Differences in the landscape of CRGs in pediatric and adult AML patients.
In a previous study, Li Pang et al. established a signature of four ferroptosis-related lncRNAs to predict the prognosis of AML patients in the TCGA cohort 14, which included only adult AML patients. To validate the prognostic value of these signatures in pediatric AML patients, we used univariate Cox analysis of four Cuproptosis-lncRNAs in pediatric datasets (TARGET), namely, LINC01679, AC133961.1, and AC093278.2. The three lncRNAs had no significant effect on the prognosis of patients with pediatric AML (Figure 1A). Then, we validated these results in the GEO database (Supplemental Figure 2A).
We analyzed the expression of Cuproptosis-related genes in adult and pediatric patients. We found that the expression of Cuproptosis-related genes in the pediatric cohort was higher than that in the adult cohort (Supplemental Figure 2B). Moreover, Kaplan‒Meier (K–M) analysis revealed that the prognostic significance of CRGs in the pediatric group (p = 0.016) (Figure 1B) was more pronounced than that in the adult group (p = 0.061) (Figure 1C). After that, we used the “Limma” package to analyze the genes related to differentially expressed CRGs between the pediatric (TARGET) and adult (TCGA) datasets. Subsequently, we compared the expression of CRGs between the adult and pediatric samples. A heatmap revealed differences in the gene expression levels of the CRGs (Supplemental Figure 2C). These results showed that CRGs have different values in pediatrics and adults.
After that, we summarized the incidence of somatic mutations and CNVs in pediatric and adult AML patients. The landscape of somatic variants in pediatric AML patients was different from that reported in adults, consistent with previous studies2; alterations in RAS genes (26%) were more common in children (Supplemental Figures 3A, 3B). Focusing on the CRGs, we found that the most frequently mutated genes in the pediatric samples were DHX15 (22%) and GSS (22%) (Figure 1D), whereas IDH2 (29%) was mutated in the adult samples (Figure 1E). Interestingly, we noticed that missense mutations were the most frequent. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were the most prevalent variant type, with C > T ranking at the top among the single nucleotide variant (SNV) classes for both the pediatric and adult groups (Supplemental Figures 3C, 3D). The exploration of CNVs revealed widespread CNV alterations in all these genes. Notably, in the pediatric group, the CNV of CDC16 was significantly increased, and the GCSH was significantly decreased, while in adults, UTP25 was significantly increased, and ATPAF2 was significantly decreased (Figure 1F, Supplemental Table 4). Overall, these results indicated that CRGs play different roles in adult and pediatric AML patients and that CRGs have stronger prognostic value in pediatric patients than in adults.
Identification of Cuproptosis Gene Clusters in Pediatric and Adult AML Patients
To further explore the expression features of CRGs in AML, we used a consensus clustering algorithm to identify pediatric and adult patients with AML based on the expression profiles of the CRGs. We found that k = 4 seemed to be the best alternative for categorizing both the pediatric and adult cohorts (Figure 2A, 2E), and this division was supported by the consensus CDF curve and optimal number in Nbclust (Figure 2B, 2F; Supplemental Figure 4A, 4B, 4D, 4E). Based on this, satisfactory separation across the four clusters was achieved according to the PCA and t-SNE plots (Figure 2C, 2G; Supplemental Figure 4C, 4F). As determined by the KM curves, the overall survival of the four subclusters in the pediatric cohort demonstrated that the CRGs could serve as a bioinformatics tool with prognostic value in clinical practice (p = 0.022) (Figure 2D). However, no significant difference was detected in the adult cohort (p = 0.067) (Figure 2H), and similar results were detected in the adult samples when the data were categorized under the k=2, 3, 5, and 6 conditions (Supplemental Figures 4G-4J). Together, the results confirmed that the CRGs had significant prognostic value in children with AML.
Construction of the Prognostic Signature of Cuproptosis-Related Genes in Pediatric AML Patients
To better investigate whether the cuproptosis-related gene set can be used as a predictive biomarker for pediatric AML patients. We further conducted a differentially
DEG analysis between the TARGET and GTEx datasets was performed using the "limma" R package (the cutoff was |log2FoldChange| > 1 and FDR < 0.05) (Figure 3A). Eight differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified. Moreover, we performed univariate Cox regression analysis and revealed that 120 CRGs were significantly associated with patient survival (p < 0.05) (Supplemental Table 5), among which five genes overlapped between the DECRGs and prognostic genes and were identified as prognostic DECRGs (Figure 3B). The specific prognostic value of the 8 CRGs was further assessed for three risk factors and two favorable factors. (Figure 3C). Overall, five prognostic DEG candidates were identified according to specific criteria.
