
==== Front
Ann Med Surg (Lond)
Ann Med Surg (Lond)
MS9
Annals of Medicine and Surgery
2049-0801
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD

AMSU-D-24-00862
10.1097/MS9.0000000000002216
00038
3
Original Research
Complement protein expression changes in various conditions of breast cancer: in-silico analyses—experimental research
Zabihi Mohammad Reza amohammad.reza.zabihi@yahoo.com

Farhadi Bahar MD bbaharrrrfrhadi1387@gmail.com

Akhoondian Mohammad akhoondian.mohammad@yahoo.com
c*
a Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
b School of Medicine, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Mashhad
c Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
* Corresponding authors. Address: Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 933 167 4201; fax: +98 021 425 563. E-mail: m.akhoondian1994@gmail.com (M. Akhoondian).
9 2024
17 7 2024
86 9 51525161
30 4 2024
15 5 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Introduction:

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in females worldwide. The known biomarkers are insufficient to understand the actual prognosis of breast cancer, and identifying new biomarkers is desirable and valuable data to improve the patient’s survival. Many inflammatory biomarkers, such as the complement system, can be regarded as prognostic values and as potent inflammatory mediators; complement proteins have a critical role in tumorigenesis. In the current study, the authors aim to investigate complement protein expression changes, particularly complement 3 (C3), complement 7 (C7), complement factor B (CFB), and complement factor D (CFD), in various conditions of breast cancer using in-silico tools.

Methods:

The intent data were extracted using webtools, including; Kaplan–Meier plotter, BcGenExMiner, UALCAN, cbioportal, GeneMania, and Enrichr. To select valid data, a P greater than 0.05 was considered.

Results:

The current study clarified that 21 complement genes correlated to survival conditions. Also, down or upregulation of extracted genes and breast cancer statuses were identified. Additionally, expression level difference of complement genes in various breast cancer four stages was detected. Ultimately, co-expression genes with complement genes were extracted and networked.

Conclusion:

Changes in the expression of complement proteins can strongly correlate to breast cancer’s prognosis, status, and survival. Furthermore, considering the vital role of CFD and CFB complement proteins in the alternative pathway in different stages of breast cancer, CFD and CFB can be regarded as reliable prognostic values for diagnosis.

Keywords:

bioinformatic
breast cancer
complement
prognosis
OPEN-ACCESSTRUE
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Highlights

The current study clarified that 21 complement genes correlated to survival conditions.

Down or upregulation of extracted genes and breast cancer statuses were identified. Additionally, expression level difference of complement genes in various breast cancer four stages was detected.

Co-expression genes with complement genes were extracted and networked.

Changes in the expression of complement proteins can strongly correlate to breast cancer's prognosis, status, and survival.

Considering the vital role of complement factor D (CFD) and complement factor B (CFB) complement proteins in the alternative pathway in different stages of breast cancer, CFD and CFB can be regarded as reliable prognostic values for diagnosis.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in females worldwide and accounts for 15% of cancer-related deaths in women1,2. Various biomarkers characterize breast cancer prognosis; however, the known biomarkers are insufficient to understand the actual prognosis; hence, identifying new biomarkers is desirable and valuable data to improve the patient’s survival3.

Based on the evidence, many inflammatory biomarkers, such as the complement system, can be regarded as prognostic values4. In addition, as potent inflammatory mediators, complement proteins have a critical role in tumorigenesis5. Also, the increase of complement regulatory proteins and activation fragments serve as biomarkers and prognostic indicators for various cancers, such as breast cancer5. Additionally, The function of the complement system includes inflammation regulators, facilitating immune mechanisms, and maintaining tissue homeostasis. Moreover, complements have anti-tumor activity through complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC)5. Although the complement system was previously thought to have just anti-tumor activity, recent evidence has shown that activation can increase tumor growth in specific conditions6.

