Fig. 4

Evaluation of prognostic value and targeting cell types of MAOS and MAPS. (A) The association between MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in TCGA COAD training dataset using overall survival (OS) information. (B) The association between MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in TCGA COAD training dataset using progression free interval (PFI) information. (C) The association between MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in validation dataset using OS information. (D) The time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in TCGA COAD training dataset using OS information. (E) The time-dependent ROC curves of MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in TCGA COAD training dataset using PFI information. (F) The time-dependent ROC curves of MAOS, MAPS and other three prognostic signatures in validation dataset using OS information. Survival difference was compared using log-rank test. Red and Green dotted lines on the time-dependent area under the ROC curve plots represent 95% CI of MAOS and MAPS, respectively. (G) (left) UMAP plot visualization of all cell subtypes from six CRLM patients. Different cell subtypes were annotated by Seurat algorithm. (middle) UMAP plot visualization of the distribution of MAOS score. (right) UMAP plot visualization of the distribution of MAPS score. (H) Violin plot of MAOS (left) and MAPS (right) scores in different cell types. ****, P < 0.0001