Identification of Survival-Related Genes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Based on Cytogenetically Normal AML Samples Using Weighted Gene Coexpression Network Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a challenge. In this study, we applied the weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) to find survival-specific genes in AML based on 42 adult CN-AML samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Eighteen hub genes (ABCA13, ANXA3, ARG1, BTNL8, C11orf42, CEACAM1, CEACAM3, CHI3L1, CRISP2, CYP4F3, GPR84, HP, LTF, MMP8, OLR1, PADI2, RGL4, and RILPL1) were found to be related to AML patient survival time. We then compared the hub gene expression levels between AML peripheral blood (PB) samples ( n = 162 ) and control healthy whole blood samples ( n = 337 ). Seventeen of the hub genes showed lower expression levels in AML PB samples. The gene expression analysis was also done among AML BM (bone marrow) samples of different stages: diagnosis ( n = 142 ), posttreatment ( n = 42 ), and recurrent ( n = 12 ) stages. The results showed a significant increase of ANXA3, CEACM1, RGL4, RILPL1, and HP in posttreatment samples compared to diagnosis and/or recurrent samples. Transcription factor (TF) prediction of the hub genes suggested LTF as the top hit, overlapping 10 hub genes, while LTF itself is just one of the hub genes. Also, 3671 correlation links were shown between 128 mRNAs and 209 lncRNAs found in survival time-related modules. Generally, we identified candidate mRNA biomarkers based on CN-AML data which can be extensively used in AML prognosis. In addition, we mapped their potential regulatory mechanisms with correlated lncRNAs, providing new insights into potential targets for therapies in AML.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".