Various complements may be related to the incidence of breast cancer7. Complement 3 (C3) is a member of the complement alternative pathway that regulates neutrophil extracellular traps (NET) formation8. Evidence indicated that C3 causes tumorigenesis by activating the jak2/stat3 pathway and increases cell division9. Complement7 (C7) is another complement member that encodes a serum glycoprotein that forms the membrane attack complex (MAC) accompanying complement components C5b, C6, C8, and C9 as part of the final complement pathway in innate immunity10. C7 Dual behavior was reported in malignancies, such that C7 expression decreased in malignancies like ovarian cancer and increased in some other cancers, such as the liver3. Moreover, complement factor B (CFB) is a critical component of the complement alternative pathway and has a crucial role in labeling the remaining target particles resulting from the clearance. Recently, CFB was identified as a prognosis biomarker for cancer. Various evidence indicated that while the increase in CFB expression in cancer tissues was higher than in normal tissues, the level of CFB expression directly correlated with the survival rate11,12. In addition, complement factor D (CFD) is another complement enzyme that might relate to breast cancer. CFD is a serine protease synthesized by adipocytes, mainly. The enzyme activates the complement alternative pathway and has the “reaction rate” function in the alternative pathway13,14. Additionally, CFD plays an essential catalytic role in forming C3 convertase, downstream activation, and function of the pathway15. Previous studies have shown the production of CFD by cancer cell lines, such as gastric tumor-derived cells. In addition, Adipose-secreted CFD promotes the proliferation and growth of human breast cancer and worse malignant stem cells’ properties in breast tissues. Interestingly, high CFD expression is associated with poor survival in adrenocortical carcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, uveal melanoma, low-grade glioma, and glioblastoma16.

In the current study, the authors aim to investigate complement protein expression changes, particularly C3, C7, CFB, and CFD, in various conditions of breast cancer using in-silico tools. Also, prognostic values for different breast cancer conditions will be provided using obtained data.

Methods

Kaplan–Meier plotter (Kmplotter)

The current research used the kmplotter website (https://kmplot.com/) to evaluate the complement gen-set effect on survival. Kmplotter is a capable web tool to evaluate the relationship between the expression of all genes (ncRNA or protein) and survival in thousands of samples from variated tumor types, such as breast, ovarian, lung, and gastric cancer. The current database uses meta-analyze based data to extract and validate survival biomarkers17. The gene set was imported from the mRNA gene chip as the query. The present study considers the P greater than 0.05 to validate the results. This work has been reported in line with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) criteria18.

BcGenExMiner (v4.8)

BcGenExMiner v4.8 website (http://bcgenex.ico.unicancer.fr/BC-GEM/GEM-Accueil.php) was applied to find the clinicopathology data set. BcGenExMiner is an online statistical analysis tool for annotated breast cancer transcriptome data. Also, the website offers the possibility of discovering desired gene expression in breast cancer19. Found gene set imported as a query from the analysis panel targeted expression analysis, and cancer genome atlas (TCGA) data were selected for analysis. Also, the P greater than 0.05 is considered for data validation.

The CANcer data analysis portal (UALCAN)

In the present study, the UALCAN database (http://ualcan.path.uab.edu/index.html) was utilized to compare complement gene expression data between different stages of breast cancer. UALCAN is an interactive web resource facilitating gene-level queries and Tumor Subgroup Gene Expression data (TSGE). UALCAN also enables researchers to study the expression levels of genes in primary tumor samples compared to normal tissue. The online tool can compare different tumor subgroups defined by pathological cancer stage or tumor grade20. From the TCGA panel, the invasive breast was selected as carcinoma, and genes were imported as the query. In order to validate the data, the P greater than 0.05 is considered significant.

Cbioportal

In order to estimate co-expression and mutation data, the cbioportal website (https://www.cbioportal.org/) was operated. cbioportal provides a web resource for exploring, visualizing, and analyzing multidimensional cancer genomic data. The portal transforms molecular profiling data from cancer tissues and cell lines into easily comprehensible genetic, epigenetic, gene expression, and proteomic events. Also, the current database can compare the obtained results with clinical evidence21. The P greater than 0.05 is also intended to evaluate the achieved data.

GeneMania

GeneMania database (https://genemania.org/) was used to create the interaction network between the identified genes. GeneMANIA is an innovative website for generating hypotheses about gene function, analyzing gene lists, and prioritizing genes for functional assays. Based on a list of genes query, GeneMANIA analyzes genomic and proteomics data to find genes with similar functions22.

Enrichr

Finally, the Enrichr database (https://maayanlab.cloud/Enrichr/) was applied to extract various miRNAs and transcription factors of the found genes. The P<0.05 is considered an “entry” criterion to select the data set. Enrichr currently includes an extensive collection of diverse gene sets for genomic and functional analysis, and the biological data collection is upgraded periodically for further biological discovery23.

