==== Front PeerJ PeerJ peerj peerj PeerJ 2167-8359 PeerJ Inc. San Diego, USA 10320 10.7717/peerj.10320 Bioinformatics Oncology Respiratory Medicine Medical Genetics Metabolic Sciences Identification of a six-gene metabolic signature predicting overall survival for patients with lung adenocarcinoma Cao Yubo ybcao@cmu.edu.cncybsweeter@126.com1 Lu Xiaomei 2 Li Yue 1 Fu Jia 1 Li Hongyuan 1 Li Xiulin 1 Chang Ziyou 1 Liu Sa liusa118@163.com1 1 Department of Medical Oncology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China 2 Department of Pathophysiology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China Mourtada-Maarabouni Mirna 2 12 2020 2020 8 e103206 8 2020 17 10 2020 ©2020 Cao et al.2020Cao et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is one of the main subtypes of lung cancer. Hundreds of metabolic genes are altered consistently in LUAD; however, their prognostic role remains to be explored. This study aimed to establish a molecular signature that can predict the prognosis in patients with LUAD based on metabolic gene expression. Methods The transcriptome expression profiles and corresponding clinical information of LUAD were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas and Gene Expression Omnibus databases. The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between LUAD and paired non-tumor samples were identified by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Univariate Cox regression analysis and the lasso Cox regression model were used to construct the best-prognosis molecular signature. A nomogram was established comprising the prognostic model for predicting overall survival. To validate the prognostic ability of the molecular signature and the nomogram, the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards model, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used. Results The six-gene molecular signature (PFKP, PKM, TPI1, LDHA, PTGES, and TYMS) from the DEGs was constructed to predict the prognosis. The molecular signature demonstrated a robust independent prognostic ability in the training and validation sets. The nomogram including the prognostic model had a greater predictive accuracy than previous systems. Furthermore, a gene set enrichment analysis revealed several significantly enriched metabolic pathways, which suggests a correlation of the molecular signature with metabolic systems and may help explain the underlying mechanisms. Conclusions Our study identified a novel six-gene metabolic signature for LUAD prognosis prediction. The molecular signature could reflect the dysregulated metabolic microenvironment, provide potential biomarkers for predicting prognosis, and indicate potential novel metabolic molecular-targeted therapies. Lung adenocarcinoma Metabolic signature Overall survival Prognostic model TCGA GEOScience and Technology Project of Liaoning Province 2019-ZD-07532018010137-301This work supported by the Science and Technology Project of Liaoning Province (No. 2019-ZD-0753 and No.2018010137-301). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ==== Body Introduction Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for nearly 20% of all cancer deaths (Bray et al., 2018). Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is one of the main subtypes of lung cancer (Travis, 2020), accounting for more than 40% of lung cancer cases (Hutchinson et al., 2019), and its relative frequency is increasing (Twardella et al., 2018). Despite great improvements in the treatment of LUAD, the prognosis in patients with LUAD remains poor owing to the lack of early detection and effective individual therapies (Dolly et al., 2017). Therefore, exploring prognostic biomarkers is a critical need to help predict prognosis in LUAD and to design individual therapies. Until now, most prognostic models were based on clinical characteristics (e.g., age, sex, TNM stage, vascular tumor invasion, and organization classification) or a single molecular biomarker, such as carcinoembryonic antigen and epidermal growth factor receptor. However, these prognostic models have limited power for predicting prognosis because of the complicated molecular mechanisms of LUAD development and progression. Therefore, it is important to explore the mechanism of LUAD pathology in more depth using bioinformatics to construct prognostic models that predict the patients’ prognosis more accurately. Metabolic reprogramming is one of the hallmarks of cancer (Faubert, Solmonson & DeBerardinis, 2020), which takes place from the onset and throughout the development of cancer (Chang, Fang & Gu, 2020). It plays an important role in the progression, metastasis, depressed immunity, and therapy resistance of cancer (Lane, Higashi & Fan, 2019). Metabolic reprogramming has been widely accepted as the basis for the discovery of novel tumor biomarkers. Satriano et al. (2019) observed that metabolic rearrangement played an important role in predicting the prognosis in patients with primary liver cancers. Chen et al. (2019) revealed that reprogrammed tumor glucose metabolism could promote cancer stemness and result in poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. There are hundreds of metabolic genes that consistently have an altered expression in LUAD (Asavasupreechar et al., 2019; Vanhove et al., 2019); however, their roles and mechanisms of action remain unclear. This study investigated the role of abnormal metabolism in predicting the prognosis in patients with LUAD. With the development of genome sequencing and bioinformatics, new data have emerged. Prognosis-related gene signatures that were constructed using these new tools have made great contributions to tumor prognosis prediction. This study aimed to use bioinformatic methods to establish a prognostic metabolic-gene molecular model that can predict prognosis in patients with LUAD. This model could potentially guide personalized therapy for such patients. Materials & Methods Data expression datasets The transcriptome expression profiles and corresponding clinical information for LUAD were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; http://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) databases. From the TCGA, gene expression data were of the HTSeq-FPKM type, obtained from 497 LUAD and 54 non-tumor samples. From the GEO, the GSE68465 dataset included 443 LUAD and 19 non-tumor samples, using the GPL96 platform (Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array). The metabolic genes in the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway were extracted from Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) (https://www.gsea-msigdb.org/gsea/index.jsp), and the overlapping metabolism-related genes were identified from TCGA and GSE68465 (Possemato et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2020). Construction and validation of the prognostic metabolic gene signature The clinical cases from the TCGA database were used to assess the prognostic associations of the metabolic genes with clinical outcomes. The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between LUAD and paired non-tumor samples