Subsequently, based on the LASSO Cox regression analysis, these genes were analyzed using the minimum λ value (0.009) to construct a prognostic model (Figure 3D, 3E; Supplemental Table 6), leading to the identification of four risk genes (TRAIP, FAU, TEFM, and RPL19). TEFM and TRAIP exhibited oncogenic features, the overexpression of which was associated with worse survival in pediatric AML patients, while higher expression of FAU and RPL19 predicted better survival. The cuproptosis model was constructed as follows: Cuproptosis risk score = Exp (TRAIP) × (0.102) – Exp (FAU) × (0.132) + Exp (TEFM) × (0.465) – Exp (RPL19) × (0.529).
Then, the samples in the TARGET cohort (training group) were evenly divided into low- and high-risk groups (Figure 4A; Supplemental Table 7). The distribution of the risk score indicated that patients in the low-risk group experienced less cell death and longer survival than did those in the high-risk group (Figure 4B). In addition, the K‒M survival curves showed significant differences (p = 0.0011), with the low-risk group demonstrating a notably longer overall survival than the high-risk group (Figure 4C). Further PCA and t-SNE analyses revealed identifiable differences between the high-risk and low-risk groups (Figure 4D; Supplemental Figure 5A). Subsequently, time-dependent ROC analysis also revealed a favorable prognostic performance of this gene signature, with areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of 0.61, 0.68, and 0.69 at 1-, 2-, and 3-year intervals, respectively (Figure 4E). In addition, the expression of risk genes was analyzed using the cuproptosis risk score, which revealed that TEFM and TRAIP were high-risk genes, while FAU and RPL19 were low-risk genes (Supplemental Figure 5B).
In the external validation cohort from the GEO, we calculated the risk scores of patients with the same formula and then categorized them into high-risk and low-risk groups (Supplemental Table 9). The findings from the risk score distribution plot and scatter plot analyses aligned with those from the training set (Figure 4F, G). It is worth noting that although the KM plot of the verification set showed a noticeable trend toward a prognostic advantage in the low-risk group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.25) (Figure 4H), possibly due to the limited amount of data. Similar to the results of the TARGET cohort, patients in the two groups of the GEO cohort were distributed in various directions based on the PCA and t-SNE analyses (Figure 4I; Supplemental Figure 5C). In addition, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were 0.54, 0.6, and 0.56, respectively (Figure 4J). The heatmap showed the same results as those in the training set (Supplemental Figure 5D).
Finally, we used the same algorithm to compute the risk scores in the TCGA datasets. Consistent with our hypothesis, the risk score distribution plot (Figure 4K, 4 L) and K‒M plot (Figure 4M) did not significantly differ among the adult patients. Although the tSNE plot showed a distinct distribution (Figure 4F), the PCA (Figure S5E) and heatmap (Supplemental Figure 5F) showed different results than those for children, and the ROC curves indicated worse predictive ability (Figure 4O). Our constructed individual-level cuproptosis-related risk signature showed a significant association with the survival of patients with pediatric AML, independent of age.
Independent prognostic value of the 4-gene signature and evaluation of clinical characteristics
To further enhance the applicability of the risk score in clinical settings, we performed univariate and multivariate Cox analyses of OS and EFS to assess the possibility of the risk score functioning as an independent prognostic factor (Supplemental Table 8). The results of univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the risk score was a significant independent predictor of poor survival in the pediatric cohort (p < 0.0001, HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.53 - 3.18; Figure 5A). Multivariate analysis also revealed that the risk score was a critical prognostic factor for AML patients after accounting for other confounders (p = 0.008, HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.17-2.88; Figure 5B). In addition, we used the same algorithm to assess the functioning risk score using univariate and multivariate Cox analyses for EFS. The results were similar to those for OS, and univariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the risk scores were significantly different (p < 0.0001, hazard ratio (HR) = 2, 95% CI = 1.41). Figure 5C, 5D). After that, we compared the clinical characteristics of patients in different risk groups. Our analysis revealed that the risk score was significantly altered among the peripheral blood (PB group; p = 0.00083; Supplemental Figure 6D), event (p = 0.022; Supplemental Figure S6C), FAB (p = 0.00075; Supplemental Figure 6B) and risk (p = 0.016; Supplemental Figure 6A) groups between the high- and low-risk groups (Figure 5E). Moreover, the risk score had a statistically superior ability to predict overall survival (OS) compared to previously reported prognostic signatures in adult patients 14 (Supplemental Figure 6F). The AUC of Model 1 (previously performed for an adult patient) was 0.62, while that of Model 2 (we performed) was 0.69. These results confirmed the accuracy of this predictive model in pediatric patients.