Results

Extraction of survival-related complement genes

Using the Kmplotter web tool, the complement genes correlated to each survival condition involving; overall survival, relapse-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and post-progress survival stage were extracted. Ten genes, including C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C4A, C4, C5, C7, CFB, and CFD, are significantly (P<0.05) related to overall survival (OS). Also, 20 genes including C1QB, C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C4A, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8A, C8B, C9, CFB, CFD, CFP, FCN1, FCN2, MASP1, and MASP2 are significantly (P<0.05) related to relapse-free survival (RFS). Additionally, ten genes, including C1r, C1s, C3, C4A, C4, C7, C8B, C8G, CFB, and CFD, correlate to distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) significantly (P<0.05). Moreover, the single gene includes CFD associated with post-progress survival (PPS). In addition, CFD is related to all four stages with high validity (P<0.0001). Also, C7 is related to overall survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival stage with high validity (P<0.0001) (Table 1).

Table 1 The complement gen-set effect on survival

	OS	RFS	DMFS	PPS	
Criteria	Cases	HR	P	Cases	HR	P	Cases	HR	P	Cases	HR	P	
C1QA	1879	0.96	0.68	4929	1.04	0.48	2765	0.97	0.72	458	1.14	0.28	
C1QB	1879	1.18	0.091	4929	1.12	0.033	2765	1.04	0.6	458	1.12	0.36	
C1QC	943	0.89	0.4	2032	1.01	0.87	958	0.92	0.52	180	1.2	0.32	
C1R	1879	0.7	0.00022	4929	0.84	0.00051	2765	0.82	0.012	458	0.96	0.76	
C1S	1879	0.66	1.3E-05	4929	0.8	1.1E-05	2765	0.75	2.8E-04	458	0.97	7.8E-01	
C2	1879	0.81	0.027	4929	0.86	0.0038	2765	0.97	0.68	458	1.01	0.96	
C3	1879	0.67	3.20E-05	4929	0.73	2.10E-09	2765	0.71	1.00E-05	458	0.89	3.20E-01	
C4A	1879	0.72	0.00077	4929	0.6	1.00E-16	2765	0.56	2.30E-13	458	0.89	3.10E-01	
C4B	1879	0.75	0.0023	4929	0.61	1.00E-16	2765	0.58	4.10E-12	458	0.86	2.00E-01	
C5	1879	0.69	9.70E-05	4929	0.78	1.70E-06	2765	0.9	2.00E-01	458	0.98	8.90E-01	
C6	1879	0.91	0.31	4929	0.77	2.40E-07	2765	0.96	0.57	458	0.88	0.29	
C7	1879	0.68	7.80E-05	4929	0.68	3.10E-14	2765	0.67	2.50E-07	458	0.85	1.80E-01	
C8A	1879	0.97	0.73	4929	0.88	0.016	2765	1.11	0.17	458	0.94	0.58	
C8B	1879	0.94	5.00E-01	4929	0.86	2.70E-03	2765	1.17	4.70E-02	458	0.97	7.80E-01	
C8G	1879	1.1	0.32	4929	1.09	0.1	2765	1.3	0.00081	458	1.17	0.2	
C9	1879	1	9.60E-01	4929	0.86	2.80E-03	2765	1.15	8.00E-02	458	1.01	9.40E-01	
CFB	1879	0.69	0.00014	4929	0.68	7.10E-14	2765	0.64	2.20E-08	458	0.88	2.70E-01	
CFD	1879	0.69	0.0001	4929	0.73	1.70E-09	2765	0.63	4.50E-09	458	0.61	3.00E-05	
CFP	1879	0.91	0.34	4929	0.88	0.016	2765	0.94	0.44	458	0.94	0.6	
FCN1	1879	1.01	9.30E-01	4929	0.88	1.60E-02	2765	1.13	1.20E-01	458	0.85	1.70E-01	
FCN2	1879	1.02	0.87	4929	0.79	8.40E-06	2765	0.99	0.86	458	1.02	0.84	
FCN3	1879	1.03	7.90E-01	4929	0.93	1.60E-01	2765	0.99	9.40E-01	458	0.98	8.80E-01	
MASP1	943	0.97	0.84	2032	0.68	7.70E-07	958	0.91	0.46	180	1.01	0.95	
MASP2	1879	0.96	6.90E-01	4929	0.78	2.00E-06	2765	1.12	1.30E-01	458	1	9.80E-01	
MBL2	1879	1.13	0.21	4929	0.9	0.05	2765	1.02	0.8	458	1.13	0.32	
DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PPS, post-progress survival; RFS, relapse-free survival.

