
==== Front
Curr Neuropharmacol
Curr Neuropharmacol
CN
Current Neuropharmacology
1570-159X
1875-6190
Bentham Science Publishers

38509672
CN-22-1923
10.2174/1570159X22666240320112926
Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Neuroscience
Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors Type 3 and 5 Feature the “NeuroTransmitter-type” of Glioblastoma: A Bioinformatic Approach
Caridi Matteo 1#
Alborghetti Marika 2#
Pellicelli Valeria 3
Orlando Rosamaria 45
Pontieri Francesco Ernesto 26
Battaglia Giuseppe 45*
Arcella Antonietta 5
1 Division of Hematology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy;
2 Department of Neuroscience, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy;
3 Internal Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy;
4 Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, University Sapienza of Roma, Rome, Italy;
5 IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy;
6 IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy
* Address correspondence to this author at the IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy; E-mail: giuseppe.battaglia@neuromed.it
# These authors contributed equally to this work.
20 3 2024
2024
22 11 19231939
06 6 2023
11 8 2023
01 9 2023
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publishers
2024
The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publishers. This is an open access article published under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
Background

Glioblastoma (GBM) represents an aggressive and common tumor of the central nervous system. The prognosis of GBM is poor, and despite a refined genetic and molecular characterization, pharmacological treatment is largely suboptimal.

Objective

Contribute to defining a therapeutic line in GBM targeting the mGlu3 receptor in line with the principles of precision medicine.

Methods

Here, we performed a computational analysis focused on the expression of type 3 and 5 metabotropic glutamate receptor subtypes (mGlu3 and mGlu5, respectively) in high- and low-grade gliomas.

Results

The analysis allowed the identification of a particular high-grade glioma type, characterized by a high expression level of both receptor subtypes and by other markers of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission. This so-called neurotransmitter-GBM (NT-GBM) also shows a distinct immunological, metabolic, and vascularization gene signature.

Conclusion

Our findings might lay the groundwork for a targeted therapy to be specifically applied to this putative novel type of GBM.

Keywords

Glioma
glioblastoma multiforme
metabotropic glutamate receptors type 3 and type 5
glutamate
neurotransmitter-GBM
immunological signature
metabolic signature
==== Body
pmc1 INTRODUCTION

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) accounts for 12-15% of all intracranial tumors and 60-75% of glial tumours [1]. GBM has an incidence of 3-4 cases per 100,000/year, with a peak between 45 and 75 years of age and is more prevalent in males. GBM has a poor prognosis, with an average survival of about 12 months, because of the high proliferation rate and resistance to the current therapy. Glioma stem cells, which likely originate in zones of active neurogenesis of the adult brain, support tumor growth and are highly resistant to both radio- and chemotherapy [2, 3].

According to the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of CNS cancers, gliomas (astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas) are subdivided into four grades of severity on the basis of their histologic features (mitotic index, absence or presence of nuclear atypia, neovascularization, and necrosis). GBM is a grade-IV astrocytoma characterized by high mitotic activity, nuclear atypia, cell pleomorphism, extensive neovascularization and/or necrosis [1]. The morphological classification of gliomas has been integrated with the introduction of genetic markers, such as the IDH1 gene encoding the enzyme, isocitrate dehydrogenase type-1, co-deletion of chromosomes 1p-19q, and deletion of X chromosome [3-5]. The DNA alkylating agent, temozolomide, is the gold standard drug in the treatment of GBM, but its efficacy is limited and restricted to GBM cells that do not express the resistance enzyme, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) [6]. The identification of molecular targets, such as the epidermal growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors, the membrane tyrosine kinase, MET, vascular endothelial growth factor, the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway, and cyclin-dependent kinases, paved the way to the application of precision medicine in the treatment of brain gliomas [7, 8]. Metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) receptors fall into this scenario. mGlu receptors are G-protein coupled receptors activated by glutamate, the major excitatory neurotransmitter in the CNS. mGlu receptors form a family of eight subtypes, subdivided into three groups on the basis of their amino acid sequence and G-protein coupling. Group I includes mGlu1 and mGlu5 receptors, which are coupled to Gq/11. Their activation stimulates the hydrolysis of phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate, with the ensuing formation of the second messengers, inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate (InsP3) and diacylglycerol (DAG). InsP3 releases Ca2+ from intracellular stores, whereas DAG facilitates the activation of protein kinase C. Group-II (mGlu2 and -3) and group III (mGlu4, -6, -7, and -8) subtypes are coupled to Gi/o, and their activation inhibits adenylyl cyclase activity [9, 10]. mGlu receptors modulate excitatory synaptic transmission and are found in all elements of the tetrapartite synapse, i.e., axon terminals, postsynaptic densities, astrocytes, and microglia (reviewed by Nicoletti et al., 2011) [11]. However, mGlu receptors are also present in cancer cells, where they have been implicated in mechanisms regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, resistance to chemotherapy and oncogenic transformation [12-17]. mGlu receptors have been consistently detected in glioma cells, glioma cell lines, glioma stem cells (GSCs), and bioptic specimens of human gliomas. In rat, C6 glioma cell lines, mGlu receptor ligands displace specifically bound [3H]glutamate with a rank order of affinity that was consistent with the presence of either mGlu1 or mGlu5 receptors [18], and the transcript encoding the mGlu5 receptor was detected in human grade II astrocytoma specimens [19]. mGlu3 and/or mGlu5 receptors were detected in human GBM cell lines [20-22], whe re the two receptors differentially regulate the expression of the glial glutamate transporters, GLAST and GLT-1 [21]. Two studies have shown that glioma cells express mGlu1 receptors and depend on mGlu1 receptor signaling for their viability [23, 24]. Interestingly, mGlu1 receptors are ectopically expressed in melanomas and support tumor spreading in mice [25]. The role of mGu5 receptors in the biology of glioma cells is largely unknown. The evidence that mGlu5 receptor blockade facilitates hypoxic glioma cell death [26] encourages using brain permeant mGlu5 receptor antagonists in experimental animal models of malignant gliomas.

The mGlu3 receptor is the most extensively studied mGlu receptor subtype in glioma cells and is a promising target for therapeutic intervention. The mGlu3 receptor displays a high affinity for glutamate [27] and, therefore, can be potently activated by the glutamate released from glioma cells via the glutamate:cysteine antiporter or spread out from the surrounding synapses. The evidence that mGlu3 receptor blockade reduced glioma cell proliferation and restrained tumor growth in mice [22] laid the groundwork for the study of mGlu3 receptors in GSCs. Ciceroni et al. (2008) [28] were the first to show that GSCs express mGu3 receptors and that receptor activation sustains the undifferentiated state of GSCs by negatively modulating the action of bone morphogenetic proteins. Pharmacological blockade of mGlu3 receptors with the orthosteric antagonist, LY341495, induced GSC differentiation into astrocytes and 3-month treatment with LY341495 reduced the size of gliomas generated by intracerebral infusion of GSCs in nude mice. In a subsequent study, the same group was able to demonstrate that endogenous activation of mGlu3 receptors increased the resistance of GCSs to temozolomide by enhancing MGMT expression through a signaling pathway that involved PI3K and nuclear factor-κB (NFκB) [29]. Interestingly, mGlu3 receptor antagonists enhanced temozolomide toxicity in cultured GSCs and synergized with temozolomide in reducing the size and spreading of brain tumors originating from GSCs in mice [29]. All these findings have been largely confirmed by most recent studies [30-32], which, together, support the use of mGlu3 receptor antagonists in the treatment of malignant gliomas. The mGlu8 receptor may act as a counterpart of the mGlu3 receptor because glioma cell clones with down-regulated mGlu8 receptors showed a higher proliferation rate and increased resistance to chemotherapy [33].

One of the limitations in the development of new therapeutic targets is the heterogeneity of human gliomas, which may generate a high variability in drug response. Interestingly, patients with surgically removed GBM treated with temozolomide showed a longer overall survival if the resected tumor had low levels of mGlu3 transcript, and the methylation state of the MGMT gene promoter influenced survival only in patients with low mGlu3 receptor mRNA in the tumor [29]. Thus, treatment with mGlu3 receptor antagonists or negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) is expected to be effective in patients with high expression levels of mGlu3 receptors in GBM, who are otherwise resistant to adjuvant therapy with temozolomide. It is important to identify a tumor signature and a possible tumor subtype that predicts the expression levels of mGlu3 receptors in malignant gliomas. We have used a bioinformatics approach extending the analysis to the mGlu5 receptors because mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors functionally interact in brain tissue [34] and are both expressed in glioma cells.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

To examine the expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors in GBM, available datasets (GSE15824, GSE23806, GSE36245 and GSE53733) were obtained from Gene. Expression Omnibus (GEO, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/).