Establishment of a Predictive Nomogram for AML Patients
Recognizing that the risk score alone was insufficient to predict the prognosis of AML patients, a nomogram incorporating the risk score was constructed to predict the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of AML patients based on the results of multivariate Cox regression analysis (Figure 6A). The subsequent calibration plot showed that the performance of the proposed nomogram was consistent with that of an ideal model (Figure 6B), with a calculated C index of 0.649. Furthermore, ROC curves indicated that this nomogram exhibited better prognostic performance, with AUCs of 0.62, 0.71, and 0.69 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (Figure 6C). Moreover, an alluvial diagram was constructed to visualize variations in the aforementioned characteristics of AML patients (Supplemental Figure 6E). Then, we developed a nomogram containing our prognostic risk score model and multiple clinical factors related to EFS according to the same algorithm (Figure 6D). The calculated C index was 0.633, and the calibration plots of the 1-, 3- and 5-year EFSs showed no deviations from the Platt calibration curves (Figure 6E). ROC curves revealed AUCs of 0.69, 0.69, and 0.72 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival, respectively (Figure 6F).
Functional annotation analysis of the 4-gene signature
To further investigate the potential biological functions and pathways of the 4-gene signature, the DEGs across the high-risk and low-risk categories were subjected to GO and KEGG analyses (Supplemental Figure 7A). Furthermore, these DEGs were significantly enriched in biological processes and molecular functions related to immunity, such as the regulation of T-cell proliferation and activation involved in the immune response, the regulation of leukocyte proliferation, mononuclear cell proliferation and lymphocyte proliferation (Figure 7A). In addition, KEGG analysis revealed several cancer-related pathways, such as the hematopoietic cell lineage, ECM-receptor interaction, Hippo, TGF-beta, MPK, and P13K-Akt signaling pathways, in the cohorts (Figure 7B). These results revealed that the cuproptosis-related 4-gene signature was significantly associated with cancer progression and strongly influenced the immunoregulation of the TME.
Tumor immune microenvironment analysis of the 4-gene signature
Next, we further explored the association between the cuproptosis-related gene signature and the tumor immune microenvironment. We observed a significant correlation among the low-risk patients within the TARGET cohort. Comparisons of 29 immune signatures identified by the ssGSEA algorithm revealed that high-risk patients exhibited increased infiltration of activated CD4 T cells, effector memory CD4 T cells, memory B cells, and type 2 T helper cells but decreased infiltration of CD56 bright natural killer cells, CD56 dim natural killer cells, monocytes, T follicular helper cells, and type 1 T helper cells (Figure 8C). Furthermore, based on the CIBERSORT algorithm, we compared the distributions of 22 kinds of immune cells in diverse risk subgroups. A significant difference in the distribution of immune cells was observed in high-risk patients with superior infiltration of resting NK cells and neutrophils (Figure 8D). Concurrently, we analyzed the association between the 4-gene signature and the infiltration score of immune cells, which further suggested that the 4-gene signature was significantly associated with the six kinds of immune cells (Supplemental Figure 7B).
Considering the critical role of HLA-related genes in regulating the immune response, we compared the expression of HLA-related genes across different risk groups (Supplemental Figure 7C). Furthermore, we investigated the correlation between 33 immune checkpoint molecules and the risk score (Supplemental Figure 7D). The results demonstrated that high-risk patients exhibited significantly greater expression of VTCN1, CD160, CD28, CTLA4, PDCD1, TIGIT, CD80, IDO1, IDO2, and CD274 and lower expression of CD44 and LGALS9 than low-risk patients (Supplemental Figure 7D).
Two Risk Groups Showed Inconsistent Sensitivities to Different Drugs
The sensitivity of AML patients within different risk groups to gemtuzumab (GO) chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation (SCT) treatment was analyzed in the TARGET datasets. However, the KM plot revealed that GO and SCT treatment did not significantly improve the prognosis of AML patients in either the high-risk or the low-risk group. Although treatment data for survival analysis were limited, we also found that common routine clinical treatments were not specific to high-risk patients.
Moreover, to predict the precise treatment of high-risk patients, we further selected the drugs currently used in AML treatment to assess their sensitivity in both high-risk and low-risk subgroups. Interestingly, we observed that patients in the high-risk group presented significantly lower IC50 values for RSL3, KPT185, neopeltolide, gemcitabine, oligomycin A, and cucurbitacin.1 than did those in the low-risk group (Figure 8C), while parbendazole, SNS.032, SNX.2112, ouabain, AZD8055, and alvacidib presented significantly greater IC50 values. Therefore, patients with a low CRG risk score might exhibit better treatment benefits from these drugs.
qPCR analysis of the expression levels of four cuproptosis-related genes in AML samples
The expression levels of four cuproptosis-related genes were detected in clinical AML patients and healthy individuals through RT‒qPCR. The patients’ clinical characteristics and risk gene expression data are presented in Supplemental Table 9. The results revealed no significant difference in the expression of FAU between the two groups (Figure 9A, P=0.1168), whereas the TEFM, RPL19, and TRAIP expression levels were significantly greater in the AML samples than in the normal samples (Figure 9B, P<0.0001; Figure 9C, P=0.0033; Figure 9D, P<0.0001).