Clinicopathology data analysis

In the current study, the relation between breast cancer’s statuses, including Age, Nodal, Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and Basal-like breast cancer (BLBC) and extracted genes were identified. At age status under 51, three genes, including C1r, C1s, and FCN1, are upregulated, and Over 51, C2 and CFB were upregulated (P<0.05). In the Nodal status, C5, C7, and CFD are upregulated in positive conditions, and in negative conditions, C8G and FCN3 are upregulated (P<0.05). In positive ER status, C4A, C4B, C5, C6, C7, CFB, and CFD are upregulated (P<0.0001) and C8A, FCN1and FCN3 are downregulated (P<0.05). In negative condition, C1QA, C1QB, C1QC, C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C8G, C9, and CFP are upregulated (P<0.05) and FCN2 and MASP2 downregulated (P<0.0001). In PR status, in positive condition C4A, C4B, C5, C6, C7, CFD and CFB, are upregulated (P<0.0001) and C8A, FCN1 and FCN3 are downregulated (P<0.05), also. In negative conditions, C1QA, C1QB, C1r, C1s, C2, C8G and C9 are upregulated (P<0.05), and FCN2 and MASP2 are downregulated (P<0.0001).in HER2 status positive conditions, FCN1, MASP, and MASP2 are downregulated (P<0.05). In negative conditions, C3, C5, C6, C7, CFD, and CFP upregulated (P<0.05) and FCN2 is downregulated (P<0.05). In TNBC positive condition, C1QA, C1QB, C1QC, C1r, C1s, C2 and C3 are upregulated (P<0.05) and C6, C7, FCN1, MASP, MBL2, and MASP2 are downregulated (P<0.05). In negative condition C4A, C4B, C5, CFB and CFD are upregulated (P<0.0001) and C8G, C9, CFP, FCN1, and FCN3 are downregulated (P<0.05). In BLBC positive condition, C1QA, C1QB, C1QC, C1r, C1s, C2 and C3 are upregulated (P<0.05) and C6, C7, C8B, FCN2, and MASP2 are downregulated (P<0.0001). In negative condition C4A, C4B, C5, CFB and CFD are upregulated (P<0.0001),and C8G, C9, CFP, FCN1, and FCN3 are downregulated (P<0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2 The relation between BC’s statuses and complement genes

