Skip to main content
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2025 Feb 25;13:e18928. doi: 10.7717/peerj.18928

Analysis of biopsies of gastric cancer, intestinal and diffuse, and non-atrophic gastritis: an overview of loss of heterozygosity in Mexican patients

Violeta Larios-Serrato 1, Hilda A Valdez-Salazar 2, Javier Torres 2, Margarita Camorlinga 2, Patricia Piña-Sánchez 3, Fernando Minauro 4, Martha-Eugenia Ruiz-Tachiquín 3,✉
Editor: Jiangjiang Qin
PMCID: PMC11869887  PMID: 40028213

Abstract

This study analyzed the loss of heterozygosity (LOH) effect on gastric cancer (GC) tumor samples from 21 Mexican patients, including diffuse (DGC) and intestinal (IGC) subtypes, as well as non-atrophic gastritis (NAG, control). Whole-genome high-density arrays were performed, and LOH regions were identified among the tissue samples. The differences in affected chromosomes were established among groups, with chromosomes 6 and 8 primarily affected in DGC and chromosomes 3, 16, and 17 in IGC. Functional pathway analysis revealed involvement in cancer-associated processes, such as signal transduction, immune response, and cellular metabolism. Five LOH-genes (IRAK1, IKBKG, PAK3, TKTL1, PRPS1) shared between GC and NAG suggest an early role in carcinogenesis. Specific genes were highlighted for Hallmarks of Cancer NAG-related genes (PTPRJ and NDUFS) were linked to cell proliferation and growth; IGC genes (GNAI2, RHOA, MAPKAPK3, MST1R) to genomic instability, metastasis, and arrest of cell death; and DGC genes to energy metabolism and immune evasion. These findings emphasize the role of LOH in GC pathogenesis and underscore the need for further research to understand LOH-affected genes and their diagnostic or evolution potential in cancer management. Portions of this text were previously published as part of a preprint (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.29.24311063v1).

Keywords: LOH, Diffuse gastric cancer, Intestinal gastric cancer, High density arrays, Gene markers

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) ranks fifth in the world according to its incidence and mortality (Bray et al., 2024). GC is a multifactorial disease with environmental and genetic factors affecting its occurrence and development. The GC incidence rate rises progressively with age; the average age for diagnosis is 70 years. However, a small portion of gastric carcinomas (10%) are detected at younger ages (45 or less), becoming good chances to look for GC early alterations as carcinogenesis pathways or genetic causes since those patients are less exposed to environmental influence. GC carcinogenesis is a multistage process with a progressive development, that involves gene mutations and epigenetic alterations (Machlowska et al., 2020).

GC molecular classification encloses four subtypes: chromosomal instability tumors (CIN), microsatellite instability tumors (MSI), genomically stable tumors (GS), and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive tumors (Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, 2014). CIN is one of the most significant subtypes that involves genomic instability pathways. It is characterized by losses or gains of whole chromosomes, as well as changes in the region of chromosomes that result in aneuploidy, including allelic losses like loss of heterozygosity (LOH), gene deletions, and amplifications (Lengauer, Kinzler & Vogelstein, 1998; Ottini et al., 2006) or rearrangement (Liu & Meltzer, 2017).

Further, two main GC histotypes are recognized: intestinal and diffuse. Although most of the described genetic alterations have been observed in both types, different genetic pathways have been hypothesized. Genetic and epigenetic events, including LOH, have mostly been reported in intestinal-type gastric carcinoma (IGC) and its precursor lesions. In contrast, LOH mutation (p53) is implicated in diffuse-type gastric cancer (DGC) (Nobili et al., 2011).

LOH, a Hallmark of Cancer, has been identified as an etiological factor in CIN (Liu & Meltzer, 2017). LOH involves the loss of one of the two gene alleles in a cell, which can lead to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and contribute to the development and progression of cancer (Nobili et al., 2011). There are two types of LOH, copy number loss LOH (CNL-LOH) because of the diminished alleles, e.g., for tumor suppressor genes, and neutral copy number LOH (CNN-LOH), without any affecting function nor contributing to the disease development (Fitzgibbon et al., 2005). A complete or partial deletion of a chromosome leads to CNL-LOH, while CNN-LOH is mainly caused by acquired uniparental disomy (UPD) and genetic conversion and occurs without any net change in copy number (Ryland et al., 2015; Tapial et al., 2021).