were obtained by the Wilcoxon rank sum test using the R package called “limma”, and the adjusted P-value <  0.05 and absolute log2 fold change (FC) >1 were considered as the selection criterion. Univariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify prognosis-related metabolic genes, and adjusted P-values <  0.001 were considered statistically significant. The lasso penalty for Cox proportional hazards model (1,000 iterations) was used to construct the prognostic gene-expression signature utilizing an R package called “glmnet.” The prognostic gene-expression signature was designed using a risk scoring method with the following formula: Riskscore= ∑inx i∗βi where xi indicates the expression of gene i and βi indicates the coefficient of gene i generated from the Cox multivariate regression. The R package “survminer” was used to explore the cutoff point of the risk score, which divided patients into high- and low-risk groups. The R package “survival” was used to draw the Kaplan–Meier survival curves to demonstrate the overall survival (OS) in the high- and low-risk groups. The R package “survival ROC” was used to evaluate the prognostic value of the gene-expression signature. Independence of the prognostic gene signature from other clinical characteristics To determine whether the predictive power of the prognostic gene-expression signature could be independent from other clinicopathological variables in patients with LUAD (including age, sex, TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and M stage), univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. The hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence intervals (Cis), and P-values were calculated. Construction and validation of a predictive nomogram The nomogram was constructed using all the independent prognostic factors of the Cox regression analyses using R package “rms.” Validation of the nomogram was assessed by discrimination and calibration using the concordance index (C-index) by Harrell, Lee & Mark (1996) (bootstraps with 1,000 resamples) and the calibration plot, respectively. External validation of the prognostic metabolic gene signature To verify the prognostic metabolic-gene molecular signature in the GEO dataset, the risk score of patients was calculated directly with the gene-expression signature constructed from the TCGA dataset for further analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed identically with the gene signature in the TCGA dataset. The mRNA expression levels of the signature genes were analyzed further using online databases (the Oncomine database (http://www.oncomine.org/) and TIMER database (http://cistrome.shinyapps.io/timer/)). The protein expression levels associated with the signature genes were validated using the Human Protein Atlas database (http://www.proteinatlas.org/). The known genetic alterations of the signature genes were investigated using cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics (http://www.cbioportal.org/). Gene set enrichment analysis Enrichment analysis of the KEGG pathways of the signature genes was performed using GSEA on the TCGA dataset. The nominal (NOM) P-value <  0.05 and the False Discovery Rate (FDR) q-value <0.25 indicated statistical significance. Statistical analysis All analyses were performed using R software v3.6.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Two-tailed P-values <  0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Clinical characteristics The TCGA dataset included 486 patients with LUAD (Table S1). The GEO dataset included 443 patients with LUAD (Table S1). Patients with a survival time of less than 30 days were omitted. For the study, 454 and 439 patients remained in the TCGA and GEO datasets, respectively. The detailed clinical characteristics of all patients are listed in Table 1. 10.7717/peerj.10320/table-1Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the included datasets. Characteristics TCGA (n, %) (n = 454) GSE68465 (n, %) (n = 439) Age <60 133 (29.3%) 128 (29.2%) ≥60 321 (70.7%) 311 (70.8%) NA 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Gender Female 248 (54.6%) 218 (49.7%) Male 206 (45.4%) 221 (50.3%) NA 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Grade G1 0 (0.0%) 60 (13.7%) G2 0 (0.0%) 206 (46.9%) G3 0 (0.0%) 166 (37.8%) NA 454 (100%) 7 (1.6%) TNM stage I 243 (53.5%) II 105 (23.1%) III 74 (16.3%) IV 24 (5.3%) NA 8 (1.8%) 439 (100%) T stage T1 156 (34.4%) 150 (34.2%) T2 240 (52.9%) 248 (56.5%) T3 37 (8.1%) 28 (6.4%) T4 18 (4.0%) 11 (2.5%) Tx 3 (0.7%) 2 (0.5%) N stage N0 291 (64.1%) 297 (67.7%) N1 86 (18.9%) 87 (19.8%) N2 64 (14.1%) 52 (11.8%) N3 2 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%) Nx 11 (2.4%) 3 (0.7%) M stage M0 305 (67.2%) 439 (100%) M1 23 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%) Mx 126 (27.8%) 0 (0.0%) Survival status Alive 300 (66.1%) 206 (46.9%) Dead 154 (33.9%) 233 (53.1%) Notes. TCGAThe Cancer Genome Atlas Building and validation of the prognostic metabolic gene signature To clarify our study design, a flow chart of the analysis procedure is presented in Fig. 1. A list of 994 genes in the KEGG pathway was identified from GSEA (Table S2), and 633 overlapping metabolism-related genes were abstracted from TCGA and GSE68465 (Table S3). The 96 DEGs (72 up-regulated genes and 24 down-regulated genes) between LUAD and paired non-tumor samples were identified from the further analysis (Fig. 2; Table S4). Seven significant genes associated with OS were identified using univariate analysis (Table S4). Furthermore, six genes were selected to build the prognostic model using a lasso-penalized Cox analysis (Table 2). The six genes were phosphofructokinase platelet (PFKP), pyruvate kinase muscle (PKM), triosephosphate isomerase 1 (TPI1), lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA), prostaglandin E synthase (PTGES), and thymidylate synthase (TYMS). Risk score = (0. 00005 × PFKP mRNA level) + (0. 00173 ×PKM mRNA level) + (0. 00038 ×TPI1 mRNA level) + (0. 00379 ×LDHA mRNA level) + (0. 00292 ×PTGES mRNA level) + (0. 02490 × TYMS mRNA level). 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-1Figure 1 Overall flowchart of steps used in the construction of the prognostic metabolic gene signature. The TCGA dataset was utilized to construct the prognostic metabolic gene signature. The TCGA clinical information, the GSE68465 dataset and online databases from international platforms were further utilized to validate the prognostic model. TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; OS, overall survival; ROC, the receiver operating characteristic. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-2Figure 2 Heatmap and Volcano plot of metabolism-related DEGs. (A) The heatmap of metabolism-related DEGs. The red color represented high expression genes, the blue color represented low expression genes, and the white color represented the expression genes with no significant difference (FDR < 0.05, absolute log FC > 1). (B) Volcano plot of metabolism-related DEGs. The pink, blue and black dots represented the high expression genes, low expression genes, and the expression genes with no significant difference (FDR < 0.05, absolute log FC > 1). DEGs, differentially expressed genes; FDR, false discovery rate. 10.7717/peerj.10320/table-2Table 2 Prognostic values for the six-gene metabolic signature in 454 LUAD patients. Gene Coef HR HR.95L HR.95H P value PFKP 0.000050 1.009949 1.004184 1.015747 0.0007 PKM 0.001734 1.005149 1.002545 1.007759 0.000104 TPI1 0.000384 1.003352 1.001479 1.005229 0.000448 LDHA 0.003792 1.005663 1.003774 1.007556 0.00000000396 PTGES 0.002922 1.008392 1.003408 1.0134 0.000946 TYMS 0.024904 1.033141 1.01572 1.050861 0.000172 Notes. LUADlung adenocarcinoma HRhazard ratio CIconfidence interval 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-3Figure 3 Identification of the prognostic model in lung adenocarcinoma. (A, B) Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival of the high-risk and low-risk groups stratified by the six-gene signature- based risk score in the TCGA or GEO dataset. (C, D) Risk score distribution, survival status distribution in the TCGA or GEO dataset. (E, F) The expression heatmap of the six prognostic genes in the TCGA or GEO dataset. (G, H) Time-dependent ROC curves of the six-gene signature in the TCGA or GEO dataset. TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; GEO, Gene Expression Omnibus; ROC, receiver operating characteristic. The 445 patients with LUAD were divided into the high-risk or low-risk group based on the median risk score of 0.861 in the TCGA dataset. Patients in the high-risk group had significantly poorer OS than those in the low-risk group (P < 0.001; Fig. 3A). The distribution of the risk score and survival status of the patients is presented in Fig. 3C, which showed a higher mortality in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. The expression of the six prognostic genes is shown in the heatmap. All the six genes had a significant positive correlation with the high-risk group (Fig. 3E). The area under the curve (AUC) of the time-dependent ROC curve was used to identify the prognostic ability of the six-gene molecular signature. The AUCs of the six-gene signature model were 0.693, 0.655, and 0.565 for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively, suggesting that the prediction model had a good performance in predicting the OS in patients with LUAD (Fig. 3G). The prognostic model was validated in the GSE68465 dataset. The 439 patients with LUAD were divided into the high-risk or low-risk group based on the median risk score of 0.861. Patients in the high-risk group had a poor OS compared with those in the low-risk group (P < 0.001; Fig. 3B). The distribution of the risk score and survival status showed a higher mortality in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group (Fig. 3D). The expression heatmap of the six prognostic genes showed that all the six genes had a significant positive correlation with the high-risk group (Fig. 3F). The AUCs of the six-gene signature model were 0.728, 0.654, and 0.618 for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively (Fig. 3H). Taken together, these results suggested that the prognostic model had a high sensitivity and specificity in predicting the OS in patients with LUAD. The prognostic gene signature was independent from other clinicopathological factors Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent predictive value of the six-gene prognostic signature. In the TCGA dataset, univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the prognostic model (HR: 2.845, P < 0.001), TNM stage (HR: 1.666, P < 0.001), T stage (HR: 1.605, P < 0.001), and N stage (HR: 1.806, P < 0.001) had a prognostic value for OS (Fig. 4A). Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the only prognostic model (HR: 2.448, P <0.001) and TNM stage (HR: 1.950, P <0.01) were independent prognostic factors for OS (Fig. 4A). In the GSE68465 dataset, the prognostic model, T stage, N stage, and age had a prognostic value in the univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (Fig. 4B). Gender was the only independent prognostic factor for OS in the univariate Cox regression analysis (Fig. 4B). In addition, the time-dependent ROC curve was used to identify the predictive ability of the prognostic model compared with the other clinicopathological characteristics. In the TCGA dataset, the AUCs of the prognostic model were 0.693, 0.655, and 0.565 for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively, which were higher than most of the other clinicopathological characteristics including age (0.498, 0.511, 0.485), gender (0.579, 0.485, 0.451), T stage (0.673, 0.613, 0.608), N stage (0.685, 0.666, 0.628), and M stage (0.508, 0.527, 0.530) (Fig. 5A). Furthermore, in the GSE68465 dataset, the AUCs of the prognostic model were 0.728, 0.654, and 0.618 for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively, which were higher than most of the other clinicopathological characteristics including age (0.593, 0.568, 0.581), gender (0.539, 0.549, 0.547), grade (0.580, 0.571, 0.548), T stage (0.647, 0.606, 0.606), and N stage (0.690, 0.680, 0.655) (Fig. 5B). The prognostic model had a larger AUC value compared with other clinicopathological characteristics. These results indicated that the model was an excellent prognostic model for LAUD patients, especially for the 1- and 3-year OS. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-4Figure 4 Cox regression analysis of the associations between the prognostic model and clinicopathological characteristics with overall survival in LAUD. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses in the TCGA dataset (A) and GEO dataset (B). LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; GEO, Gene Expression Omnibus. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-5Figure 5 The time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for the prognostic model and clinicopathological characteristics in LAUD. (A) The time-dependent ROC curves of risk score, age, gender, TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and M stage in the TCGA dataset. (B) The time-dependent ROC curves of risk score, age, gender, grade, T stage, and N stage in the GEO dataset. LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma. These results suggested that our prognostic model could be an independent predictor of prognosis in patients with LAUD. Building and validating a predictive nomogram A nomogram was built to predict the survival probability in patients with LAUD in the TCGA dataset. The nomogram was constructed using four prognostic factors (the TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and prognostic model; Fig. 6A). The C-index was calculated to evaluate the predictive ability of the nomogram for OS. The C-index for the nomogram was 0.754 (95% CI [0.561–0.947]). Calibration plots indicated that the nomogram had a good accuracy in predicting the 1- and 3-year OS (Fig. 6B). 