GSE15824 included genes from 30 brain tumor samples. GSE23806 included a large panel of human GBM stem-like cell lines corresponding to primary tumors and conventional glioma cell lines, from which we selected 12 primary GBM tumor samples. GSE36245 included 46 GBM samples from patients of different ages. GSE53733 included genes from 70 GBM patients of the German Glioma Network.

The Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array (HG-U133_Plus_2) slide platform was used. Detailed descriptions of the experimental design and procedures can be retrieved from the relative publications [35-40].

Data were analyzed with R studio (RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA) using the following packages: “affy,” “impute,” “tidyverse,” “cluster,” “factoextra” and “Limma” [41-46].

Designed probes were analyzed using the “mas5calls” function, which performs a Wilcoxon signed rank-based gene expression presence/absence detection algorithm; only probes with at least 75% of samples defined as present were analyzed (Present or “P” represents a call of present, assuming that data do not represent an absent transcript). Among different probes that identify the same gene, we selected the one with higher variance.

The expression measures were obtained with RMA, a function that converts an AffyBatch into an ExpressionSet using the robust multi-array average (RMA) expression measure.

We only analyzed samples with “P-value” for both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors.

In order to investigate the differential expression of cluster of genes associated with immune response, hypoxia, vascular response, and cell proliferation, we have applied the same gene panel used by Reifenberger in 2014 for the molecular characterization of long-term survivors of GBM through a genomic and transcriptomic analysis [47].

In order to obtain the missing data, we performed the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (KNN), a machine learning method that allows to forecast of missing values after a training phase of the algorithm (consists of storing the feature vectors and class labels of the training samples). The KNN was performed with the impute.knn function, which imputes missing expression data using the nearest averaging neighbor. The k value (number of neighbors to be used in the imputation) was established as the square root of the number of samples.

To evaluate the GBM hierarchical clustering based on mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptor expression, we determined the optimal number of clusters with the average Silhouette Method; then, starting from the mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptor expression matrix, we computed a dissimilarity matrix and performed an agglomerative hierarchical clustering.

We used a Shapiro-Wilk test as a normality test on the expression data matrix; based on the normality parameter, correlations between genes were obtained by Pearson and Spearman's rank correlation analysis for parametric and non-parametric data, respectively.

Differences in gene expression among groups were obtained using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test with Welch's correction (parametric data); non-parametric data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test.

Differentially expressed genes and their significance were identified by analyzing the datasets with the R-package “Limma.” In order to avoid false positive data, we have confirmed the data using the “mas5calls” function and analyzing only probes with a present call. We subsequently performed a test with Welch's correction when the data’s distribution was normal; Mann Whitney test was used in non-normal data. Statistical analysis was performed with GraphPad Prism 9.4.1 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) Microsoft Excel 16.16.3.

For comparisons between low-grade glioma and GMB tissues, the expression dataset was obtained by the TCGA GBMLGG dataset (515 low-grade glioma samples and 152 GBM samples) [48] and the Rembrandt dataset (225 low-grade gliomas samples and 219 GBM samples) [49]. Differential expression was assessed using the t-test with Welch's correction when the data’s distribution was normal; Mann Whitney test was used in non-normal data.

In order to validate the results on differentially expressed genes and differential expression of clusters of genes associated with the different signatures, we repeated our analysis using the TCGA GBM dataset (528 GBM samples) as described above [50]. The TCGA database can be downloaded from the GlioVis data portal (http://gliovis.bio-73info.cnio.es/) [51].

For the correlation between mGlu3 and mGlu5 expression and clinical parameters, we used Chi-square analysis. Comparison of Survival Curves was effectuated using the “Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test.” The results shown here are in whole or part based upon data generated by the TCGA Research Network: https://www.cancer.gov/tcga.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis Identified a GBM Group with High Expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 Receptors

We first examined the expression levels of the genes encoding the mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors (GRM3 and GRM5, respectively) in GBM samples from 83 patients and in samples of lower-grade gliomas from 15 patients; the overall analysis showed a greater expression of both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors in GBM with respect to lower grade gliomas (p = 0.0018 and p = 0.0221 respectively).

We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis of GBM based on mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptor expression; “two” was the optimal number of clusters determined with the Silhouette method (Fig. 1a). We then performed an agglomerative hierarchical clustering and analyzed the two GBM subgroups (Fig. 1b). As shown in Fig. (2), the first subgroup, named “neurotransmitter (NT)-type,” showed a higher expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors (p < 0.0001) with respect to the second subgroup (the Not Otherwise Specified or “NOS” subgroup).

Afterward, we made an individual comparison of the two GBM subgroups with low-grade gliomas, finding that only the NT subgroup showed a higher expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors (Fig. 2).

We used the same approach to cluster the GBM samples from the TCGA and Rembrandt datasets (737 low-grade gliomas and 371 GBM samples). The hierarchical cluster analysis identified two different subgroups in GBM samples, similar to the previous research. These two identified groups differ in the expression levels of both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors, where the “NT-type” expresses significantly high levels of the receptors as compared to the “NOS-type” (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). The different expression levels of GRM3 and GRM5 in “NT-type” and “NOS-type” was confirmed; however, the difference between low-grade gliomas and GMB was variable and dataset-dependent.

Analyzing microarray datasets, no difference in the IDH1 or H3F3a mutational status was found between the two GBM subgroups, but the value of this analysis is limited by the low number of samples used for IDH1 and H3F3a analysis.

Repeating analysis in the TGCA dataset, no difference in MGMT methylation status, IDH1 mutational status, CpG island methylator phenotype, gender and age were found between the two GBM subgroups, but the analysis is limited by the low number of samples with a strict molecular characterization.

A significantly higher incidence of “NT-type” was observed in proneural subtype GBM rather than classical or mesenchymal ones (Chi-square, df 12,69; p = 0.0018) (Fig. 4).

3.2 The NT-type Group Displays Different Immunity, Vascular and Hypoxic Signatures with Respect to the NOS Group

We attempted to identify specific signatures of GBM with a high expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors, examining a cluster of genes associated with immune response, hypoxia, vascular response/extracellular matrix (ECM), and cell proliferation.

Bioptic samples containing the NT-type GBM subgroup showed:

3.2.1 A Lower Expression of the Following Genes Related to Innate or Adaptive Immunity

FPR1 (encoding the formyl receptor peptide 1; p < 0.0045), TLR2 (encoding Toll-like receptor 2; p = 0.0263), FCGR2A (encoding the Fc fragment of IgG low affinity IIa receptor; p = 0.0051), C1R (encoding the r subcomponent of complement component 1; p = 0. 0.0019), C1QB (encoding the β-chain, q subcomponent of complement component 1; p = 0.0161); MAFB (encoding the v-maf avian musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene homolog B; p = 0.0075); SOCS3 (encoding the suppressor of cytokine signaling 3; p = 0.0054); CD44 (encoding for CD44 molecule; p = 0.0002); TGFB2 (encoding the transforming growth factor β 2; p = 0.0497); CSF1 (encoding the colony stimulating factor 1; p = 0.0029); FCGRT (encoding the Fc fragment of IgG receptor transporter α; p = 0.0003); TNFAIP3 (encoding the tumor necrosis factor α induced protein 3; p = 0.0067); ILR1 (encoding the interleukin 1 receptor type I; p = 0.0053); TGFBI (encoding the transforming growth factor β-induced; p < 0.0001); SLA (encoding the Src-like-adaptor; p = 0.0048); FCGR3A///FCGR3B (encoding the Fc fragment of IgG low affinity IIIa receptor and the Fc fragment of IgG low affinity IIIb receptor; p = 0.0348); C1QA (encoding the α chain, q subcomponent of complement component 1; p = 0.0021); CAPG (encoding the gelsolin-like, actin filament capping protein; p = 0.0033); VCAM (encoding the vascular cell adhesion molecule 1; p = 0.0002), (Table 1a).