Various molecular techniques have been used to investigate the LOH role on cancer, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Huo et al., 2021), microsatellite marker sites PCR (Xiao et al., 2006), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) (Milne et al., 2010), polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) (Zhu et al., 2017), silver stain (Chung et al., 2010), exome sequencing (Ohshima et al., 2019), Illumina (Arakawa et al., 2017) and Affymetrix microarrays (Choi, Lee & Cho, 2018). The identification of LOH events can be assessed by gene expression using RNA-Seq and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (Choi et al., 2018) and protein expression with immunohistochemistry (IHC) (Choi, Lee & Cho, 2018). LOH has also been correlated with CpG hypermethylation processes in GC patients (Wang et al., 2016). The most frequently reported GC-associated LOH-genes are TP53 (Battista et al., 2021), PTEN (Ohshima et al., 2019), RB1, and BRCA1 (Wu et al., 2022) on chromosomes 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 22 (Nobili et al., 2011; Arakawa et al., 2017; Hosseini et al., 2007). Different scores have been proposed to establish a diagnosis or risk rate based on LOH (Wu et al., 2022). Then, our interest in determining the LOH patterns in a group of IGC, DGC, and non-atrophic gastritis (NAG) samples was to find possible guidelines for therapeutic targets and data that enriches the knowledge of cancer biology.

Materials & Methods

The Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica (CNIC) del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (Institutional Review Board, IRB) approval was obtained for the study (approval no. 2008-785-001). Clinical data and patient samples were processed following written informed consent.

Samples

Tissue samples were obtained from 21 patients (five females and 16 males) that met the criteria for diffuse gastric cancer (DGC, n = 7) and intestinal gastric cancer (IGC, n = 7) diagnoses, and subjects with non-atrophic gastritis (NAG, n = 7) as controls. Histological assessment of the biopsies was performed by two trained pathologists independently. They assigned the phenotypic diagnosis of diffuse or intestinal tumors and non-atrophic gastritis (NAG) samples. Only samples with the same diagnosis (‘identical results’) by two independent expert pathologists were included in the analysis (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of gastric cancer samples analyzed in this study.

ID Age
(years)
Sex CT %CC H. pylori TNM Treatment
3CG-008 72 M Intestinal 70 Positive I B T1 N1 M0 Naïve
3CG-126 80 M Intestinal 60 Negative IIA T4 N0 M0 Naïve
3CG-128 91 M Intestinal 70 Negative IIA T3 N2 M0 Naïve
3CG-046 52 F Intestinal 60 Negative IV T4 N2 M0 Naïve
3CG-099 59 M Intestinal 50 Negative II T3 N0 M0 Naïve
3CG-146 71 M Intestinal 60 Negative IIB T3 N2 M0 Naïve
3CG-104 69 M Intestinal 60 Negative III A T4 N0 M0 Naïve
3CG-047 58 M Diffuse 70 Negative IV T4 N3 M0 Naïve
3CG-173 76 M Diffuse 70 Negative III A T2 N3 M0 Naïve
8CG-004 76 M Diffuse 70 Negative II T1 N0 M0 Naïve
1CG-001 45 M Diffuse 60 Negative IV T4 N2 M1 Naïve
3CG-035 55 M Diffuse 60 Negative IV T4 N2 M0 Naïve
3CG-042 64 M Diffuse 50 Negative IV T4 N2 M0 Naïve
3CG-064 38 M Diffuse 50 Negative IV T4 N2 M0 Naïve
4GB-001 64 M NAG 0 Negative NA NA
4GB-031 62 M NAG 0 Negative NA NA
4GB-015 35 F NAG 0 Negative NA NA
4GB-025 39 M NAG 0 Positive NA NA
4GB-033 76 F NAG 0 Positive NA NA
4GB-036 38 F NAG 0 Positive NA NA
4GB-042 77 F NAG 0 Negative NA NA

Notes.

ID
identification code
CT
cancer type
CC
cancer cells
M
male
F
female
NA
not applicable
TNM, T
the extent of the primary tumor
N
the absence or presence and extent of regional lymph node
M
the absence or presence of distant metastasis
NAG
non-atrophic gastritis

To guide the investigation of relevant alterations, the present analysis focused on LOH events present in at least three patients (cut-off, ≥3 patients; ≥40% samples) to identify the most relevant GC alterations. The DNA extraction, DNA quality assessment, and high-density whole-genome processing microarray analysis were done according to Larios-Serrato et al. (2022).

