Different Expressions and Methylation Patterns of cGAS and STING in Cervical Cancer
Ruimin Wang, Shuling Liu, Rui Wang, Quanquan Guo, Xiaoyuan Lu
TL;DR
This study explores how cGAS and STING genes behave in cervical cancer, finding that their expression and methylation patterns affect immune cell infiltration and patient outcomes.
Contribution
The study reveals novel expression and methylation patterns of cGAS and STING in cervical cancer linked to immune infiltration and prognosis.
Findings
cGAS is upregulated while STING is downregulated in cervical tumors, correlating with reduced T cell infiltration and poor prognosis.
cGAS and STING mRNA levels change with tumor stage, grade, and metastasis, confirmed by immunohistochemistry in clinical samples.
Differential DNA methylation patterns of cGAS and STING may explain their altered expression in cervical cancer.
Abstract
The cGAS–STING pathway has established itself as a critical innate immune pathway that has the ability to significantly affect tumor initiation and progression. The expression, methylation, immunological functions, and prognostic importance of cGAS–STING pathway‐related genes in cervical squamous cancer (CESC) patients have not yet been thoroughly elucidated. First, we explored the expression of cGAS and STING in cervical carcinoma samples from TCGA by comparing the mRNA and protein levels of cGAS and STING in both TCGA cervical tumor patient samples and cervical tumor cell lines. Second, we examined the CD4+T and CD8+T cell infiltration in STING high and low samples and made Kaplan–Meier prognosis analysis of STING protein expression. Third, to verify the findings in TCGA public datasets, we retrospectively selected 40 cervical squamous carcinoma patients and 10 normal cervical…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 42
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 47Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topicsinterferon and immune responses · Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers · Ferroptosis and cancer prognosis