3.2.2 A Lower Expression of the Following Genes Related to Hypoxia

LOX (encoding the lysyl oxidase; p = 0.0014); VEGFA (encoding the vascular endothelial growth factor A; p = 0.0002); IGFBP3 (encoding the insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3; p = 0.0001); ADM (encoding the adrenomedullin; p = 0.0027); CAV1 (encoding the caveolin 1; p = 0.0005); CTSB (encoding the cathepsin B; p = 0.0121); PLAUR (encoding the plasminogen activator urokinase receptor; p = 0.0092); STC1 (encoding the stanniocalcin 1; p < 0.0001); ANGPTL4 (encoding the angiopoietin-like 4; p = 0.01); PGK1 (encoding the phosphoglycerate kinase 1; p = 0.0002); LDHA (encoding the lactate dehydrogenase A; p = 0.009); CA12 (encoding the carbonic anhydrase XII; p = 0.0323), (Table 1b).

3.2.3 A Lower Expression of the Following Genes Related to Extracellular Matrix

THBS1 (encoding the thrombospondin 1; p = 0.0592; COL3A1 (encoding the collagen type III α1; p = 0.0001); ADAM12 (encoding the ADAM metallopeptidase domain 12; p = 0.0236); MGP (encoding the matrix G1a protein; p = 0.0095); CDH11 (encoding the cadherin 11 type 2 OB-cadherin; p = 0.0004); CD163 (encoding the CD163 molecule; p = 0.0032); CYP1B1 (encoding the cytochrome p450 family 1 subfamily B polypeptide 1; p = 0.0515); COL6A3 (encoding the collagen type VI α3; p = 0.0005); IL1R1 (encoding interleukin 1 receptor type 1; p = 0.0053); FN1 (encoding the fibronectin 1; p = 0.0006), (Table 1c).

3.2.4 A Lower Expression of the Following Genes Related to Proliferation

CENPF (encoding the centromere protein F; p = 0.0562); TK1 (encoding the soluble thymidine kinase 1; p = 0.0121), (Table 1d).

We repeated the analysis using samples provided by the TGCA GBM dataset; the NT-group showed:

(1) A lower expression of the following genes related to innate or adaptive immunity: C1R (p = 0. 0.003); SOCS3 (p = 0.0065); CD44 (p < 0.0001); CSF1 (p = 0.0142); TNFAIP3 (p = 0.0225); TGFBI (p < 0,0001) (Table 2a); a higher expression of the following genes: CSF1R (encoding for colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor; p < 0.0001); FPR1 (p = 0.0343); A2M (encoding for α-2-macroglobulin; p = 0.008); CD86 (encoding for CD86 molecule; p = 0.0014); AIF1 (encoding for allograft inflammatory factor 1; p = 0.0004); C1QA (p = 0.0206); SYK (encoding for spleen tyrosine kinase; p = 0.0171), (Table 2a).

(2) A lower expression of the following genes related to hypoxia: VEGFA (p < 0.0001); IGFBP3 (p = 0.0014); ADM (p < 0.0001); CAV1 (p = 0.0062); STC1 (p = 0. 004); LGALS3 (encoding for lectin, galactoside-binding, soluble 3; p < 0.0001); PGK1 (p < 0.0001); LDHA (p < 0.0001); a higher expression of SPP1 (encoding for secreted phosphoprotein 1; p < 0.0001), (Table 2b);

(3) A lower expression of the following genes related to extracellular matrix: THBS1 (p = 0.0006); COL3A1 (p = 0.0156); ADAM12 (p = 0.0004); CDH11 (p = 0.003); COL6A3 (p = 0.0007), (Table 2c).

(4) A lower expression of the following genes related to proliferation: RRM2 (encoding for ribonucleotide reductase M2; p < 0.0001); TOP2A (encoding for topoisomerase DNA II α; p = 0,0195); UBE2C (encoding for ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C; p < 0.0001); TRIO (encoding for trio Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor; p = 0.0132); POLE2 (encoding for polymerase (DNA direct) epsilon 2, accessory subunit; p < 0.0001); CHEK1 (encoding for checkpoint kinase 1; p < 0.0001); CKS2 (encoding for CDC28 protein kinase regulatory subunit 2; p = 0.0037); TK1 (p < 0.0001), (Table 2d).

3.3 The NT Group is Characterized by a “Neurotransmitter” Signature and Displays Several Differential Expressed Genes

We extended the analysis to individual genes that are differentially expressed in the two subgroups of GBM and associated with a high or low expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors. The NT subgroups showed a greater expression of the following genes related to glutamatergic or GABAergic neurotransmission: GABRB2 and GABRB3, encoding the β2 and β3 subunits of GABAA receptors (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001, respectively); GRIA2, encoding the GluA2 subunit of AMPA receptors (p = 0.0021); and GRID1, encoding the δ1 subunit of ionotropic glutamate receptors subunit (p = 0.0007). This supports the neurotransmitter phenotype of the NT GBM subgroup.

Other differentially expressed genes included SCD1 (encoding the enzyme stearoyl-CoA desaturase-1) (p < 0.0001) and FAD2H (encoding the enzyme fatty acid 2-hydroxyase) (p < 0.0001, which are both involved in fatty acid metabolism, and three myelin- related genes: MOG, encoding the myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (p = 0.0003), MOBP, encoding the myelin-associated oligodendrocyte basic protein (p < 0.0001), and MBP, encoding the myelin basic protein (p = 0.0008).

Finally, we analyzed the correlations between mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptor expression and genes differentially expressed in the two GBM subgroups, finding that most of these genes showed a high correlation with both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors (Table 3).

Similar results were obtained from the analysis of TCGA dataset, resulting less expressed by the “NT-Type” GABRB3 (p < 0.0001); GRIA2 (p < 0.0001); KCNK10, encoding for potassium channel subfamily K, member 10 (p = 0002); SCN2A, encoding for sodium channel voltage-gated type II α subunit (p < 0.0001); ANK3, encoding for ankyrin 3 (p < 0.0001); FAD2H (p < 0.0001); MOG (p < 0.0001); MOBP (p < 0.0001); and MBP (p < 0.0001), (Table 4).

3.4 The NT-type and the NOS-type do not Differ in Terms of Overall Survival

Finally, we tried to clarify whether the different expressions of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors in GBM could influence overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Among datasets, the only one that provides accurate information about the OS is the TGCA dataset. The analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of OS between “NT-group” and “NOS-group” (Fig. 5a). However, analyzing OS in the different GBM subtypes, we could observe a trend of worst prognosis of “NT-type” in proneural subtypes rather than classic or mesenchymal GBM (Fig. 5b). More studies are required in order to understand these data, which are consistent with those demonstrated by Ciceroni et al. [29].

Accurate information about the PFS was not provided by any of the datasets used for our research.

4 DISCUSSION

Our computational analysis suggests that mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors represent potential molecular markers of GBM. This is in line with the evidence that levels of the transcript encoding the mGlu3 receptors in tumor specimens were inversely related to the survival of patients with grade GBM undergoing surgery and adjuvant treatment with temozolomide [29]. We focused on mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors because these receptors functionally interact in brain tissue, with mGlu3 receptors boosting mGlu5 receptor signaling [34]. An attractive hypothesis is that this form of receptor cross-talk also occurs in glioma cells and supports cell proliferation and chemoresistance.

As underscored in the Introduction, mGlu5 receptors are coupled to Gq/11, and their activation leads to the formation of InsP3 and DAG, with ensuing intracellular Ca2+ release and PKC activation (reviewed by Nicoletti et al., 2011) [11]. These signaling molecules might have a profound impact on basic mechanisms of cancer cell biology, such as proliferation and survival. It will be interesting to examine whether the functional cross-talk between mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors also exists in GBM cells or GSCs.

Interestingly, mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors appeared to be highly expressed by a subgroup of GBM characterized by the expression of established markers of glutamatergic and GABAergic neurotransmission, denominated “NT-type” GBM. Only the “NT-type” GMB showed an enhanced mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptor expression with respect to low-grade gliomas, and, therefore, the two receptors cannot be considered as biochemical markers of GBM with respect to other types of gliomas but may facilitate the identification of a specific GBM subgroup. The proposed “NT-type” could not be differentiated on the basis of the mutational state of IDH1 and H3F3a, but the data were biased by the low sample size. It will be interesting to examine the association of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors with genetic markers that predict the evolution of low-grade gliomas into GBM, such as chromosome X deletion [1, 8].