	Age	Nodal status	ER (IHC)	PR (IHC)	HER2 (IHC)	TNBC	BLBC	
Criteria	≤51	˃51	−	+	−	+	−	+	−	+	Not	TNBC	Not	BLBC	
C1QA	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.3013	0.3803	<0.0001*	0.0094*	0.4653	0.0031*	0.0006*	
C1QB	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.2677	0.6759	0.0006*	0.0390*	0.8444	0.0137*	0.0083*	
C1QC	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	—	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.3967	0.4639	0.0008*	0.0587	0.9112	0.0129*	0.0029*	
C1r	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	↑	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.0006*	0.9274	<0.0001*	0.0095*	0.3984	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
C1s	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	↑	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.0003*	0.6365	<0.0001*	0.0242*	0.7054	0.0002*	<0.0001*	
C2	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	↑	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.0151*	0.1334	<0.0001*	0.0274*	0.1558	0.0013*	<0.0001*	
C3	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	—	—	↑	—	—	↑	—	↑	
 P value	0.0942	0.7101	0.0024*	0.4771	0.0101*	0.0114*	<0.0001*	
C4A	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	
 P value	0.2603	0.0894	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.6347	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
C4B	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	
 P value	0.1703	0.0639	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.3738	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
C5	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	↑	↑	—	↑	—	↑	—	
 P value	0.3388	0.0173*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0016*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
C6	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	↑	—	—	↓	—	↓	
 P value	0.6909	0.3389	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0085	<0.0001*	
C7	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	↑	↑	—	—	↓	—	↓	
 P value	0.4338	0.0082*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0013*	0.0009	<0.0001*	
C8A	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	—	—	—	—	—	
 P value	0.7204	0.2060	0.0029*	0.0053*	0.0826	0.3331	0.1577	
C8B	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	↓	
 P value	0.9973	0.7967	0.0793	0.0844	0.1292	0.7782	<0.0001*	
C8G	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	
 P value	0.3020	0.0045*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.2771	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
C9	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	
 P value	0.8794	0.2680	0.0024*	0.0022*	0.8032	0.0378*	0.0291*	
Criteria	Age	Nodal status	ER (IHC)	PR (IHC)	HER2 (IHC)	TNBC	BLBC	
	≤51	>51	−	+	−	+	−	+	−	+	Not	TNBC	Not	BLBC	
CFB	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	↑	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	
 P value	0.0394*	0.1370	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.6570	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
CFD	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	↑	—	↑	—	↑	↑	—	↑	—	↑	—	
 P value	0.1995	0.0016*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0371*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
CFP	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↑	—	—	—	↑	—	↓	—	↓	—	
 P value	0.0593	0.9995	0.0347*	0.1519	0.0002*	0.0071	0.0207*	
FCN1	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	↑	—	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	↓	↓	—	↓	—	
 P value	0.0487	0.3065	<0.0001*	0.0002*	0.0154	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
FCN2	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	↓	—	—	↓	—	↓	
 P value	0.2981	0.7101	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0459*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
FCN3	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	↑	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	
 P value	0.1032	0.0468*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.3148	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	
MASP1	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	↓	—	—	—	—	
 P value	0.3332	0.9768	0.1352	0.2281	0.0002*	0.0719	0.1067	
MASP2	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	—	↓	—	↓	—	↓	
 P value	0.4550	0.5909	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	<0.0001*	0.0004*	<0.0001*	
MBL2	
 NO.	344	689	402	479	228	756	325	656	532	155	810	111	864	168	
 mRNA	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	↓	—	—	
 P value	0.1608	0.8013	0.8417	0.3198	0.2750	0.0127*	0.9338	
* P<0.05

BLBC, basal-like breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR, progesterone receptor; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Complement genes expression comparison

Due to UALCAN data, the expression level difference of complement genes in various breast cancer stages was detected. Fifteen genes, including C1r, C2, C1s, C3, C4A, C5, C6, C7, C8G, CFB, CFD, CFP, FCN3, MASP1, and MASP2, have a difference in expression level between healthy condition and the first stage (P<0.05). Eighteen genes, including C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C4A, C5, C6, C7, C8A, C8G, CFB, CFD, CFP, FCN1, FCN2, FCN3, MASP1, and MASP2 have a difference in expression level between healthy conditions and the second stage (P<0.05). Eighteen genes, including C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C4A, C5, C6, C7, C8G, C9, CFB, CFD, CFP, FCN1, FCN2, FCN3, MASP1, and MASP2 have a difference in expression level between healthy conditions and the third stage (P<0.05) also. Thirteen genes, including C1r, C1s, C3, C5, C6, C7, CFB, CFD, CFP, FCN1, FCN2, MASP1, and MASP2 have a difference in expression level between healthy conditions and the fourth stage (P<0.05) also. Four genes, including C3, C4A, C8G, and CFP, differ in expression level between the first and second stages (P<0.05). Two genes, C3 and CFP, differ in expression level during the first and third stages (P<0.05). Three genes, including C3, C6, and FCN1, differ in expression level between the first and fourth stages (P<0.05). C5 has an expression level difference between the second and third stages (P<0.05). FCN1 has an expression level difference between the second and fourth stages (P<0.05). Finally. CFD and FCN1 have an expression level difference between the third and fourth stages.

Mutation rate

Also, using Cbioportal mutation rate was extracted. Mutation rates (highest to lowest) include C9 (6%), C1s (5%), C3 (5%), CFB (5%), MASP1 (5%), C1r (4%), C2 (4%), C5 (4%), C6 (4%), C8A (4%), C8B (4%), C8G (4%), C1QA (3%), C1QC (3%), C7 (3%), MBL2 (3%), C1QB (2.9%), MASP2 (2.9%), CFD (2.8%), FCN2 (2.6%), FCN3 (2.6%), CFP (2%), FCN1(2%), C4A (1.6%), C4B (1.5%) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 Complement mutation rate 1.

