| Prognostic role of EGR1 in breast cancer: a systematic review |
Subbroto Kumar Saha  1,*,# (Post Doctoral Associate), S. M. Riazul Islam2,# (Assistant Professor), Tripti Saha3 (BS student), Afsana Nishat4 (PostDoc), Polash Kumar Biswas3 (MS student), Minchan Gil3 (PostDoc), Lewis Nkenyereye5 (Assistant Professor), Shaker El-Sappagh6 (Assistant Professor), Md. Saiful Islam7 (PostDoc), Ssang-Goo Cho3 (Professor) |
1Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of California, Davis,
2Computer Science and Engineering, Sejong University,
3Stem Cell and Regenerative Biotechnology, Konkuk University,
4Microbiology & Cell Science, University of Florida,
5Computer and Information Security, Sejong University,
6Centro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías Intelixentes (CiTIUS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
7Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University |
|
Abstract
EGR1 (early growth response 1) is dysregulated in many cancers and exhibits both tumor suppressor and promoter activities, making it an appealing target for cancer therapy. Here, we used a systematic multi-omics analysis to review the expression of EGR1 and its role in regulating clinical outcomes in breast cancer (BC). EGR1 expression, its promoter methylation, and protein expression pattern were assessed using various publicly available tools. COSMIC-based somatic mutations and cBioPortal-based copy number alterations were analyzed, and the prognostic roles of EGR1 in BC were determined using Prognoscan and Kaplan-Meier Plotter. We also used bc-GenExMiner to investigate the EGR1 co-expression profile. EGR1 was more often downregulated in BC tissues than in normal breast tissue and its knockdown was positively correlated with poor survival. Low EGR1 expression levels were also associated with increased risk of ER+, PR+, and HER2- BCs. High positive correlations were observed among EGR1, DUSP1, FOS, FOSB, CYR61, and JUN mRNA expression in BC tissue. This systematic review suggested that EGR1 expression may serve as a prognostic marker for BC patients and that clinicopathological parameters influence its prognostic utility. In addition to EGR1, DUSP1, FOS, FOSB, CYR61, and JUN can jointly be considered prognostic indicators for BC.
|
| Abstract, Accepted Manuscript(in press) [Submitted on July 7, 2021, Accepted on August 16, 2021] |
|