Besides genes related to glutamatergic and GABAergic transmission, genes related to innate or adaptive immunity were differentially expressed by the “NT-type” GBM. This suggests that the “NT-GBM” has a different immune signature concerning other gliomas. Several genes typically expressed in macrophages, microglia, and lymphocytes or associated with macrophage activation were differentially expressed in “NT-GBM ” compared with other gliomas. It is possible that owing to the immune-related phenotype, “NT-GBM” exhibits a lower level of immune infiltration and, therefore, a reduced response to immunotherapeutic treatments. This attractive hypothesis warrants further investigation. We have also found that a cluster of genes implicated in hypoxia and angiogenesis was lesser expressed in “NT-GBM” than in “NOS-GBM”. This might result in a less vascularized microenvironment, which might limit cancer cell survival. A cluster of genes related to the extracellular matrix also showed a lower expression in “NT-GBM”. As opposed to what is observed in peripheral tissues, the ECM in CNS lacks collagen, fibrinogen and laminin and is predominantly formed by proteoglycans, hyaluronic acid and tenascin C (reviewed by Vollmann-Zwerenz et al., 2020) [52]. It has been reported that the siRNA-induced downregulation of the chondroitin sulphate proteoglycan, versican V1, reduced the migration of high-grade glioma cells [53]. Therefore, the lower expression of ECM-related genes might restrain the migration capacity of “NT-GBM cells”.

Using samples from the TGCA dataset, a proliferative signature seems to characterize the “NT-GBM” versus the “NOS-GBM.” This difference probably depends on the increase in sample size.

“NT-GBM” was also characterized by a differential expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism, such as SCD1. SCD1, which is heterogeneously expressed in gliomas, protects cancer cells against lipotoxicity by promoting the formation of monounsaturated fatty acids, and its inhibition increases apoptotic cell death and cell vulnerability to chemotherapy [54]. Interestingly, IDH1 mutations cause changes in the expression of SCD1 in glioma cells [55-58]. Other genes differentially expressed by “NT-GBM” include fatty acid 2-hydroxylase and genes encoding proteins that are involved in myelin formation. Although the two subgroups do not differ in terms of OS, the metabolic signature that we have identified in “NT-GBM” may pave the way to targeted therapy for this glioma subtype and consequently affect both OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our computational analyses allowed the identification of a putative novel GBM-type expressing high levels of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors, as well as other genes related to glutamatergic and GABAergic neurotransmission. Although the impact of glutamate and GABA receptors on the proliferation, survival, and migration of “NT-GBM” cells remains to be explored, we speculated that a list of some of these receptors might be targeted for therapeutic intervention. Previous studies have demonstrated that the expression of the gene encoding the mGlu3 receptor positively correlates with the severity of high-grade gliomas in humans, and pharmacological blockade of mGlu3 receptors restrains glioma growth has enhanced glioma cells vulnerability to temozolomide in preclinical models [28, 29]. Despite the limitations of our pure bioinformatics approach, our findings may encourage the development of selective mGlu3 receptor antagonists or negative allosteric modulators for the treatment of “NT-GBM” in conformity with the principles of precision medicine.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ECM Extracellular Matrix

GBM Glioblastoma Multiforme

GSCs Glioma Stem Cells

NAMs Negative Allosteric Modulators

NFkB Nuclear Factor-kB

PI3K Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase

RMA Robust Multi-array Average

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Not applicable.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Not applicable.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

Not applicable.

FUNDING

The experiments were funded by grants from the Italian Ministry of Health, Ricerca Corrente.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Fig. (1) (a) the optimal number of clusters determined with the Silhouette method; (b) Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 83 GBM samples identify two main groups of GBM: the NT-GBM in red and the NOS-GBM in green.

Fig. (2) The NT group displays a significantly higher expression of mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors (****p < 0.0001).

Fig. (3) (a) the NT-group displays a significantly higher expression of both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors than the NOS-group in the TGCA LGGGBM dataset (****p < 0.0001); (b) the NT-group displays a significantly higher expression of both mGlu3 and mGlu5 receptors than NOS-group in Rembrandt dataset (p < 0.0001).

Fig. (4) NT type (NTT) is observed more frequently in the proneural GBM subtype rather than classical and mesenchymal ones.

Fig. (5) (a) No difference in survival between NT-group and NOS-group (p = 0,6917); (b) NT-group showed the worst prognosis in the proneural subgroup but not in classic and mesenchymal subtypes.