Co-expression data

Using the Cbioportal website, other co-expression genes with complement genes were extracted. By using the “Calculate and draw custom Venn diagrams website” (https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/Venn/), shared genes were identified24. The string web tool also created the interaction network among extracted genes (Fig. 2)24,25.

Figure 2 Complement co-expression network, illustrated by String.

Gene expression network

The gene interaction was predicted by GeneMania online functional illustrator (Fig. 3). In the inner circle were the complement genes, while in the outer circle were the predicted co-expressed genes. Their functions focused on complement activation, humoral immune response, and regulation of humoral immune response.

Figure 3 Complement co-expression network and main genes interaction network, illustrated by GeneMania.

Discussion

The current study extracted 21 complement genes that correlated to survival conditions. Also, down or upregulation of extracted genes and breast cancer statuses were identified. Additionally, expression level difference of complement genes in various breast cancer four stages was detected. Ultimately, co-expression genes with complement genes were extracted and networked.

According to the findings, ten genes, including; C1r, C1s, C3, C4A, C4, C5, C7, CFB, and CFD, have a highly validated correlation to at least three survival conditions. Zhao et al. 26 demonstrated that; C1r, C1s, C4A, C3, C4, C5, C7, CFB, and CFD mRNAs are expressed in lung and breast cancers. In addition, recent evidence has shown that reduced expression of C1s, C1r, CFB, and C3 is related to lymph node metastases and poor prognosis in breast cancer27. Mamoor et al. 28 showed that C1r down-regulation correlates with poor survival. Interestingly, current data showed that C1s and C1r have significant upregulation in five breast cancer statuses and significant differential expressions in four breast cancer stages versus healthy conditions, and C1s have a significant mutation rate (5%) among the other genes. Also, evidence has shown that increases in serum levels of C3 and C4 are related to cancer survival29,30. Additionally, the current data has shown that C3 and C4 have significant differential expressions in four breast cancer stages versus healthy conditions, and C3 has a significant mutation rate (5%) among the other genes. Moreover, a study in china demonstrated that C3 genetic alteration is related to breast cancer prevalence among east Asian females31. C5, as a proinflammatory factor, plays a central role in the activation complement cascade32; evidence revealed that C3, C4, and C5 might increase tumor survival due to immunosuppression33. Further, the current data points that C5 has upregulation in five breast cancer statuses and differential expressions in breast cancer stages. Likewise, C6 has a vital role in tumor growth inhibition and apoptosis induction by downstream Akt/Erk inhibition in HER2 statuses34. C7 plays a dual role in breast cancer prognosis3, and based on the present data, C7 has significant differential expressions in breast cancer stages. Although C7 is upregulated in Nodal status, ER, PR, and HER2 statuses, this complement is downregulated in TNBC and BLBC. CFB and CFD are complements expressed in progesterone/estrogen-related tumors such as Endometriosis-Associated Ovarian Cancer35,36. Interestingly, the highly validated upregulation of CFB and CFD in ER and PR statuses was observed in the current study. According to the high validity of the mentioned complement genes, the present gene set can be regarded as a prognostic value for breast cancer; however, more research is required to prove this hypothesis.

According to “Enrichr” data, the present gene set (main and co-expressed network) is the Regulator of the process, including immune effector, humoral immune response, and complement activation. Additionally, the current set involved cell and sub-cell essential functional structures such as; integral components of the plasma membrane and collagen−containing extracellular matrix (ECM). The immune effector is a component of an immune response carried out by the immune system37. Based on the evidence, breast cancer can escape the immune effector process via tolerance induction and triggers immunosuppressive pathways38. Accordingly, modifying and evaluating the present set could be impressive in breast cancer treatment by diagnosing and preventing immune escape. Various evidence indicates changes in membrane structures, such as glycoproteins and receptors, during breast cancer38,39. Furthermore, While the collagen-containing extracellular matrix positively correlates with tumor size, this structure has an inverse relation with ER and PR receptor statuses40. Also, the collagen-containing extracellular matrix is essential in cancer metastasis41. Current findings revealed that the plasma concentration of the extracted genes is correlated with different cancer statuses, which include changes in the expression of membrane or ECM structures such as receptors and collagen V; However, the interplay between both changes (membrane structures, glycoproteins, and ECM) during breast cancer is still poorly understood and requires more research.

