Tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase may be a potential prognostic biomarker and immunotherapy target in cancer: A meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase (TDO2) is one of the emerging immune checkpoints. Meanwhile, TDO2 is also a key enzyme in the tryptophan (Trp)–kynurenine (Kyn) signaling pathway. Many studies have evaluated that TDO2 is highly expressed in various malignant tumor patients and plays a prognostic role. However, the sample size of a single prognostic study was small, and the results were still controversial. Methods We used Stata software and referenced the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement to conduct a meta-analysis on TDO2 and its clinical features and prognosis. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to find publications concerning TDO2 expression in malignant tumor patients up to June 2021. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the bias risk of the included literature. Risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were used for clinical outcomes, specifically overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, we used data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to verify our conclusions. Results Nine studies including 667 patients with malignant tumors were identified. Our results suggested that overexpression of TDO2 was statistically correlated with poor OS and poor PFS (HR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.52–4.40, p = 0.0005; HR = 2.38, 95% CI = 0.99–5.73, p = 0.05). In terms of clinicopathological characteristics, the overexpression level of TDO2 was statistically correlated with TNM (tumor–node–metastasis) stage (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48–0.89, p = 0.002) and regional lymph node metastasis (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.59–0.99, p = 0.04). Subgroup analysis revealed the potential sources of heterogeneity. In addition, bioinformatics studies suggested that the level of TDO2 was high in malignant tumors and higher in cancer tissue than in matched paracarcinoma tissue. Gene enrichment analysis showed that TDO2 was closely related to immune response. Conclusion Overall, TDO2 may be a biomarker for the survival and prognosis of patients with malignant tumors and a potential therapeutic target in the future. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=260442 , identifier (CRD42021260442)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".