Table 1a Immune signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
CSF1R	Colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.2361	0.25	-	
FPR1	Formyl peptide receptor 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0045	0.63	-	
A2M	Alpha-2-macroglobulin	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.3297	0.19	-	
TLR2	Toll-like receptor 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0263	0.44	-	
FCGR2A	Fc fragment of IgG, low-affinity IIa, receptor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0051	0.61	-	
C1R	Complement component 1, r subcomponent	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0019	0.93	-	
C1QB	Complement component 1, q subcomponent, B chain	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0161	0.56	-	
TGFBR2	Transforming growth factor, beta receptor II	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0768	0.42	-	
CTSH	Cathepsin H	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.034	0.48	-	
MAFB	v-maf avian musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene homolog B	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0075	0.61	-	
SOCS3	Suppressor of cytokine signaling 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0054	1.15	-	
CD44	CD44 molecule (Indian blood group)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0002	0.69	-	
TGFB2	Transforming growth factor, beta 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0497	0.65	-	
CSF1	Colony-stimulating factor 1 (macrophage)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0029	0.32	-	
IL13RA1	Interleukin 13 receptor, alpha 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.2972	0.23	-	
FCGRT	Fc fragment of IgG, receptor, transporter, alpha	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0003	0.37	-	
TNFAIP3	Tumor necrosis factor, alpha-induced protein 3	Mann Whitney test	0.0067	-	0.48	
IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	Mann Whitney test	0.0053	-	0.78	
TGFBI	Transforming growth factor, beta-induced	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-	1.37	
CXCL9	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9	Mann Whitney test	0.1338	-	0.25	
CD86	CD86 molecule	Mann Whitney test	0.6633	-	0.08	
SLA	Src-like-adaptor	Mann Whitney test	0.0048	-	0.41	
FCGR3A ///FCGR3B	Fc fragment of IgG, low-affinity IIIa, receptor (CD16a) /// Fc fragment of IgG, low-affinity IIIb, receptor (CD16b)	Mann Whitney test	0.0348	-	0.53	
AIF1	Allograft Inflammatory Factor 1	Mann Whitney test	0.1152	-	0.23	
IL10RA	Interleukin 10 receptor, alpha	Mann Whitney test	0.0759	-	0.29	
C1QA	Complement component 1, q subcomponent, A chain	Mann Whitney test	0.0021	-	0.70	
CAPG	Capping protein (actin filament), gelsolin-like	Mann Whitney test	0.0033	-	0.59	
SYK	Spleen tyrosine kinase	Mann Whitney test	0.0743	-	0.25	
B2M	Beta-2-microglobulin	Mann Whitney test	0.944	-	0.02	
VCAM	Vascular cell adhesion molecule 1	Mann Whitney test	0.0002	-	1.09	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 1b Hypoxia signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
LOX	Lysyl oxidase	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0014	1.06	-	
VEGFA	Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0002	1	-	
IGFBP3	Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0001	1.13		
ADM	Adrenomedullin	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0027	1.2	-	
CAV1	Caveolin 1, caveolae protein, 22kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0005	1.02	-	
CTSB	Cathepsin B	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0121	0.49	-	
ALOX5AP	Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase-activating protein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.067	0.59	-	
PLAUR	Plasminogen activator, urokinase receptor	Mann Whitney test	0.0092	-	0.27	
STC1	Stanniocalcin 1	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-	1.02	
LGALS3	Lectin, galactoside-binding, soluble, 3	Mann Whitney test	0.1047	-	0.57	
VEGFB	Vascular endothelial growth factor B	Mann Whitney test	0.7186	-	0.03	
VEGFC	Vascular endothelial growth factor C	Mann Whitney test	0.5227	-	-0.08	
ANGPTL4	Angiopoietin-like 4	Mann Whitney test	0.01	-	0.53	
PGK1	Phosphoglycerate kinase 1	Mann Whitney test	0.0002	-	0.24	
LDHA	Lactate dehydrogenase A	Mann Whitney test	0.009	-	0.47	
SPP1	Secreted phosphoprotein 1	Mann Whitney test	0.1026	-	0.27	
IL6	Interleukin 6	Mann Whitney test	0.0034	-	0.46	
CA12	Carbonic anhydrase XII	Mann Whitney test	0.0323	-	0.49	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 1c Extracellular matrix signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
GPNMB	Glycoprotein (transmembrane) nmb	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.3637	0.30	-	
THBS1	Thrombospondin 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0592	0.81	-	
COL3A1	Collagen, type III, alpha 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0001	1.53	-	
ADAM12	ADAM metallopeptidase domain 12	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0236	0.53	-	
MGP	Matrix Gla protein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0095	0.97	-	
CDH11	Cadherin 11, type 2, OB-cadherin (osteoblast)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0004	0.45	-	
CD163	CD163 molecule	Mann Whitney test	0.0032	-	1.21	
LTBR	Lymphotoxin beta receptor (TNFR superfamily, member 3)	Mann Whitney test	0.0934	-	0.17	
CYP1B1	Cytochrome P450, family 1, subfamily B, polypeptide 1	Mann Whitney test	0.0515	-	0.51	
COL6A3	Collagen, type VI, alpha 3	Mann Whitney test	0.0005	-	1.12	
IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	Mann Whitney test	0.0053	-	0.78	
MRC1	Mannose receptor, C type 1	Mann Whitney test	0.3912	-	0.22	
FN1	Fibronectin 1	Mann Whitney test	0.0006	-	0.44	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 1d Proliferation signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
RRM2	Ribonucleotide reductase M2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0854	0.48	-	
CENPF	Centromere protein F, 350/400kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0562	0.56	-	
TOP2A	Topoisomerase (DNA) II alpha 170kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.1861	0.46	-	
UBE2C	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0969	0.56	-	
BUB1B	BUB1 mitotic checkpoint serine/threonine kinase B	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.1549	0.37	-	
TRIO	Trio Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.3904	0.17	-	
POLE2	Polymerase (DNA directed), epsilon 2, accessory subunit	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.2467	0.25	-	
CHEK1	Checkpoint kinase 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.2074	0.33	-	
CKS2	CDC28 protein kinase regulatory subunit 2	Mann Whitney test	0.3809	-	0.40	
TK1	Thymidine kinase 1, soluble	Mann Whitney test	0.0121	-	0.24	
CENPE	Centromere protein E, 312kDa	Mann Whitney test	0.5137	-	0.14	
RAMP1	Receptor (G protein-coupled) activity modifying protein 1	Mann Whitney test	0.8921	-	0.02	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 2a Immune signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
CSF1R	Colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-0.3764	-0.3883	
FPR1	Formyl peptide receptor 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0343	-0.0747	-0.1404	
A2M	Alpha-2-macroglobulin	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.008	-0.2314	-0. 1874	
TLR2	Toll-like receptor 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.3652	-0.0482	-0.082	
FCGR2A	Fc fragment of IgG, low-affinity IIa, receptor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.7983	0.037	-0.0253	
C1R	Complement component 1, r subcomponent	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.003	0.4609	0.3464	
C1QB	Complement component 1, q subcomponent, B chain	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0078	-0.2163	-0.2618	
TGFBR2	Transforming growth factor, beta receptor II	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.8244	0.0121	-0.0122	
CTSH	Cathepsin H	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.1625	-0.2276	-0.1453	
SOCS3	Suppressor of cytokine signaling 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0065	0.047	0.0598	
CD44	CD44 molecule (Indian blood group)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.641	0.5409	
TGFB2	Transforming growth factor, beta 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.6563	-0.0098	-0.0276	
CSF1	Colony-stimulating factor 1 (macrophage)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0142	0.056	0.0511	
FCGRT	Fc fragment of IgG, receptor, transporter, alpha	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.98	-0.0289	-0.0014	
TNFAIP3	Tumor necrosis factor, alpha-induced protein 3	Mann Whitney test	0.0225	0.2196	0.182	
IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	Mann Whitney test	0.2795	0.0896	0.0776	
TGFBI	Transforming growth factor, beta-induced	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.5423	0.5002	
CXCL9	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9	Mann Whitney test	0.9041	0.0339	0.0101	
CD86	CD86 molecule	Mann Whitney test	0.0014	-0.3116	-0.26	
AIF1	Allograft Inflammatory Factor 1	Mann Whitney test	0.0004	-0.2181	-0.3514	
C1QA	Complement component 1, q subcomponent, A chain	Mann Whitney test	0.0206	-0.2185	-0.2421	
CAPG	Capping protein (actin filament), gelsolin-like	Mann Whitney test	0.6104	-0.0213	0.0423	
SYK	Spleen tyrosine kinase	Mann Whitney test	0.0171	-0.1642	-0.13	
B2M	beta-2-microglobulin	Mann Whitney test	0.6008	-0.0351	0.0151	
VCAM	Vascular cell adhesion molecule 1	Mann Whitney test	0.6445	-0.0132	0.0632	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 2b Hypoxia signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
LOX	Lysyl oxidase	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0053	0.6407	0.4327	
VEGFA	Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.6676	0.6202	
IGFBP3	Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0014	0.3054	0.4557	
ADM	Adrenomedullin	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.6191	0.5806	
CAV1	Caveolin 1, caveolae protein, 22kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0062	0.5768	0.3535	
CTSB	Cathepsin B	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.1221	-0.1003	-0.0902	
ALOX5AP	Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase-activating protein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.715	-0.1037	-0.041	
STC1	Stanniocalcin 1	Mann Whitney test	0.004	0.3213	0.2587	
LGALS3	Lectin, galactoside-binding, soluble, 3	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.5058	0.3981	
VEGFB	Vascular endothelial growth factor B	Mann Whitney test	0.8917	0.0467	0.0053	
VEGFC	Vascular endothelial growth factor C	Mann Whitney test	0.2576	0.0411	0.0482	
ANGPTL4	Angiopoietin-like 4	Mann Whitney test	0.0281	0.2387	0.2794	
PGK1	Phosphoglycerate kinase 1	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.4296	0.4414	
LDHA	Lactate dehydrogenase A	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.1893	0.2047	
SPP1	Secreted phosphoprotein 1	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-0.2274	-0.2162	
IL6	Interleukin 6	Mann Whitney test	0.1837	0.1982	0.0966	
CA12	Carbonic anhydrase XII	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.8185	0.6013	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 2c Extracellular matrix signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
GPNMB	Glycoprotein (transmembrane) nmb	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.342	-0.152	-0.1178	
THBS1	Thrombospondin 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0006	0.2859	0.2642	
COL3A1	Collagen, type III, alpha 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0156	0.3926	0.3979	
ADAM12	ADAM metallopeptidase domain 12	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0004	0.2088	0.1789	
MGP	Matrix Gla protein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.6537	0.1603	0.0577	
CDH11	Cadherin 11, type 2, OB-cadherin (osteoblast)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.003	0.2689	0.1974	
CD163	CD163 molecule	Mann Whitney test	0.1619	0.3725	0.2143	
LTBR	Lymphotoxin beta receptor (TNFR superfamily, member 3)	Mann Whitney test	0.5628	0.0631	0.0308	
CYP1B1	Cytochrome P450, family 1, subfamily B, polypeptide 1	Mann Whitney test	0.7444	0.0252	0.0488	
COL6A3	Collagen, type VI, alpha 3	Mann Whitney test	0.0007	0.6655	0.6003	
IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	Mann Whitney test	0.2795	0.0896	0.0776	
MRC1	Mannose receptor, C type 1	Mann Whitney test	0.2258	0.2938	0.1614	
FN1	Fibronectin 1	Mann Whitney test	0.5281	0.0505	0.0515	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 2d Proliferation signature - Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
RRM2	Ribonucleotide reductase M2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.3847	0.3711	
CENPF	Centromere protein F, 350/400kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.067	0.2515	0.1806	
TOP2A	Topoisomerase (DNA) II alpha 170kDa	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0195	0.1446	0.2749	
UBE2C	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.4146	0.4502	
TRIO	Trio Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0132	0.2371	0.2067	
POLE2	Polymerase (DNA directed), epsilon 2, accessory subunit	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.3863	0.3926	
CHEK1	Checkpoint kinase 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	0.3553	0.358	
CKS2	CDC28 protein kinase regulatory subunit 2	Mann Whitney test	0.0037	0.2519	0.2745	
TK1	Thymidine kinase 1, soluble	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	0.243	0.2593	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 3 Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
SCD	Stearoyl-CoA Desaturase (delta-9-desaturase)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.01	-0.45	-	
SIK3	SIK family kinase 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0006	-0.77	-	
NEGR1	Neuronal growth regulator 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0003	-1.02	-	
GABRB3	Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-1.57	-	
GRID1	Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, delta 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0007	-0.36	-	
SCN2A	Sodium channel, voltage-gated, type II, α subunit	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-0.91	-	
RDH10	Retinol dehydrogenase 10 (all-trans)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	1.46	-	
BRINP1	Bone morphogenetic protein/retinoic acid-inducible neural-specific 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-1.27	-	
H3F3A	H3 histone, family 3A	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0001	0.38	-	
GABRB2	Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0002	-1.22	-	
FA2H	Fatty acid 2-hydroxylase	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-1.48	-	
MOG	Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0003	-1.54	-	
NEGR1	Neuronal growth regulator 1	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.0003	-1.02	-	
ANK3	Ankyrin 3, node of Ranvier (ankyrin G)	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-	-1.05	
MTURN	Maturin, neural progenitor differentiation regulator homolog (Xenopus)	Mann Whitney test	0.0018	-	-0.61	
FAR1	Fatty acyl CoA reductase 1	Mann Whitney test	0.2583	-	-0.26	
MOBP	Myelin-associated oligodendrocyte basic protein	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-	-1.68	
IGF1R	Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor	Mann Whitney test	0.7825	-	-0.07	
MBP	Myelin basic protein	Mann Whitney test	0.0008	-	-1.70	
GRIA2	Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 2	Mann Whitney test	0.0021	-	-0.83	
KCNK10	Potassium channel, subfamily K, member 10	Mann Whitney test	0.0029	-	-0.35	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.

