D) Immune checkpoint differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. (E) The differences in stromal score, immune score, and ESTIMATE score between the low- and high-risk groups. (F) TIDE differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. APC, antigen-presenting cell; CCR, chemokine receptor; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; IFN, interferon; *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.
![Figure 8. Immune and TME analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) The analysis of tumour immune cell infiltration in high-risk and low-risk groups using the CIBERSORT algorithm. (B) The analysis of tumour immune cell infiltration in high-risk and low-risk groups using MCPcounter algorithm. (C) Differences in immune function between high-risk and low-risk groups. (D) Immune checkpoint differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. (E) The differences in stromal score, immune score, and ESTIMATE score between the low- and high-risk groups. (F) TIDE differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. APC, antigen-presenting cell; CCR, chemokine receptor; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; IFN, interferon; *, **, and *** represent p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.](/cms/asset/4d9341ec-a1a6-4f2d-96dd-d428bb52ed2e/iann_a_2251500_f0008_c.jpg)
Figure 9. TMB analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) The top 15 genes with the highest mutation rate were in the high-risk group. (B) The top 15 genes with the highest mutation rate were in the low-risk group. (C) TMB differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. (D) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of high and low TMB patients. E Kaplan-Meier analysis of risk groups combined with TMB.
![Figure 9. TMB analysis of ERs-related lncRNA Signature. (A) The top 15 genes with the highest mutation rate were in the high-risk group. (B) The top 15 genes with the highest mutation rate were in the low-risk group. (C) TMB differences between high-risk and low-risk groups. (D) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of high and low TMB patients. E Kaplan-Meier analysis of risk groups combined with TMB.](/cms/asset/5e58aa58-0b4c-408d-afab-7d7b4b42c759/iann_a_2251500_f0009_c.jpg)
Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis of clinically common chemotherapeutic agents in LUAD. (A-I) The sensitivity difference of commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in LUAD between high- and low-risk groups. (J-R) Correlation plots of risk scores with IC50 of chemotherapeutic agents in TCGA-LUAD patients. IC50, half-maximal inhibitory concentration.
![Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis of clinically common chemotherapeutic agents in LUAD. (A-I) The sensitivity difference of commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in LUAD between high- and low-risk groups. (J-R) Correlation plots of risk scores with IC50 of chemotherapeutic agents in TCGA-LUAD patients. IC50, half-maximal inhibitory concentration.](/cms/asset/5af895df-4a08-4723-bec7-22f0ad5d3350/iann_a_2251500_f0010_c.jpg)
Supplemental Material
Download Zip (3.1 MB)Data availability statement
All data will be provided upon request to the corresponding author.