Tumor microenvironment characteristics and prognosis differences based on genome map from a biomechanical perspective
Abstract
With the continuous emergence and rapid development of modern advanced technologies, people’s average economic level and quality of life have been better improved. Meanwhile, various medical technologies have also begun to combine with traditional diagnosis and treatment models, which has led to new ideas or breakthroughs in diagnosing or treating various diseases. In the modern medical field, tumor is a relatively common disease, which can be divided into benign tumor and malignant tumor according to its various properties. Benign tumors have little impact on people’s health and can be cured through a series of operations, while malignant tumor has a great impact on people’s health, the development progress of which is relatively fast and the mortality of which is relatively high. Systemic defects in people’s immune systems can also lead to the occurrence of tumors and promote the rapid growth of cancerous cells, with a significant impact on the health of patients. The occurrence of a tumor can change the living environment around it, which is generally called the tumor microenvironment (TME), including all kinds of cells, matrices, and blood vessels around the tumor. TME can act as a “biomechanical culture dish”, where mechanical interactions between tumor cells and their microenvironment accelerate tumor growth and invasion. These mechanical forces can influence cell signaling pathways, gene expression, and cellular behavior, ultimately promoting tumorigenesis and metastasis. This paper uses the genome map to study the characteristics and prognosis differences of TME and finally analyzes the differences between different evaluation indicators of the results of the analysis of the characteristics and prognosis differences of TME using the conventional method and the genome map method through simulation experiments. The analysis results of the characteristics and prognosis differences of TME determined by the genome map improve the performance of multiple evaluation indicators by about 24.9% on average. From a biomechanical standpoint, the integration of genome mapping with mechanical analysis offers a novel approach to understanding the complex interactions within the TME. This interdisciplinary approach not only advances our understanding of tumor biology but also opens new avenues for the development of biomechanically informed treatments for cancer.
References
1. Geng Y, Jiang J, Wu C. Function and clinical significance of circRNAs in solid tumors. Journal of hematology & oncology. 2018; 11(1): 1–20.
2. Udaka YT, Packer RJ. Pediatric brain tumors. Neurologic clinics. 2018; 36(3): 533–556.
3. Yang M, McKay D, Pollard JW, et al. Diverse Functions of Macrophages in Different Tumor Microenvironments. Spatial Heterogeneity of TAMs in Tumors. Cancer research. 2018; 78(19): 5492–5503.
4. Hong DS, Fakih MC, Strickler JH, et al. KRASG12C inhibition with sotorasib in advanced solid tumors. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 383(13): 1207–1217.
5. Cives M, Strosberg JR. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. CA: A cancer journal for clinicians. 2018; 68(6): 471–487.
6. Mohsen H, El-Dahshan ESA, El-Horbaty ESM, et al. Classification using deep learning neural networks for brain tumors. Future Computing and Informatics Journal. 2018; 3(1): 68–71.
7. Maleki Vareki S. High and low mutational burden tumors versus immunologically hot and cold tumors and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Journal for immunotherapy of cancer. 2018; 6(1): 1–5.
8. Qiu MJ, Liu LP, Jin S, et al. Research on circadian clock genes in common abdominal malignant tumors. Chronobiology international. 2019; 36(7): 906–918.
9. Iegiani G, Cunto FD, Pallavicini G. Inhibiting microcephaly genes as alternative to microtubule targeting agents to treat brain tumors. Cell Death & Disease. 2021; 12(11): 1–11.
10. Torres M, Jiquel A, Jeanne E, et al. Agrobacterium tumefaciens fitness genes involved in the colonization of plant tumors and roots. New Phytologist. 2022; 233(2): 905–918.
11. Castro A, Ozturk K, Pyke RM, et al. Elevated neoantigen levels in tumors with somatic mutations in the HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C and B2M genes. BMC medical genomics. 2019; 12(6): 1–13.
12. Chen KS, Stroup EK, Budhipramono A, et al. Mutations in microRNA processing genes in Wilms tumors derepress the IGF2 regulator PLAG1. Genes & development. 2018; 32(15–16): 996–1007.
13. Desbois M, Wang Y. Cancer‐associated fibroblasts: Key players in shaping the tumor immune microenvironment. Immunological reviews. 2021; 302(1): 241–258.
14. Dymicka-Piekarska V, Koper-Lenkiewicz OM, Zinczuk J, et al. Inflammatory cell-associated tumors. Not only macrophages (TAMs), fibroblasts (TAFs) and neutrophils (TANs) can infiltrate the tumor microenvironment. The unique role of tumor associated platelets (TAPs). Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy. 2021; 70(6): 1497–1510.
15. Kazakova A, Sudarskikh T, Kovalev O, et al. Interaction of tumor‑associated macrophages with stromal and immune components in solid tumors: Research progress. International Journal of Oncology. 2023; 62(2): 1–21.
16. Timperi E, Croizer H, Khantakova D, et al. At the interface of tumor-associated macrophages and fibroblasts: Immune-suppressive networks and emerging exploitable targets. Clinical Cancer Research. 2024; 30(23): 5242–5251.
17. Malik S, Sureka N, Ahuja S, et al. Tumor‐associated macrophages: A sentinel of innate immune system in tumor microenvironment gone haywire. Cell Biology International. 2024; 48(10): 1406–1449.
18. Danenberg E, Bardwell H, Zanotelli VRT, et al. Breast tumor microenvironment structures are associated with genomic features and clinical outcome. Nature genetics. 2022; 54(5): 660–669.
19. Nepal C, Zhu B, O’Rourke CJ, et al. Integrative molecular characterisation of gallbladder cancer reveals micro-environment-associated subtypes. Journal of hepatology. 2021; 74(5): 1132–1144.
20. Barkley D, Moncada R, Pour M, et al. Cancer cell states recur across tumor types and form specific interactions with the tumor microenvironment. Nature genetics. 2022; 54(8): 1192–1201.
21. Wu J, Li L, Zhang H, et al. A risk model developed based on tumor microenvironment predicts overall survival and associates with tumor immunity of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Oncogene. 2021; 40(26): 4413–4424.
22. Diao X, Guo C, Li S. Identification of a novel anoikis‐related gene signature to predict prognosis and tumor microenvironment in lung adenocarcinoma. Thoracic Cancer. 2023; 14(3): 320–330.
23. Liu W, Puri A, Fu D, et al. Dissecting the tumor microenvironment in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors via single-cell and spatial transcriptomics. Clinical & Experimental Metastasis. 2024; 41(4): 313–332.
24. Olivieri M, Cho T, Álvarez-Quilón A, et al. A genetic map of the response to DNA damage in human cells. Cell. 2020; 182(2): 481–496.
25. Lappalainen T, Scott AJ, Brandt M, et al. Genomic analysis in the age of human genome sequencing. Cell. 2019; 177(1): 70–84.
26. Kerpedjiev P, Abdennur N, Lekschas F, et al. HiGlass: Web-based visual exploration and analysis of genome interaction maps. Genome biology. 2018; 19(1): 1–12.
Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright on all articles published in this journal is retained by the author(s), while the author(s) grant the publisher as the original publisher to publish the article.
Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which means they can be shared, adapted and distributed provided that the original published version is cited.
Submit a Paper