Conclusion

According to the achieved data, Changes in the expression of complement proteins can be strongly correlated to the prognosis, status, and survival of breast cancer. Furthermore, considering the vital role of CFD and CFB complement proteins in the alternative pathway in different stages of breast cancer, CFD and CFB can be regarded as reliable prognostic values for diagnosis. However, more experimental studies, mainly cohort and clinical trials, are required to clarify better the role of competent in the classic and alternative pathways in breast cancer prognosis.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any authors and does not require ethical approval and consent.

Consent

Not applicable.

Source of funding

There was no source of funding for this systematic review study.

Author contribution

Study concept and design by all authors; Data acquisition by all authors; Data interpretation by all authors; drafting the manuscript by all authors; Revision of the manuscript by all authors; the final version of the manuscript is approved by all authors.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)

We could not register our manuscript in the Research Registry UIN: www.researchregistry.com due to internet access restrictions and international sanctions. we live in Iran. We hardly even meet the basic needs of our daily life. We do not receive any funding for our research and we cannot pay for our research. Please excuse us from registering this manuscript in the Research Registry UIN: www.researchregistry.com.

Guarantor

Mohammad Akhoondian.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
==== Refs
References

1 Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68 :394–424.30207593
2 Abdollahi R . Psychological adjustment: A promising approach in the treatment of women with breast cancer. J Nurs Rep Clin Pract 2024. 10.32598/JNRCP.2404.1061.
3 Zhang H Zhao Y Liu X . High expression of complement component C7 indicates poor prognosis of breast cancer and is insensitive to taxane-anthracycline chemotherapy. Front Oncol 2021;11 :724250.34631552
4 Loibl S Poortmans P Morrow M . Breast cancer. Lancet 2021;397 :1750–1769.33812473
5 Akhir FNM Noor MHM Leong KWK . An Immunoregulatory role for complement receptors in murine models of breast cancer. Antibodies (Basel) 2021;10 :2.33430104
6 Thurman JM Laskowski J Nemenoff RA . Complement and cancer-a dysfunctional relationship? Antibodies (Basel) 2020;9 :61.33167384
7 Lu Y Zhao Q Liao JY . Complement signals determine opposite effects of B cells in chemotherapy-induced immunity. Cell 2020;180 :1081–1097.e1024.32142650
8 Zheng Z Li YN Jia S . Lung mesenchymal stromal cells influenced by Th2 cytokines mobilize neutrophils and facilitate metastasis by producing complement C3. Nat Commun 2021;12 :6202.34707103
9 Yuan K Ye J Liu Z . Complement C3 overexpression activates JAK2/STAT3 pathway and correlates with gastric cancer progression. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2020;39 :9.31928530
10 Guo H Yan Z Hu Y . Complement C7 is specifically expressed in mesangial cells and is a potential diagnostic biomarker for diabetic nephropathy and is regulated by miR-494-3p and miR-574-5p. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2021;14 :3077–3088.34262312
11 He C Li Y Zhang R . Low CFB expression is independently associated with poor overall and disease‑free survival in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Oncology letters 2021;21 :478.33968194
12 Wu P Shi J Sun W . The prognostic value of plasma complement factor B (CFB) in thyroid carcinoma. Bioengineered 2021;12 :12854–12866.34898340
13 Ruiz-Ojeda FJ Olza J Gil Á . Oxidative stress and inflammation in obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity: Elsevier 2018;1 :1–15.
14 Basheer C Balasubramanian R Lee HK . Determination of organic micropollutants in rainwater using hollow fiber membrane/liquid-phase microextraction combined with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2003;1016 :11–20.14601824
15 Lesavre PH Müller-Eberhard HJ . Mechanism of action of factor D of the alternative complement pathway. J Exp Med 1978;148 :1498–1509.82604
16 Rahmati Nezhad P Riihilä P Knuutila JS . Complement factor D is a novel biomarker and putative therapeutic target in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Cancers 2022;14 :305.35053469
