Skip to main content
Fig. 7 | Journal of Translational Medicine

Fig. 7

From: Architecting the metabolic reprogramming survival risk framework in LUAD through single-cell landscape analysis: three-stage ensemble learning with genetic algorithm optimization

Fig. 7

3 S-MMR score remolds the immune infiltration patterns in LUAD. (A) Differences in the various steps of the cancer immunity cycle between high- and low-3 S-MMR score groups. (B) Correlations between 3 S-MMR score (riskScore) and stromal, immune, and ESTIMATE score. (C) Correlations between 3 S-MMR score and the steps of the cancer immunity cycle (left). Correlations between 3 S-MMR score and the enrichment scores of published immune cell signatures (right). (D) Correlation between 3 S-MMR score and the infiltration levels of six types of TIICs (CD8 + T cells, CD4 + T cells, NK cells, macrophages, Th1 cells, and dendritic cells), which were calculated using six independent algorithms. (E) Image representing the pathological HE staining variation between the high- and low-3 S-MMR score groups (TCGA database). (F) From left to right: mRNA expression (median normalized expression levels); expression versus methylation (gene expression correlation with DNA-methylation beta-value); amplification frequency (the difference between the fraction of samples in which an IM is amplified in a particular subtype and the amplification fraction in all samples); and the deletion frequency (as amplifications) for 75 IM genes by the high- and low-3 S-MMR score groups. Abbreviation: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001

Back to article page