LOH processing

The raw intensity files (.CEL) retrieved from the commercial platform Affymetrix® CytoScan™ microarray (Affymetrix; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.) were analyzed using Chromosome Analysis Suite v4.3.0.71 (ChAS, https://www.thermofisher.com/). The construction of the GRCh38 genome (December 2013) was used as a reference model and CytoScanHD_Array.na36.annot.db file for annotation. Data processing was based on the segmentation algorithm, where the Log2 ratio for each marker was calculated relative to the reference signal profile. To calculate the LOH, the data were normalized to baseline reference intensities using the ChAS reference model, including 284 HapMap samples and 96 healthy individuals. The Hidden Markov Model (HMM) was used to determine the LOH segment calls. The customized conditions were filtered to determine LOH, 3 Mb, and 50 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The median absolute pairwise difference (MAPD) and the single nucleotide polymorphism quality control (SNPQC) score were used as the quality control parameters. Only samples with MAPD < 0.25 and SNPQC > 15 values were included in the further analysis.

Bioinformatics analysis

To generate a list of genes and frequencies for altered regions, Practical Extraction and Report Language (Perl) scripts (Wall, Christiansen & Orwant, 2000) were developed to load the LOH segment data files generated by ChAS v4.3.0.71 for each sample, including chromosomes, cytogenetic bands, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man information, and haploinsufficiency predictions version 3 information from the DatabasE of Genomic Variation and Phenotype in Humans, using Ensembl Resources (DECIPHER v11.25). Custom scripts were developed in Perl v5.32 to obtain the frequency of LOH genes and cytobands, and the length of events.

The genes altered in three patients (cut-off, ≥ 3) with DGC, IGC, and NAG were included for analysis and visualization. The genes were compared by generating Venn diagrams with the Jvenn server (Bardou et al., 2014). Cancer Hallmarks enrichment analysis (p.adjust < 0.05) was performed with a collection of 6,763 genes (Menyhart, Kothalawala & Győrffy, 2024), available on the server http://www.cancerhallmarks.com; this database establishes the relationship of genes and Hallmarks through the collection of different publications. The Cancer Hallmarks server uses a hypergeometric test for enrichment using the greasy Python package. The results were reviewed using the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database (COSMIC v100) (Sondka et al., 2024) and the Hallmarks of Cancer database (HOCdb database). Reactome v88 performed a metabolic pathway enrichment analysis (Fabregat et al., 2018), considering those results significant with values less than 0.05 in the false discovery rate (FDR).

Finally, an interaction network was generated based on metabolic pathways, genetics, and physical and functional associations to establish the cancer Hallmarks associated with the profile of LOH-genes IGC, NAG, and “core” IGC-DGC-NAG. Furthermore, these were determined using the STRING v12.0 prediction server (Szklarczyk et al., 2021) and Cytoscape v.3.10.0 (Shannon et al., 2003), including manual annotation of their corresponding cancer Hallmarks (adhesion, angiogenesis, inflammation, migration, metastasis, morphogenesis, proliferation, and survival).

Results

Sample characteristics

This study included tissue samples from 21 Mexican patients without treatment (naïve). Patient samples included seven DGC cases, seven for IGC, and seven more corresponding to NAG (as controls). The .CEL files and their raw intensity values obtained from the microarrays were deposited in the Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), with the accession key GSE117093 and BioProjet PRJNA481039.

Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the 21 patient samples, age (mean ± SD, 59.61 ± 15.94 years), sex (female 23.8% and male 76.2%), and the percentage of neoplastic cells for tumor tissues ranging between 50 and 70%. One IGC patient and three with NAG were positive for H. pylori. Data from the tumor size, number of nodes, and metastasis (TNM) classification system are presented.

Genomic detection of LOH

The LOH of the patients was estimated using the analysis described before, a meticulous process based on regions where the preponderance of SNPs does not display heterozygosity. Table 2 shows a summary of the chromosomes with the highest involvement frequency concerning the number of events (coincidences) at the LOH-regions, but not strictly perfect in the chromosomal coordinates.

Table 2. Top of altered cytobands in diffuse gastric cancer, intestinal gastric cancer, and non-atrophic gastritis.

Type Cytoband Length (Mbp-cl) Patient
numbers
DGC Xp22.33 338.81 7
Xq11.1 651.48 7
16p11.2 26.93 6
IGC Xq11.1 496.05 7
16p11.2 22.84 6
Xp22.33 333.25 6
3p21.31 19.31 5
17q22 10.61 3
NAG Xq11.1 385.68 7
16p11.2 30.43 7
Xp22.33 222.15 7

Notes.