Table 4 Positive values indicate a higher expression in the NOS group.

Gene	Gene Title	Statistical Analysis	P Value	Difference between Means	Difference: Hodges-Lehmann	
SCD	Stearoyl-CoA Desaturase (delta-9-desaturase)	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.928	0.0388	-0.0053	
GABRB3	Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 3	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-0.1329	-0.1346	
SCN2A	Sodium channel, voltage-gated, type II, α subunit	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-0.5647	-0.6182	
GABRB2	Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 2	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	0.6412	0.0183	0.0105	
FA2H	Fatty acid 2-hydroxylase	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-1.436	-1.187	
MOG	Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein	Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction	<0.0001	-2.588	-2.009	
ANK3	Ankyrin 3, node of Ranvier (ankyrin G)	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-0.6594	-0.7357	
MOBP	Myelin-associated oligodendrocyte basic protein	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-2.379	-1.909	
IGF1R	Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor	Mann Whitney test	0.0627	0.0763	0.1273	
MBP	Myelin basic protein	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-1.968	-2.061	
GRIA2	Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 2	Mann Whitney test	<0.0001	-0.7195	-0.846	
KCNK10	Potassium channel, subfamily K, member 10	Mann Whitney test	0.0002	-0.2097	-0.2085	
Note: Negative values indicate a higher expression in the NTT group.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Louis D.N. Perry A. Reifenberger G. von Deimling A. Figarella-Branger D. Cavenee W.K. Ohgaki H. Wiestler O.D. Kleihues P. Ellison D.W. The 2016 world health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016 131 6 803 820 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 27157931
2 de Almeida Sassi F. Lunardi Brunetto A. Schwartsmann G. Roesler R. Abujamra A.L. Glioma revisited: From neu-rogenesis and cancer stem cells to the epigenetic regulation of the niche. J. Oncol. 2012 2012 537861 10.1155/2012/537861 22973309
3 Prager B.C. Bhargava S. Mahadev V. Hubert C.G. Rich J.N. Glioblastoma stem cells: Driving resilience through cha-os. Trend Cancer 2020 6 3 223 235 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.01.009 32101725
4 van den Bent M.J. Smits M. Kros J.M. Chang S.M. Diffuse infiltrating oligodendroglioma and astrocytoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 21 2394 2401 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6737 28640702
5 Caccese M. Padovan M. D’Avella D. Chioffi F. Gardiman M.P. Berti F. Busato F. Bellu L. Bergo E. Zoccarato M. Fassan M. Zagonel V. Lombardi G. Anaplastic Astrocytoma: State of the art and future directions. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2020 153 103062 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103062 32717623
6 Hegi M.E. Diserens A.C. Gorlia T. Hamou M.F. de Tri-bolet N. Weller M. Kros J.M. Hainfellner J.A. Mason W. Mariani L. Bromberg J.E.C. Hau P. Mirimanoff R.O. Cairncross J.G. Janzer R.C. Stupp R. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005 352 10 997 1003 10.1056/NEJMoa043331 15758010
7 Yang K. Wu Z. Zhang H. Zhang N. Wu W. Wang Z. Dai Z. Zhang X. Zhang L. Peng Y. Ye W. Zeng W. Liu Z. Cheng Q. Glioma targeted therapy: Insight into future of molecular approaches. Mol. Cancer 2022 21 1 39 10.1186/s12943-022-01513-z 35135556
8 Khasraw M. Fujita Y. Lee-Chang C. Balyasnikova I.V. Najem H. Heimberger A.B. New approaches to glioblastoma. Annu. Rev. Med. 2022 73 1 279 292 10.1146/annurev-med-042420-102102 34665646
9 Julio-Pieper M. Flor P.J. Dinan T.G. Cryan J.F. Exciting times beyond the brain: Metabotropic glutamate receptors in peripheral and non-neural tissues. Pharmacol. Rev. 2011 63 1 35 58 10.1124/pr.110.004036 21228260
10 Nicoletti F. Battaglia G. Storto M. Ngomba R.T. Iacovelli L. Arcella A. Gradini R. Sale P. Rampello L. De Vita T. Di Marco R. Melchiorri D. Bruno V. Metabotropic glutamate receptors: Beyond the regulation of synaptic transmission. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2007 32 1 S40 S45 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.04.015 17651904
11 Nicoletti F. Bockaert J. Collingridge G.L. Conn P.J. Ferraguti F. Schoepp D.D. Wroblewski J.T. Pin J.P. Metabo-tropic glutamate receptors: From the workbench to the bed-side. Neuropharmacology 2011 60 7-8 1017 1041 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2010.10.022 21036182
12 Ali S. Shourideh M. Koochekpour S. Identification of novel GRM1 mutations and single nucleotide polymorphisms in prostate cancer cell lines and tissues. PLoS One 2014 9 7 e103204 10.1371/journal.pone.0103204 25062106
13 Banda M. Speyer C.L. Semma S.N. Osuala K.O. Koun-alakis N. Torres Torres K.E. Barnard N.J. Kim H.J. Sloane B.F. Miller F.R. Goydos J.S. Gorski D.H. Metabo-tropic glutamate receptor-1 contributes to progression in triple negative breast cancer. PLoS One 2014 9 1 e81126 10.1371/journal.pone.0081126 24404125
14 Namkoong J. Shin S.S. Lee H.J. Marín Y.E. Wall B.A. Goydos J.S. Chen S. Metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 and glutamate signaling in human melanoma. Cancer Res. 2007 67 5 2298 2305 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3665 17332361
15 Nicoletti F. Arcella A. Iacovelli L. Battaglia G. Giangas-pero F. Melchiorri D. Metabotropic glutamate receptors: New targets for the control of tumor growth? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2007 28 5 206 213 10.1016/j.tips.2007.03.008 17433452
16 Stepulak A. Luksch H. Gebhardt C. Uckermann O. Mar-zahn J. Sifringer M. Rzeski W. Staufner C. Brocke K.S. Turski L. Ikonomidou C. Expression of glutamate receptor subunits in human cancers. Histochem. Cell Biol. 2009 132 4 435 445 10.1007/s00418-009-0613-1 19526364
17 Iacovelli L. Orlando R. Rossi A. Spinsanti P. Melchiorri D. Nicoletti F. Targeting metabotropic glutamate receptors in the treatment of primary brain tumors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2018 38 59 64 10.1016/j.coph.2018.02.005 29525720
18 Albasanz J.L. Ros M. Martín M. Characterization of metabotropic glutamate receptors in rat C6 glioma cells. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1997 326 1 85 91 10.1016/S0014-2999(97)00154-4 9178659
19 Condorelli D.F. Dell’Albani P. Corsaro M. Giuffrida R. Caruso A. A, T.S.; Spinella, F.; Nicoletti, F.; Albanese, V.; Stella, A.M.G. Metabotropic glutamate receptor expression in cultured rat astrocytes and human gliomas. Neurochem. Res. 1997 22 9 1127 1133 10.1023/A:1027317319166 9251103
20 Corti C. Clarkson R.W.E. Crepaldi L. Sala C.F. Xuereb J.H. Ferraguti F. Gene structure of the human metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 and functional analysis of its multiple promoters in neuroblastoma and astroglioma cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2003 278 35 33105 33119 10.1074/jbc.M212380200 12783878