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-6Figure 6 Construction and validation of a nomogram for survival prediction in LUAD from the TCGA dataset. (A) The nomogram was built in the TCGA dataset. (B) Calibration plots revealed the nomogram-predicted survival probabilities. (C) The time-dependent ROC analysis evaluated the accuracy of the nomogram. TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma. To predict the survival probability more accurately, the combined prognostic model was built based on the nomogram. The combined prognostic model consisted of the TNM stage, T stage, N stage, and prognostic model. A time-dependent ROC curve was used to identify the predictive ability of the combined prognostic model. The AUCs of the combined prognostic models were 0.782, 0.717, and 0.688 for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively, which were higher than other clinical models including the TNM stage model (0.732, 0.687, 0.681), T stage model (0.671, 0.612, 0.613), N stage model (0.686, 0.661, 0.648), and the prognostic model (0.692, 0.634, 0.576). The combined model had the largest AUC value compared with other factors, which indicated that the combined model had a good predictive accuracy for survival. These results suggested that the predictive ability of the combined model built with the nomograms is better than other models, especially for predicting 1- and 3-year survival (Fig. 6C). Gene set enrichment analysis To recognize signaling pathways that are differentially activated in LUAD, a GSEA was used, and a total of 49 significantly enriched KEGG pathways were found in the high-risk group and low-risk group (Table S5) of the TCGA dataset (FDR q-val < 0.25, NOM p-val < 0.05). Among them, many enriched pathways were related to metabolism and some highly dysregulated pathways including cell cycle, p53 signaling pathway, and basal transcription factors were also contained in these results (Table S5). We chose the top five significantly enriched metabolism-signaling pathways depending on the normalized enrichment score from the high-risk group or low-risk group. We found that the top five most significantly enriched metabolism-related pathways of the high-risk group were the cysteine and methionine, fructose and mannose, glyoxylate and dicarboxylate, purine, and pyrimidine pathways (Fig. 7A). The top five most significantly enriched metabolism-related pathways of the low-risk group were the alpha linolenic acid, arachidonic acid, ether lipid, glycerophospholipid, and linoleic acid pathways (Fig. 7B). Most of the metabolism-related pathways in the high-risk group mainly focused on amino acid and glycolysis metabolism, while the pathways in the low-risk group mainly focused on lipid metabolism. The results of the ten representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways are given in Table 3. Furthermore, all the six metabolic genes of the prognostic model enriched these metabolism pathways significantly. LDHA enriched the cysteine and methionine pathway (Table S6); PFKP and TPI1 enriched the fructose and mannose pathway (Table S6); PKM enriched the purine pathway (Table S6); TYMS enriched the pyrimidine pathway (Table S6); and PTGES enriched the arachidonic acid pathway (Table S6). The results further elucidated the role of metabolism in LUAD and the value of the six-gene signature in predicting the prognosis of LUAD. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-7Figure 7 The representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways in the TCGA dataset by GSEA. (A) The top five significantly representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways in the high-risk group. (B) The top five significantly representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways in the low-risk group. Related parameters for the ten representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways are given in Table 3. GSEA, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas. 10.7717/peerj.10320/table-3Table 3 The results of the ten representative enriched metabolism-related KEGG pathways analysed by GSEA. Pathway Size ES NES NOM p-val FDR q-val High risk KEGG_CYSTEINE_AND_METHIONINE_ METABOLISM 34 0.62 1.98 0.00 0.006 KEGG_FRUCTOSE_AND_MANNOSE_ METABOLISM 33 0.60 1.95 0.002 0.007 KEGG_GLYOXYLATE_AND_DICARBOXYLATE_ METABOLISM 16 0.74 1.89 0.002 0.013 KEGG_PURINE_METABOLISM 157 0.51 2.02 0.000 0.005 KEGG_PYRIMIDINE_METABOLOSM 98 0.68 2.36 0.000 0.000 Low risk KEGG_ALPHA_LINOLENIC_ACID_METABOLISM 19 −0.60 −1.82 0.002 0.113 KEGG_ARACHIDONIC_ACID_METABOLISM 58 −0.53 −1.86 0.000 0.101 KEGG_ETHER_LIPID_ METABOLISM 33 −0.51 −1.73 0.011 0.129 KEGG_GLYCEROPHOSPHOLIPID_METABOLISM 77 −0.48 −1.91 0.002 0.127 KEGG_LINOLEIC_ACID_ METABOLISM 29 −0.55 −1.77 0.008 0.138 Notes. KEGGKyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes GSEAGene Set Enrichment Analysis ESenrichment score NOM p-valnominal p-value FDR q-valfalse discovery rate q-value NESnormalized enrichment score External validation using online databases To further identify the role of the six metabolic genes in LUAD, we compared the mRNA expression levels of the six metabolic genes (PFKP, PKM, TPI1, LDHA, PTGES, and TYMS) in the LAUD tissues with those in the normal lung tissues using data from the Oncomine database (Fig. 8). Obviously, all the six genes were overexpressed in lung cancer in all the datasets from the Oncomine database with the threshold of fold change = 2, P-value = 0.001 (Fig. 8A). Furthermore, the mRNA levels of all the six genes in LUAD were significantly upregulated than those in normal tissues in the combined LUAD datasets from the Oncomine database (Fig. 8B; Table 4). To further validate the overexpression of the six genes in LUAD, we analyzed the expression of the six genes using TIMER databases (Fig. 9). The results revealed that all the mRNA expression of the six genes in LUAD were significantly higher than in normal tissues. All the results from the Oncomine and TIMER databases were consistent with our results for the TCGA and GEO datasets. In addition, the mRNA expression of the six genes was also higher in esophageal carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, and stomach adenocarcinoma from the TIMER databases (Fig. 9). The protein expressions of these six genes were analyzed using clinical specimens from the Human Protein Profiles (Figs. 10A and 10B; Table 5). The representative images of the six gene protein levels from the Human Protein Profiles are shown in Fig. 10A. Compared with the expression level in normal lung tissue, LDHA (100%, n = 7) and TYMS (80%, n = 5) showed a significantly higher percentage of high/medium expression levels in the LAUD tissue (Fig. 10B; Table 5). PKM (50%, n = 6), PFKP (33.33%, n = 6), and PTGES (16.67%, n = 6) showed a significant moderate percentage of high/medium expression levels in the LAUD tissue (Fig. 10B; Table 5). However, TPI1 showed no detected expression both in the LAUD and normal lung tissue (Fig. 10B; Table 5). The genetic alterations were explored in the cBioPortal database. Amplifications and mutations were the most common alterations in the six metabolic genes (Fig. 10C). The aberrant genetic alterations might elucidate the overexpression of these six genes in LUAD. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-8Figure 8 mRNA expression levels of the six prognostic genes from online databases. (A) mRNA expression levels of the six genes in the Oncomine database (http://www.oncomine.org/). The threshold is shown at the bottom (P value < 0.001 and fold change > 2 were utilized for screening). The figure in the colored cell represents the number of datasets complying with the threshold. The red cells indicate that the genes were overexpressed in the cancer, while the blue cells indicate that the genes were overexpressed in the normal tissues. (B) Comparisons of the mRNA expression levels of the six genes between LUAD and normal tissues in the combined LUAD datasets from the Oncomine database. PFKP, phosphofructokinase platelet; PKM, pyruvate kinase muscle; TPI1, triosephosphate isomerase 1; LDHA, lactate dehydrogenase A; PTGES, prostaglandin E synthase; TYMS, thymidylate synthase; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma. 10.7717/peerj.10320/table-4Table 4 Comparison of mRNA expression levels of the six genes between LUAD and normal tissues from the Oncomine database. Gene Analysis type of lung cancer vs. normal t-Test Fold change P value References PFKP LUAD (n = 40) vs. Normal (n = 6) 7.146 3.469 7.56E−8 Garber et al. (2001) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 49) 11.177 2.685 4.35E−19 Landi et al. (2008) LUAD (n = 45) vs. Normal (n = 65) 7.946 2.536 3.39E−11 Hou et al. (2010) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 58) 10.910 2.883 1.64E−17 Selamat et al. (2012) LUAD (n = 20) vs. Normal (n = 19) 5.277 3.149 9.37E−6 Stearman et al. (2005) Comparison of PFKP expression across 5 Analysis between LUAD and Normal – – 1.64E−17 – PKM LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 58) 12.037 2.551 3.56E−20 Selamat et al. (2012) TPI1 LUAD (n = 40) vs. Normal (n = 6) 4.929 2.283 4.03E−4 Garber et al. (2001) LDHA LUAD (n = 9) vs. Normal (n = 3) 4.502 4.037 6.29E−4 Yamagata et al. (2003) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 58) 11.533 2.179 1.59E−19 Selamat et al. (2012) Comparison of LDHA expression across 2 Analysis between LUAD and Normal – – 3.15E−4 – PTGES LUAD (n = 20) vs. Normal (n = 19) 9.332 5.883 1.54E−11 Stearman et al. (2005) LUAD (n = 40) vs. Normal (n = 6) 6.690 4.969 1.12E−6 Garber et al. (2001) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 58) 10.267 2.179 5.58E−16 Selamat et al. (2012) LUAD (n = 45) vs. Normal (n = 65) 6.513 2.170 6.22E−9 Hou et al. (2010) Comparison of PTGES expression across 4 Analysis between LUAD and Normal – – 5.62E−7 – TYMS LUAD (n = 45) vs. Normal (n = 65) 9.322 3.929 6.92E−15 Hou et al. (2010) LUAD (n = 27) vs. Normal (n = 30) 7.395 3.016 2.40E−9 Su et al. (2007) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 49) 11.169 2.797 9.86E−20 Landi et al. (2008) LUAD (n = 20) vs. Normal (n = 19) 6.509 2.118 2.18E−7 Stearman et al. (2005) LUAD (n = 86) vs. Normal (n = 10) 4.191 2.158 3.05E−4 Beer et al. (2002) LUAD (n = 58) vs. Normal (n = 58) 8.565 2.040 3.35E−13 Selamat et al. (2012) Comparison of TYMS expression across 6 Analysis between LUAD and Normal – – 1.09E−7 – Notes. Owing to only one dataset meeting the screening criteria, the comparison of PKM or TPI1 expression in LUAD and normal has not been built based on the combined LUAD datasets. P value < 0.001 and fold change > 2 were utilized for screening. LUADlung adenocarcinoma 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-9Figure 9 mRNA expression levels of the six prognostic genes extracted from online database. The mRNA expression levels of the six genes in different tumour types from the TIMER database (http://cistrome.shinyapps.io/timer/) (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). PFKP, phosphofructokinase platelet; PKM, pyruvate kinase muscle; TPI1, triosephosphate isomerase 1; LDHA, lactate dehydrogenase A; PTGES, prostaglandin E synthase; TYMS, thymidylate synthase. 10.7717/peerj.10320/fig-10Figure 10 Protein expression levels and genetic alterations of the corresponding six prognostic genes obtained from online databases. (A) The representative immunohistochemistry images of the protein expression of the six genes in the normal lung tissues and LUAD tissues from the Human Protein Atlas database (http://www.proteinatlas.org/). (B) The percentage of protein expression levels in the normal lung tissues and LUAD tissues analysed based on the Human Protein Atlas database. Anti-PFKP antibody is HPA018257; anti-PKM antibody is CAB019421; anti-TPI1 antibody is HPA053568; anti-LDHA antibody is CAB069404; anti-PTGES is HPA045064; anti-TYMS antibody is CAB002784. (C) Genetic alterations of the six genes in 230 LUAD patients / samples (TCGA, Firehose Legacy). Data were obtained from the cBioportal for Cancer Genomics (http://www.cbioportal.org/). PFKP, phosphofructokinase platelet; PKM, pyruvate kinase muscle; TPI1, triosephosphate isomerase 1; LDHA, lactate dehydrogenase A; PTGES, prostaglandin E synthase; TYMS, thymidylate synthase; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma. 10.7717/peerj.10320/table-5Table 5 Protein expression levels of the six prognostic genes in the normal lung tissues and LUAD tissues obtained from the Human Protein Atlas database. Gene name Tissue type Patients in high/medium staining n (%) Patients in low/not detected staining n (%) PFKP Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 2 (33.33%) 4 (66.67%) PKM Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 3 (50%) 3 (50%) TPI1 Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 0 (0%) 3 (100%) LDHA Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 7 (100%) 0 (0%) PTGES Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 1 (16.67%) 5 (83.33%) TYMS Normal 0 (0%) 3 (100%) Tumor 4 (80%) 1 (20%) Notes. LUADlung adenocarcinoma Altogether, the correlation of the aberrant expression of these six genes with LAUD cancer was further validated using multiple online databases. Discussion LUAD is the most common histological subtype of primary lung cancer. The incidence of LUAD has been increasing rapidly, and mortality has not significantly decreased despite great improvements in research and treatment. Therefore, exploring the molecular mechanisms of LUAD progression and constructing a valid and accurate molecule-based tool for evaluating the prognosis in patients is urgently needed. This could help design more efficient therapeutic strategies for LUAD. Metabolic reprogramming in cancers could lead to their development and progression (Nwosu et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020). Characterization of the changes in metabolic gene expression in LUAD would allow development of novel prognostic biomarkers. However, a single biomarker is not a robust measure for predicting patient prognosis. Thus, constructing a robust multiple-biomarker signature for predicting the prognosis in cancer patients is necessary. We identified and designed a novel six-gene prognostic molecular signature based on the TCGA database and validated its efficiency in the GSE68465 dataset. The results indicated that the molecular signature was significantly associated