17 Plotter KM . What is the KM plotter. Hungarian Acad Sci 2018. http://kmplot.com
18 Kilkenny C Browne WJ Cuthill IC . Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010;8 :e1000412.20613859
19 Jézéquel P Campone M Gouraud W . bc-GenExMiner: an easy-to-use online platform for gene prognostic analyses in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131 :765–775.21452023
20 Chandrashekar DS Bashel B Balasubramanya SAH . UALCAN: a portal for facilitating tumor subgroup gene expression and survival analyses. Neoplasia 2017;19 :649–658.28732212
21 Gao J Aksoy BA Dogrusoz U . Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal 2013;6 :pl1.23550210
22 Franz M Rodriguez H Lopes C . GeneMANIA update 2018. Nucleic Acids Res 2018;46 (W1 ):W60–W64.29912392
23 Xie Z Bailey A Kuleshov MV . Gene set knowledge discovery with enrichr. Curr Protoc 2021;1 :e90.33780170
24 Akhoondian M Zabihi MR Yavari S . Identification of TGF-β1 expression pathway in the improvement of burn wound healing. Burns 2022;48 :2007–2010.36008222
25 Szklarczyk D Gable AL Nastou KC . The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein-protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res 2021;49 (D1 ):D605–d612.33237311
26 Zhao P Wu J Lu F . The imbalance in the complement system and its possible physiological mechanisms in patients with lung cancer. BMC Cancer 2019;19 :201.30841875
27 Popeda M Markiewicz A Stokowy T . Reduced expression of innate immunity-related genes in lymph node metastases of luminal breast cancer patients. Sci Rep 2021;11 :5097.33658651
28 Mamoor S . C1R is differentially expressed in the brain metastases of patients with metastatic breast cancer. 2020.
29 Ajona D Pajares MJ Corrales L . Investigation of complement activation product c4d as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105 :1385–1393.23940286
30 Kato Y Nakamura H Tojo H . A proteomic profiling of laser‐microdissected lung adenocarcinoma cells of early lepidic‐types. Clin Transl Med 2015;4 :e24.
31 Lin C-H Huang RY-J Lu T-P . High prevalence of APOA1/C3/A4/A5 alterations in luminal breast cancers among young women in East Asia. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021;7 :88.34226567
32 Skeie JM Fingert JH Russell SR . Complement component C5a activates ICAM-1 expression on human choroidal endothelial cells. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51 :5336–5342.20484595
33 Pires BR Panis C Alves VD . Label-free proteomics revealed oxidative stress and inflammation as factors that enhance chemoresistance in luminal breast cancer. Oxidat Med Cell Longev 2019;2019 :5357649.
34 Yang L Zheng L-y Tian Y . C6 ceramide dramatically enhances docetaxel-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis in cultured breast cancer cells: a mechanism study. Exp Cell Res 2015;332 :47–59.25576381
35 Suryawanshi S Huang X Elishaev E . Complement pathway is frequently altered in endometriosis and endometriosis-associated ovarian cancercomplement in endometriosis and endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20 :6163–6174.25294912
36 Del Carmen MG Smith Sehdev AE Fader AN . Endometriosis‐associated ovarian carcinoma: Differential expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and estrogen/progesterone receptors. Cancer 2003;98 :1658–1663.14534882
37 Hilleman MR . Strategies and mechanisms for host and pathogen survival in acute and persistent viral infections. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004;101 (suppl_2 ):14560–14566.15297608
38 Mantovani A Romero P Palucka AK . Tumour immunity: effector response to tumour and role of the microenvironment. Lancet 2008;371 :771–783.18275997
39 Corsetto PA Montorfano G Zava S . Effects of n-3 PUFAs on breast cancer cells through their incorporation in plasma membrane. Lipids Health Dis 2011;10 :73.21569413
40 Ioachim E Charchanti A Briasoulis E . Immunohistochemical expression of extracellular matrix components tenascin, fibronectin, collagen type IV and laminin in breast cancer: their prognostic value and role in tumour invasion and progression. Eur J Cancer 2002;38 :2362–2370.12460779
41 Wishart AL Conner SJ Guarin JR . Decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds identify full-length collagen VI as a driver of breast cancer cell invasion in obesity and metastasis. Sci Adv 2020;6 :eabc3175.33087348