DGC
Diffuse gastric cancer
IGC
Intestinal gastric cancer
NAG
Non-atrophic gastritis
Mbp-cl
Megabase pairs cumulative length

Our data, which include the megabase pairs cumulative length (Mbp-cl) of our tissue samples, were also reviewed (Table S1). The LOH-gene frequency data, chromosomes, and cytobands are presented. Table S2 displays the accumulated LOH-length (Mb) values per chromosome to determine if more extended losses indicate more damage.

In DGC patients, the affected chromosomes with Mbp-cl and the specified number of LOH-events were 6, 8, 16, and X; at IGC, they were chromosomes 3, 16, and 17. Chromosomes 6 and 8 are associated with DGC, while 3 and 17 are associated with IGC (Table 2 and Table S3). Following, we found that there are 3,361 LOH-genes in DGC (Table S1); chromosomes Xq11.1/Xp22.23 in 7/7 male patients and chromosome 16p11.2 in 6/7 male patients (Table 2 and Table S3) were the most altered.

In IGC, 2,490 LOH-genes were determined (Table S1) with chromosomes Xq11.1 for 7/7 patients, Xp22.33 for 6/7 patients, 16p11.2 for 6/7 patients, 3p21.31 for 5/7 patients and 17q22 for 3/7 patients (Tables 2 and S3) as the most altered.

Finally, in NAG, 4,748 LOH genes were determined (Table S1). Chromosomes Xq11.1 for 7/7 patients, 16p11.2 for 7/7 patients, and Xp22.33 for 4/7 patients (Tables 2 and S3) were the most altered.

Interestingly, LOH lengths do not seem relevant to carcinogenesis, and 5–10 Kbp LOH lengths were more common and frequent in DGC, IGC, and NAG (Table S4).

We analyzed alterations occurring in at least three patients to identify the most relevant LOH in GC and NAG (cut-off ≥ 3). We found a similar pattern for total LOH, with events in DGC (1157), IGC (1361), and NAG (1184). In addition, DGC had the highest number of genes affected in all samples, 7/7 (1132), followed by IGC (261) and NAG (34) (Table S1).

Gastric cancer genes associated with LOH

A Venn diagram was constructed to examine the LOH-GC-relevant genes of at least three patients (cut-off ≥ 3) of the DGC, IGC, and NAG. We determined 1,153 shared LOH genes between DGC-IGC-NAG. IGC had 207 unique affected genes, while NAG only showed 28 (Fig. 1A and Table S5). From each subset (Fig. 1A), those genes with matches according to the Cancer Hallmarks Genes database, a comprehensive resource that includes 6,763 genes, are shown 241 LOH-genes were found in DGC-IGC-NAG; IGC had 55 affected unique genes and 13 genes in NAG. Figures 1B–1D represent the enrichment of the Hallmarks of Cancer. The 241 common genes DGC-IGC-NAG present more Hallmarks than NAG, which showed fewer.

Figure 1. Profile of LOH-genes in gastric cancer from ≥ 3 patients.

Figure 1

(A) The Venn diagram presents frequencies of specific and shared genes in diffuse gastric cancer (DGC), intestinal gastric cancer (IGC), or non-atrophic gastritis (NAG) in LOH. Each subset of the Venn diagram in parentheses indicates the Cancer Hallmark genes (B, C, and D). In the radial graphs, each bar represents a Hallmark and the height of the p.adjust value of the category enrichment; the grays have no significance. The red dotted line represents the significance cut-off value (p.adjust < 0.05).

Functional pathway analysis

LOH-genes-Hallmarks were used to identify metabolic pathways in each subset according to Reactome and Homo sapiens as a model organism (Table 3); those significant metabolic pathways (p-value < 0.05) were selected as the most affected.

Table 3. Metabolic pathways and genes-Hallmarks of cancer.