with OS in patients with LUAD in the training and validation sets. These results indicate that the molecular signature has a robust prognostic value, especially for predicting short-term survival in patients with LUAD. These results also demonstrated that the prognostic signature was independent of other clinicopathological characteristics, which further supports the prognostic value of this signature. To increase the accuracy of the prediction of prognosis, we constructed a nomogram built with the combination of genetic and clinically related variables of patients with LUAD. The nomogram included the prognostic model, TNM, T stage, and N stage. Its predictive accuracy was verified using calibration plots, the C-index, and the AUC, which indicated that the nomogram had a greater predictive value than the previous systems. The Gene Set Enrichment Analysis showed that many significantly enriched pathways were metabolism-related pathways. The different risk groups possessed different metabolic pathway features. The metabolism-related pathways in the high-risk group were mainly associated with amino acid and glycolysis metabolism, while the pathways in the low-risk group were mainly associated with lipid metabolism. These results revealed that the different risk groups possessed the different metabolic features, which might provide the underlying metabolic mechanisms of promoting the prognosis of LUAD. All these results further suggest a strong association between the molecular signature and metabolic systems and might reflect the dysregulated metabolic microenvironment of cancers. Most of the six genes in our prognostic signature are suggested to be related to cancer development. PFKP is a major isoform of cancer-specific phosphofructokinase-1, an enzyme that catalyzes the phosphorylation of fructose-6-phosphate to form fructose-1,6-bisphosphate. Recently, PFKP was noted to have an aberrant upregulation in many cancers, such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, and glioblastoma. The dynamic upregulation of PFKP promotes metabolic reprogramming and cancer cell survival (Bjerre et at., 2019; Kim et al., 2017). As a key regulator enzyme in glycolysis, PFKP enriched the fructose and mannose metabolism pathway. Recent studies showed that PFKP is highly expressed in lung cancer and promotes lung cancer development via fructose and mannose metabolism (Shen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2015). PKM is a rate-limiting enzyme in the final step of glycolysis, that is considered as one of the metabolic hallmarks of cancer (Prakasam et al., 2017). The abnormal expression of PKM promoted cancer growth, invasion, and metastasis by governing aerobic glycolysis (Prakasam et al., 2017; Zahra et al., 2020) and induced cancer treatment resistance (Calabretta et al., 2016). Furthermore, PKM is overexpressed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and involved in the development and prognosis of NSCLC (Luo et al., 2018). TPI1 is a crucial enzyme in carbohydrate metabolism, catalyzing the interconversion of dihydroxyacetone phosphate and d-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate during glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. TPI1 is abnormally expressed in different kinds of cancers, such as breast cancer, gastric cancer, and lymphoma and is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with neuroblastoma and pancreatic cancer through dysregulating glycometabolism (Ludvigsen et al., 2018; Applebaum et al., 2016; Follia et al., 2019). LDHA is an enzyme that catalyzes the interconversion of pyruvate and lactate. LDHA was enriched in cysteine and methionine metabolism, and its aberrant metabolism regulation promoted many pathological processes in tumors, such as cell proliferation, survival, invasion, metastasis, and immunity (Dorneburg et al., 2018). Overexpressed LDHA is associated with poor prognosis in many tumors, including NSCLC, breast cancer, gallbladder carcinoma, and gastrointestinal cancer (Mizuno et al., 2020; Guddeti et al., 2019). PTGES is a key enzyme in the arachidonic acid metabolism pathway. An abnormally high expression of PTGES is correlated with proliferation, invasion, and metastasis in many cancer cells (Kim et al., 2016; Delgado-Goñi et al., 2020). The dysregulated PTGES promoted tumor migration and metastasis of lung cancer cells and played an important role in lung cancer progression (Wang et al., 2019). TYMS is a rate-limiting enzyme, which plays an important role in regulating the pyrimidine metabolism signaling pathway (Yeh et al., 2017). TYMS is overexpressed frequently in different kinds of cancers, such as NSCLC, pancreatic, colorectal, and breast cancers, and it has resulted in a poor cancer prognosis and chemotherapy resistance via dysregulating pyrimidine metabolism (TroncarelliFlores et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). In our study, we constructed a six-gene signature for a prognostic model based on the TCGA database. This novel six-gene signature had a higher survival prediction, and the predictive ability of this signature was further validated by the GSE68465 dataset and multiple online databases. To our knowledge, the six-gene signature for prognosis prediction in LUAD has not been reported yet. Compared with the traditional prognostic models such as clinical characteristics (e.g., TNM stage, vascular tumor invasion, and organization classification) or a single molecular biomarker, a multi-gene signature can predict the prognosis more accurately and provide a clearer molecular mechanism for personalized LUAD therapy. There are limitations in our study. First, our nomogram was not validated further in the GEO database because the GSE68465 lacked detailed TNM stage data. Thus, the nomogram should be externally validated using larger datasets from multicenter clinical trials and perspective studies. Second, functional experiments should be further performed to explore the molecular mechanisms predicted by the metabolic gene expression. Conclusions We concluded from our research results that the six-gene metabolic prognostic signature could accurately predict the prognosis in patients with LUAD. The molecular signature may provide potential biomarkers for metabolic therapy and prognosis prediction of LUAD. Supplemental Information 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-1Supplemental Information 1 TCGA LUAD and GSE68465 clinical datasets Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-2Supplemental Information 2 Summary of the metabolism-related genes Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-3Supplemental Information 3 Overlapping metabolism-related genes from the TCGA and GSE68465 Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-4Supplemental Information 4 Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) identified between LUAD and paired non-tumor samples and those genes associated with OS using univariate Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-5Supplemental Information 5 Summary of the significantly enriched Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways in the high-risk group and low-risk group Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.10320/supp-6Supplemental Information 6 Related genes enriched in the top five most significant enriched metabolism-related pathways in the high-risk group or low-risk group Click here for additional data file. Additional Information and Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare there are no competing interests. Author Contributions Yubo Cao conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Xiaomei Lu performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Yue Li and Xiulin Li performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Jia Fu, Hongyuan Li and Ziyou Chang analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Sa Liu conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Data Availability The following information was supplied regarding data availability: The raw measurements are available in the Supplemental Files. ==== Refs References Applebaum et al. (2016) Applebaum MA Jha AR Kao C Hernandez KM DeWane G Salwen HR Chlenski A Dobratic M Mariani CJ Godley LA Prabhakar N White K Stranger BE Cohn SL 2016 Integrative genomics reveals hypoxia inducible genes that are associated with a poor prognosis in neuroblastoma patients Oncotarget 7 47 76816 76826 10.18632/oncotarget.12713 27765905 Asavasupreechar et al. (2019) Asavasupreechar T Chan M Saito R Miki Y Boonyaratanakornkit V Sasano H 2019 Sex steroid metabolism and actions in non-small cell lung carcinoma The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 193 105440 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2019.105440 31386890 Beer et al. (2002) Beer DG Kardia SL Huang CC Giordano TJ Levin AM Misek DE Lin L Chen G Gharib TG Thomas DG Lizyness ML Kuick R Hayasaka S Taylor JM Iannettoni MD Orringer MB Hanash S 2002 Gene-expression profiles predict survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma Nature Medicine 8 8 816 824 10.1038/nm733 Bjerre et al. (2019) Bjerre MT Strand SH Nørgaard M Kristensen H Rasmussen AK Mortensen MM Fredsøe J Mouritzen P Ulhøi B Ørntoft T Borre M Sørensen KD 2019 Aberrant DOCK2, GRASP, HIF3A and PKFP hypermethylation has potential as a prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20 5 1173 10.3390/ijms20051173 Bray et al. (2018) Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Siegel RL Torre LA Jemal A 2018 Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 68 6 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593 Calabretta et al. (2016) Calabretta S Bielli P Passacantilli I Pilozzi E Fendrich V Capurso G Fave GD Sette C 2016 Modulation of PKM alternative splicing by PTBP1 promotes gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer cells Oncogene 35 16 2031 2039 10.1038/onc.2015.270 26234680 Chang, Fang & Gu (2020) Chang L Fang S Gu W 2020 The molecular mechanism of metabolic remodeling in lung cancer Journal of Cancer 11 6 1403 1411 10.7150/jca.31406 32047547 Chen et al. (2019) Chen C Bai L Cao F Wang S He H Song M Chen H Liu Y Guo J Si Q Pan Y Zhu R Chuang TH Xiang R Luo Y 2019 Targeting LIN28B reprograms tumor glucose metabolism and acidic microenvironment to suppress cancer stemness and metastasis Oncogene 38 23 4527 4539 10.1038/s41388-019-0735-4 30742065 Delgado-Goñi et al. (2020) Delgado-Goñi T Galobart TC Wantuch S Normantaite D Leach MO Whittaker SR Beloueche-Babari M 2020 Increased inflammatory lipid metabolism and anaplerotic mitochondrial activation follow acquired resistance to vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant melanoma cells British Journal of Cancer 122 1 72 81 10.1038/s41416-019-0628-x 31819183 Dolly et al. (2017) Dolly SO Collins DC Sundar R Popat S Yap TA 2017 Advances in the development of molecularly targeted agents in non-small-cell lung cancer Drugs 77 8 813 827 10.1007/s40265-017-0732-2 28378229 Dorneburg et al. (2018) Dorneburg C Fischer M Barth T Mueller-Klieser W Hero B Gecht J Carter DR dePreter K Mayer B Christner L Speleman F Marshall GM Debatin KM Beltinger C 2018 LDHA in neuroblastoma is associated with poor outcome and its depletion decreases neuroblastoma growth independent of aerobic glycolysis Clinical Cancer Research 24 22 5772 5783 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2578 29925504 Faubert, Solmonson & DeBerardinis (2020) Faubert B Solmonson A DeBerardinis RJ 2020 Metabolic reprogramming and cancer progression Science 368 6487 eaaw5473 10.1126/science.aaw5473 32273439 Follia et al. (2019) Follia L Ferrero G Mandili G Beccuti M Giordano D Spadi R Satolli MA Evangelista A Katayama H Hong W Momin AA Capello M Hanash SM Novelli F Cordero F 2019 Integrative analysis of novel metabolic subtypes in pancreatic cancer fosters new prognostic biomarkers Frontiers in Oncology 9 115 10.3389/fonc.2019.00115 30873387 Garber et al. (2001) Garber ME Troyanskaya OG Schluens K Petersen S Thaesler Z Pacyna-Gengelbach M vandeRijn M Rosen GD Perou CM Whyte RI Altman RB Brown PO Botstein D Petersen I 2001 Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 24 13784 13789 10.1073/pnas.241500798 11707590 Guddeti et al. (2019) Guddeti RK Bali P Karyala P Pakala SB 2019 MTA1 coregulator regulates LDHA expression and function in breast cancer Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 520 1 54 59 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.09.078 31570164 Harrell, Lee & Mark (1996) Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL Mark DB Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors Statistics in Medicine 1996 15 4 361 387 8668867 Hou et al. (2010) Hou J Aerts J Den Hamer B Van Ijcken W Den Bakker M Riegman P Van der Leest C Van der Spek P Foekens JA Hoogsteden HC Grosveld F Philipsen S 2010 Gene expression-based classification of non-small cell lung carcinomas and survival prediction PLOS ONE 5 4 e10312 10.1371/journal.pone.0010312 20421987 Hutchinson et al. (2019) Hutchinson BD Shroff GS Truong MT Ko J 2019 Spectrum of lung adenocarcinoma Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MR 40 3 255 264 10.1053/j.sult.2018.11.009 Kim et al. (2017) Kim NH Cha YH Lee J Lee SH Yang JH Yun JS Cho ES Zhang X Nam M Kim N Yuk YS Cha SY Lee Y Ryu JK Park S Cheong JH Kang SW Kim SY Hwang GS Yook JI Kim HS 2017 Snail reprograms glucose metabolism by repressing phosphofructokinase PFKP allowing cancer cell survival under metabolic stress Nature Communications 8 14374 10.1038/ncomms14374 Kim et al. (2016) Kim SB Bozeman RG Kaisani A Kim W Zhang L Richardson JA Wright WE Shay JW 2016 Radiation promotes colorectal cancer initiation and progression by inducing senescence-associated inflammatory responses Oncogene 35 26 3365 3375 10.1038/onc.2015.395 26477319 Landi et al. (2008) Landi MT Dracheva T Rotunno M Figueroa JD Liu H Dasgupta A Mann FE Fukuoka J Hames M Bergen AW Murphy SE Yang P Pesatori AC Consonni D Bertazzi PA Wacholder S Shih JH Caporaso NE Jen J 2008 Gene expression signature of cigarette smoking and its role in lung adenocarcinoma development and survival PLOS ONE 3 2 e1651 10.1371/journal.pone.0001651 18297132 Lane, Higashi & Fan (2019) Lane AN Higashi RM Fan TW 2019 