21 Aronica E. Gorter J.A. Ijlst-Keizers H. Rozemuller A.J. Yankaya B. Leenstra S. Troost D. Expression and functional role of mGluR3 and mGluR5 in human astrocytes and glioma cells: Opposite regulation of glutamate transporter proteins. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2003 17 10 2106 2118 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02657.x 12786977
22 Arcella A. Carpinelli G. Battaglia G. D’Onofrio M. Santo-ro F. Ngomba R.T. Bruno V. Casolini P. Giangaspero F. Nicoletti F. Pharmacological blockade of group II metabotropic glutamate receptors reduces the growth of glioma cells in vivo. Neurooncol. 2005 7 3 236 245 10.1215/S1152851704000961 16053698
23 Zhang C. Yuan X. Li H. Zhao Z. Liao Y. Wang X. Su J. Sang S. Liu Q. Anti-cancer effect of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 inhibition in human glioma U87 cells: Involvement of PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2015 35 2 419 432 10.1159/000369707 25613036
24 Dalley C.B. Wroblewska B. Wolfe B.B. Wroblewski J.T. The role of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 dependent signaling in glioma viability. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2018 367 1 59 70 10.1124/jpet.118.250159 30054311
25 Pollock P.M. Cohen-Solal K. Sood R. Namkoong J. Mar-tino J.J. Koganti A. Zhu H. Robbins C. Makalowska I. Shin S.S. Marin Y. Roberts K.G. Yudt L.M. Chen A. Cheng J. Incao A. Pinkett H.W. Graham C.L. Dunn K. Crespo-Carbone S.M. Mackason K.R. Ryan K.B. Sinsimer D. Goydos J. Reuhl K.R. Eckhaus M. Meltzer P.S. Pavan W.J. Trent J.M. Chen S. Melanoma mouse model implicates metabotropic glutamate signaling in melano-cytic neoplasia. Nat. Genet. 2003 34 1 108 112 10.1038/ng1148 12704387
26 Liu B. Zhao S. Qi C. Zhao X. Liu B. Hao F. Zhao Z. Inhibition of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 facilitates hy-poxia-induced glioma cell death. Brain Res. 2019 1704 241 248 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.10.021 30347216
27 Reiner A. Levitz J. Glutamatergic signaling in the central nervous system: Ionotropic and metabotropic receptors in concert. Neuron 2018 98 6 1080 1098 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.018 29953871
28 Ciceroni C. Arcella A. Mosillo P. Battaglia G. Mastrantoni E. Oliva M.A. Carpinelli G. Santoro F. Sale P. Ricci-Vitiani L. De Maria R. Pallini R. Giangaspero F. Nicoletti F. Melchiorri D. Type-3 metabotropic glutamate receptors negatively modulate bone morphogenetic protein receptor sig-naling and support the tumourigenic potential of glioma-initiating cells. Neuropharmacology 2008 55 4 568 576 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.06.064 18621067
29 Ciceroni C. Bonelli M. Mastrantoni E. Niccolini C. Lau-renza M. Larocca L.M. Pallini R. Traficante A. Spinsanti P. Ricci-Vitiani L. Arcella A. De Maria R. Nicoletti F. Battaglia G. Melchiorri D. Type-3 metabotropic glutamate receptors regulate chemoresistance in glioma stem cells, and their levels are inversely related to survival in patients with malignant gliomas. Cell Death Differ. 2013 20 3 396 407 10.1038/cdd.2012.150 23175182
30 Zhou K. Song Y. Zhou W. Zhang C. Shu H. Yang H. Wang B. mGlu3 receptor blockade inhibits proliferation and promotes astrocytic phenotype in glioma stem cells. Cell Biol. Int. 2014 38 4 426 434 10.1002/cbin.10207 24482010
31 Wirsching H.G. Silginer M. Ventura E. Macnair W. Burghardt I. Claassen M. Gatti S. Wichmann J. Riemer C. Schneider H. Weller M. Negative allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate receptor 3 target the stem-like phenotype of glioblastoma. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 2021 20 166 174 10.1016/j.omto.2020.12.009 33575479
32 Maier J.P. Ravi V.M. Kueckelhaus J. Behringer S.P. Garrelfs N. Will P. Sun N. von Ehr J. Goeldner J.M. Pfeifer D. Follo M. Hannibal L. Walch A.K. Hofmann U.G. Beck J. Heiland D.H. Schnell O. Joseph K. Inhibition of metabotropic glutamate receptor III facilitates sensitization to alkylating chemotherapeutics in glioblastoma. Cell Death Dis. 2021 12 8 723 10.1038/s41419-021-03937-9 34290229
33 Jantas D. Grygier B. Gołda S. Chwastek J. Zatorska J. Tertil M. An endogenous and ectopic expression of metabotropic glutamate receptor 8 (mGluR8) inhibits proliferation and increases chemosensitivity of human neuroblastoma and glioma cells. Cancer Lett. 2018 432 1 16 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.06.004 29885518
34 Di Menna L. Joffe M.E. Iacovelli L. Orlando R. Lindsley C.W. Mairesse J. Gressèns P. Cannella M. Caraci F. Copani A. Bruno V. Battaglia G. Conn P.J. Nicoletti F. Functional partnership between mGlu3 and mGlu5 metabotropic glutamate receptors in the central nervous system. Neuropharmacology 2018 128 301 313 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.10.026 29079293
35 Grzmil M. Morin P. Jr Lino M.M. Merlo A. Frank S. Wang Y. Moncayo G. Hemmings B.A. MAP kinase-interacting kinase 1 regulates SMAD2-dependent TGF-β signaling pathway in human glioblastoma. Cancer Res. 2011 71 6 2392 2402 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3112 21406405
36 Schulte A. Günther H.S. Phillips H.S. Kemming D. Mar-tens T. Kharbanda S. Soriano R.H. Modrusan Z. Zapf S. Westphal M. Lamszus K. A distinct subset of glioma cell lines with stem cell-like properties reflects the transcriptional phenotype of glioblastomas and overexpresses CXCR4 as therapeutic target. Glia 2011 59 4 590 602 10.1002/glia.21127 21294158
37 Günther H.S. Schmidt N.O. Phillips H.S. Kemming D. Kharbanda S. Soriano R. Modrusan Z. Meissner H. Westphal M. Lamszus K. Glioblastoma-derived stem cell-enriched cultures form distinct subgroups according to mo-lecular and phenotypic criteria. Oncogene 2008 27 20 2897 2909 10.1038/sj.onc.1210949 18037961
38 Zamykal M. Martens T. Matschke J. Günther H.S. Ka-thagen A. Schulte A. Peters R. Westphal M. Lamszus K. Inhibition of intracerebral glioblastoma growth by targeting the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor involves different context-dependent mechanisms. Neuro-oncol. 2015 17 8 1076 1085 10.1093/neuonc/nou344 25543125
39 Sturm D. Witt H. Hovestadt V. Khuong-Quang D.A. Jones D.T.W. Konermann C. Pfaff E. Tönjes M. Sill M. Bender S. Kool M. Zapatka M. Becker N. Zucknick M. Hielscher T. Liu X.Y. Fontebasso A.M. Ryzhova M. Al-brecht S. Jacob K. Wolter M. Ebinger M. Schuhmann M.U. van Meter T. Frühwald M.C. Hauch H. Pekrun A. Radlwimmer B. Niehues T. von Komorowski G. Dürken M. Kulozik A.E. Madden J. Donson A. Foreman N.K. Drissi R. Fouladi M. Scheurlen W. von Deimling A. Monoranu C. Roggendorf W. Herold-Mende C. Unterberg A. Kramm C.M. Felsberg J. Hartmann C. Wiestler B. Wick W. Milde T. Witt O. Lindroth A.M. Schwartzentruber J. Faury D. Fleming A. Zakrzewska M. Liberski P.P. Zakrzewski K. Hauser P. Garami M. Klekner A. Bognar L. Morrissy S. Cavalli F. Taylor M.D. van Sluis P. Koster J. Versteeg R. Volckmann R. Mikkelsen T. Aldape K. Reifenberger G. Collins V.P. Majewski J. Korshunov A. Lichter P. Plass C. Jabado N. Pfister S.M. Hotspot mutations in H3F3A and IDH1 define distinct epigenetic and biological subgroups of glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 2012 22 4 425 437 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.08.024 23079654