Metabolic reprogramming in tumors: contributions of the tumor microenvironment Genes & Diseases 7 2 185 198 10.1016/j.gendis.2019.10.007 32215288 Liu et al. (2020) Liu GM Xie WX Zhang CY Xu JW 2020 Identification of a four-gene metabolic signature predicting overall survival for hepatocellular carcinoma Journal of Cellular Physiology 235 2 1624 1636 10.1002/jcp.29081 31309563 Ludvigsen et al. (2018) Ludvigsen M Bjerregård Pedersen M Lystlund Lauridsen K Svenstrup Poulsen T Hamilton-Dutoit SJ Besenbacher S Bendix K Møller MB Nørgaard P d’Amore F Honoré B 2018 Proteomic profiling identifies outcome-predictive markers in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified Blood Advances 2 19 2533 2542 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018019893 30291111 Luo et al. (2018) Luo M Luo Y Mao N Huang G Teng C Wang H Wu J Liao X Yang J 2018 Cancer-associated fibroblasts accelerate malignant progression of non-small cell lung cancer via connexin 43-formed unidirectional gap junctional intercellular communication Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 51 1 315 336 10.1159/000495232 30453281 Mizuno et al. (2020) Mizuno Y Hattori K Taniguchi K Tanaka K Uchiyama K Hirose Y 2020 Intratumoral heterogeneity of glutaminase and lactate dehydrogenase A protein expression in colorectal cancer Oncology Letters 19 4 2934 2942 10.3892/ol.2020.11390 32218849 Nwosu et al. (2017) Nwosu ZC Megger DA Hammad S Sitek B Roessler S Ebert MP Meyer C Dooley S 2017 Identification of the consistently altered metabolic targets in human hepatocellular carcinoma Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology 4 2 303 323 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.05.004 28840186 Possemato et al. (2011) Possemato R Marks KM Shaul YD Pacold ME Kim D Birsoy K Sethumadhavan S Woo HK Jang HG Jha AK Chen WW Barrett FG Stransky N Tsun ZY Cowley GS Barretina J Kalaany NY Hsu PP Ottina K Chan AM Yuan B Garraway LA Root DE Mino-Kenudson M Brachtel EF Driggers EM Sabatini DM 2011 Functional genomics reveal that the serine synthesis pathway is essential in breast cancer Nature 476 7360 346 350 10.1038/nature10350 21760589 Prakasam et al. (2017) Prakasam G Singh RK Iqbal MA Saini SK Tiku AB Bamezai R 2017 Pyruvate kinase M knockdown-induced signaling via AMP-activated protein kinase promotes mitochondrial biogenesis, autophagy, and cancer cell survival The Journal of Biological Chemistry 292 37 15561 15576 10.1074/jbc.M117.791343 28778925 Satriano et al. (2019) Satriano L Lewinska M Rodrigues PM Banales JM Andersen JB 2019 Metabolic rearrangements in primary liver cancers: cause and consequences Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology 16 12 748 766 10.1038/s41575-019-0217-8 31666728 Selamat et al. (2012) Selamat SA Chung BS Girard L Zhang W Zhang Y Campan M Siegmund KD Koss MN Hagen JA Lam WL Lam S Gazdar AF Laird-Offringa IA 2012 Genome-scale analysis of DNA methylation in lung adenocarcinoma and integration with mRNA expression Genome Research 22 7 1197 1211 10.1101/gr.132662.111 22613842 Shen et al. (2020) Shen J Jin Z Lv H Jin K Jonas K Zhu C Chen B 2020 PFKP is highly expressed in lung cancer and regulates glucose metabolism Cellular Oncology 43 4 617 629 10.1007/s13402-020-00508-6 Stearman et al. (2005) Stearman RS Dwyer-Nield L Zerbe L Blaine SA Chan Z Bunn Jr PA Johnson GL Hirsch FR Merrick DT Franklin WA Baron AE Keith RL Nemenoff RA Malkinson AM Geraci MW 2005 Analysis of orthologous gene expression between human pulmonary adenocarcinoma and a carcinogen-induced murine model The American Journal of Pathology 167 6 1763 1775 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)61257-6 16314486 Su et al. (2007) Su LJ Chang CW Wu YC Chen KC Lin CJ Liang SC Lin CH Whang-Peng J Hsu SL Chen CH Huang CY 2007 Selection of DDX5 as a novel internal control for Q-RT-PCR from microarray data using a block bootstrap re-sampling scheme BMC Genomics 8 140 10.1186/1471-2164-8-140 17540040 Travis (2020) Travis WD 2020 Lung cancer pathology: current concepts Clinics in Chest Medicine 41 1 67 85 10.1016/j.ccm.2019.11.001 32008630 Troncarelli Flores et al. (2019) Troncarelli Flores BC Souza E Silva V Ali Abdallah E Mello C Gobo Silva ML Gomes Mendes G Camila Braun A Aguiar Junior S Thomé Domingos Chinen L 2019 Molecular and kinetic analyses of circulating tumor cells as predictive markers of treatment response in locally advanced rectal cancer patients Cell 8 7 641 10.3390/cells8070641 Twardella et al. (2018) Twardella D Geiss K Radespiel-Tröger M Benner A Ficker JH Meyer M 2018 Trends der Lungenkrebsinzidenz nach histologischem Subtyp bei Männern und Frauen in Deutschland: analyse von Krebsregisterdaten unter Einsatz von multipler Imputation [Trends in incidence of lung cancer according to histological subtype among men and women in Germany: analysis of cancer registry data with the application of multiple imputation techniques] Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 61 1 20 31 10.1007/s00103-017-2659-x 29181809 Vanhove et al. (2019) Vanhove K Graulus GJ Mesotten L Thomeer M Derveaux E Noben JP Guedens W Adriaensens P 2019 The metabolic landscape of lung cancer: new insights in a disturbed glucose metabolism Frontiers in Oncology 9 1215 10.3389/fonc.2019.01215 31803611 Wang et al. (2019) Wang T Jing B Sun B Liao Y Song H Xu D Guo W Li K Hu M Liu S Ling J Kuang Y Feng Y Zhou BP Deng J 2019 Stabilization of PTGES by deubiquitinase USP9X promotes metastatic features of lung cancer via PGE2 signaling American Journal of Cancer Research 9 6 1145 1160 31285948 Wang et al. (2015) Wang Y Mei Q Ai YQ Li RQ Chang L Li YF Xia YX Li WH Chen Y 2015 Identification of lung cancer oncogenes based on the mRNA expression and single nucleotide polymorphism profile data Neoplasma 62 6 966 973 10.4149/neo_2015_117 26458310 Wu et al. (2019) Wu Q Zhang B Sun Y Xu R Hu X Ren S Ma Q Chen C Shu J Qi F He T Wang W Wang Z 2019 Identification of novel biomarkers and candidate small molecule drugs in non-small-cell lung cancer by integrated microarray analysis OncoTargets and Therapy 12 3545 3563 10.2147/OTT.S198621 31190860 Yamagata et al. (2003) Yamagata N Shyr Y Yanagisawa K Edgerton M Dang TP Gonzalez A Nadaf S Larsen P Roberts JR Nesbitt JC Jensen R Levy S Moore JH Minna JD Carbone D 2003 A training-testing approach to the molecular classification of resected non-small cell lung cancer Clinical Cancer Research 9 13 4695 4704 14581339 Yeh et al. (2017) Yeh HW Lee SS Chang CY Hu CM Jou YS 2017 Pyrimidine metabolic rate limiting enzymes in poorly-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma are signature genes of cancer stemness and associated with poor prognosis Oncotarget 8 44 77734 77751 10.18632/oncotarget.20774 29100421 Zahra et al. (2020) Zahra K Dey T Ashish . Mishra SP Pandey U 2020 Pyruvate kinase M2 and cancer: the role of pkm2 in promoting tumorigenesis Frontiers in oncology 10 159 10.3389/fonc.2020.00159 32195169 Zhu et al. (2020) Zhu Z Li L Xu J Ye W Chen B Zeng J Huang Z 2020 Comprehensive analysis reveals a metabolic ten-gene signature in hepatocellular carcinoma PeerJ 8 e9201 10.7717/peerj.9201 32518728