40 Reifenberger G. Weber R.G. Riehmer V. Kaulich K. Willscher E. Wirth H. Gietzelt J. Hentschel B. Westphal M. Simon M. Schackert G. Schramm J. Matschke J. Sabel M.C. Gramatzki D. Felsberg J. Hartmann C. Steinbach J.P. Schlegel U. Wick W. Radlwimmer B. Pietsch T. Tonn J.C. von Deimling A. Binder H. Weller M. Loeffler M. Molecular characterization of long-term survivors of glioblastoma using genome- and transcriptomewide profiling. Int. J. Cancer 2014 135 8 1822 1831 10.1002/ijc.28836 24615357
41 Gautier L. Cope L. Bolstad B.M. Irizarry R.A. affy—analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 2004 20 3 307 315 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg405 14960456
42 Wu J Irizarry R. Gcrma: Background Adjustment Using Sequence Information. R package version 2.60.0. 2020. Available from: https://rdrr.io/bioc/gcrma/
43 Hastie T Tibshirani R Narasimhan B Chu G Impute: impute: Imputation for microarray data. R package version 1.62.0. 2020. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288009004_Impute_Imputation_for_microarray_data
44 Wickham H. Averick M. Bryan J. Chang W. McGowan L. François R. Grolemund G. Hayes A. Henry L. Hester J. Kuhn M. Pedersen T. Miller E. Bache S. Müller K. Ooms J. Robinson D. Seidel D. Spinu V. Takahashi K. Vaughan D. Wilke C. Woo K. Yutani H. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 2019 4 43 1686 10.21105/joss.01686
45 Maechler M. Rousseeuw P. Struyf A. Hubert M. Hornik K. Cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.1.4. 2022. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster
46 Kassambara A. Mundt F. Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7. 2020. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra
47 Chouleur T. Tremblay M.L. Bikfalvi A. Mechanisms of invasion in glioblastoma. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2020 32 6 631 639 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000679 32852310
48 Ceccarelli M. Barthel F.P. Malta T.M. Sabedot T.S. Sala-ma S.R. Murray B.A. Morozova O. Newton Y. Radenbaugh A. Pagnotta S.M. Anjum S. Wang J. Manyam G. Zoppoli P. Ling S. Rao A.A. Grifford M. Cherniack A.D. Zhang H. Poisson L. Carlotti C.G. Jr Tirapelli D.P.C. Rao A. Mikkelsen T. Lau C.C. Yung W.K.A. Rabadan R. Huse J. Brat D.J. Lehman N.L. Barnholtz-Sloan J.S. Zheng S. Hess K. Rao G. Meyerson M. Beroukhim R. Cooper L. Akbani R. Wrensch M. Haussler D. Aldape K.D. Laird P.W. Gutmann D.H. Noushmehr H. Iavarone A. Verhaak R.G.W. Anjum S. Arachchi H. Auman J.T. Balasundaram M. Balu S. Barnett G. Baylin S. Bell S. Benz C. Bir N. Black K.L. Bodenheimer T. Boice L. Bootwalla M.S. Bowen J. Bristow C.A. Butterfield Y.S.N. Chen Q-R. Chin L. Cho J. Chuah E. Chudamani S. Coetzee S.G. Cohen M.L. Colman H. Couce M. D’Angelo F. Davidsen T. Davis A. Demchok J.A. Devine K. Ding L. Duell R. Elder J.B. Eschbacher J.M. Fehrenbach A. Ferguson M. Frazer S. Fuller G. Fulop J. Gabriel S.B. Garofano L. Gastier-Foster J.M. Gehlenborg N. Gerken M. Getz G. Giannini C. Gibson W.J. Hadjipanayis A. Hayes D.N. Heiman D.I. Hermes B. Hilty J. Hoadley K.A. Hoyle A.P. Huang M. Jefferys S.R. Jones C.D. Jones S.J.M. Ju Z. Kastl A. Kendler A. Kim J. Kucherlapati R. Lai P.H. Lawrence M.S. Lee S. Leraas K.M. Lichtenberg T.M. Lin P. Liu Y. Liu J. Ljubimova J.Y. Lu Y. Ma Y. Maglinte D.T. Mahadeshwar H.S. Marra M.A. McGraw M. McPherson C. Meng S. Mieczkowski P.A. Miller C.R. Mills G.B. Moore R.A. Mose L.E. Mungall A.J. Naresh R. Naska T. Neder L. Noble M.S. Noss A. O’Neill B.P. Ostrom Q.T. Palmer C. Pantazi A. Parfenov M. Park P.J. Parker J.S. Perou C.M. Pierson C.R. Pihl T. Protopopov A. Radenbaugh A. Ramirez N.C. Rathmell W.K. Ren X. Roach J. Robertson A.G. Saksena G. Schein J.E. Schumacher S.E. Seidman J. Senecal K. Seth S. Shen H. Shi Y. Shih J. Shimmel K. Sicotte H. Sifri S. Silva T. Simons J.V. Singh R. Skelly T. Sloan A.E. Sofia H.J. Soloway M.G. Song X. Sougnez C. Souza C. Staugaitis S.M. Sun H. Sun C. Tan D. Tang J. Tang Y. Thorne L. Trevisan F.A. Triche T. Van Den Berg D.J. Veluvolu U. Voet D. Wan Y. Wang Z. Warnick R. Weinstein J.N. Weisenberger D.J. Wilkerson M.D. Williams F. Wise L. Wolinsky Y. Wu J. Xu A.W. Yang L. Yang L. Zack T.I. Zenklusen J.C. Zhang J. Zhang W. Zhang J. Zmuda E. Molecular profiling reveals biologically discrete subsets and pathways of progression in diffuse glioma. Cell 2016 164 3 550 563 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.028 26824661
49 Madhavan S. Zenklusen J.C. Kotliarov Y. Sahni H. Fine H.A. Buetow K. Rembrandt: Helping personalized medicine become a reality through integrative translational research. Mol. Cancer Res. 2009 7 2 157 167 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-08-0435 19208739
50 Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 2008 455 7216 1061 1068 10.1038/nature07385 18772890
51 Bowman R.L. Wang Q. Carro A. Verhaak R.G.W. Squatrito M. GlioVis data portal for visualization and analy-sis of brain tumor expression datasets. Neuro-oncol. 2017 19 1 139 141 10.1093/neuonc/now247 28031383
52 Vollmann-Zwerenz A. Leidgens V. Feliciello G. Klein C.A. Hau P. Tumor cell invasion in glioblastoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 6 1932 10.3390/ijms21061932 32178267
53 Onken J. Moeckel S. Leukel P. Leidgens V. Baumann F. Bogdahn U. Vollmann-Zwerenz A. Hau P. Versican isoform V1 regulates proliferation and migration in high-grade gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2014 120 1 73 83 10.1007/s11060-014-1545-8 25064688
54 Tracz-Gaszewska Z. Dobrzyn P. Stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 as a therapeutic target for the treatment of cancer. Cancers 2019 11 7 948 10.3390/cancers11070948 31284458
55 Duman C. Yaqubi K. Hoffmann A. Acikgöz A.A. Korshunov A. Bendszus M. Herold-Mende C. Liu H.K. Alfonso J. Acyl-CoA-binding protein drives glioblastoma tumorigenesis by sustaining fatty acid oxidation. Cell Metab. 2019 30 2 274 289.e5 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.04.004 31056285
56 Kant S. Kesarwani P. Prabhu A. Graham S.F. Buelow K.L. Nakano I. Chinnaiyan P. Enhanced fatty acid oxidation provides glioblastoma cells metabolic plasticity to accommodate to its dynamic nutrient microenvironment. Cell Death Dis. 2020 11 4 253 10.1038/s41419-020-2449-5 32312953
57 Lee H. Kim D. Youn B. Targeting oncogenic rewiring of lipid metabolism for glioblastoma treatment. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 22 13818 10.3390/ijms232213818 36430293
58 Kou Y. Geng F. Guo D. Lipid metabolism in glioblastoma: From De Novo synthesis to storage. Biomedicines 2022 10 8 1943 10.3390/biomedicines10081943 36009491