General description Pathway p -value Genes
NAG Signal by receptor tyrosine kinases Signaling by MET
Signaling by VEGF
2.2E−02
2.6E−02
PTPRJ
Signal transduction RHOG GTPase cycle 7.2 E−03 NDUFS3
IGC Signal transduction Signaling by GPCR
Signaling by WNT
Signaling by MST1
9.3E−03
7.9E−04
7.9E−04
GNAI2
CLTC, WDR6
MST1, MST1R
Developmental biology Semaphorin interaction (Sema 4D) 1.4E−03 PLXNB1, RHOA
Extracelullar matrix organization Laminin interactions
ECM proteoglycans
2.9E−04
1.2E−02
LAMB2, COL7A1
LAMB2, DAG1
Cell cycle Activation of ATR in response to replication stress 2.2E−02 ATRIP, CDC25A
Immune system Regulation by TREX1 3.2E−02 TREX1
Proteins and carbohydrates Metabolism Post-translational protein phosphorylation
Hyaluronan uptake and degradation
7.8E−03
7.6E−03
LAMB2, SHISA5, HYAL1, HYAL2
DGC-IGC-NAG Immune system Toll-like receptor cascades 9.0E−03 IRAK1, IKBKG, TAB3
Signal transduction Class A71 rhodopsin like receptors
RHO GTPase cycle
6.4E−04
1.3E−02
OPN1MW, OPN1LW2x
OCRL, OPHN1, STARD8, WAS, PAK3, FGD1, ARHGEF6, ARHGAP4
Extracellular matrix organization Collagen Formation 2.2E−02 COL4A6, COL4A5
Metabolism Aerobic respiration and electron transport
5-Phosphoribose 1-diphosphate biosynthesis
Diseases associated with glycosaminoglycan
3.0E−02
1.7E−02
1.6E−02
PDHA1, PDK3
PRPS2, PRPS1
GPC3, GPC4
Cellular response to stimuli KEAP1-NFE2L2 5.1E−03 TKTL1, G6PD
Cell cycle Cohesin loading onto Chromatin (M phase) 1.0E−02 STAG2, SMC1A
Others
Developmental biology
RSK activation
WNT cancer
29E-04
1.3E−03
1.5E−03
MECP2, TBL1X
RPS6KA3, RPS6KA6,
PORCN, AMER1

Correlation genes network

Cancer LOH-genes-Hallmarks associated with metabolic pathways were used to construct interaction networks (STRING, Fig. 2). The connecting lines indicate associations by metabolic pathways, expression, localization, inferred interaction, genetic interactions, data mining, and neighborhood. Likewise, each node can be related to flags (events) reporting the Hallmarks of Cancer. In this way, the network formed among IGC-DGC-NAG had 31 nodes; the genes with the highest number of Hallmarks were PAK3, IRAK1, and IKBKG, and the genes with the highest number of connections were OPHN1, WAS, TKTL and PRPS1. In the ICG network, there were 29 nodes. The genes associated with cancer Hallmarks were GNAI2, RHOA, MAPKAPK3, HYAL1, and CISH, while the most connected were RHOA, MST1R, and ATRIP. Finally, the network corresponding to NAG had five nodes, PTPRJ had the most significant number of Hallmarks, and the most connected was NUP160 (Table 4).

Figure 2. Relevant gene networks, and the Hallmarks of Cancer and metabolic pathways.

Figure 2

Ten Hallmarks are shown in the legend. The IGC-DGC-NAG network is indicated in purple, NAG in pink, and IGC in blue.

Table 4. Top genes linked to the highest number of the Hallmarks of cancer and genes detected in the stomach.

Tissue Gene, ID Interaction number Cytoband Function
NAG PTPRJ, 5795 3 11p11.2 The protein encoded by this gene is a protein tyrosine phosphatase T(PP) family member. PTPs are signaling molecules that regulate a variety of cellular processes, including cell growth, differentiation, the mitotic cycle, and oncogenic transformation.
NDUFS, 4722 2 11p11.2 This gene encodes one of the iron-sulfur protein (IP) components of mitochondrial NADH: ubiquinone oxidoreductase (complex I). Mutations in this gene are associated with Leigh syndrome, which results from mitochondrial complex I deficiency.
NAG-IGC-DGC PAK3, 5063 5 Xq23 The protein is a serine-threonine kinase and forms an activated complex with GTP-bound RAS-like (P21), CDC2 and RAC1. This protein may be necessary for dendritic development and the rapid cytoskeletal reorganization in dendritic spines associated with synaptic plasticity.
IRAK1, 3654 5 Xq28 This gene encodes the interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 1. This gene is partially responsible for IL1-induced upregulation of the transcription factor NF-kappaB.
IKBKG, 8517 6 Xq28 This gene encodes the regulatory subunit of the inhibitor of kappaB kinase (IKK) complex, which activates NF-kappaB and activates genes involved in inflammation, immunity, cell survival, and other pathways.
TKTL1, 8277 6 Xq28 The protein encoded by this gene is a transketolase that acts as a homodimer and catalyzes the conversion of sedoheptulose 7-phosphate and D-glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate to D-ribose 5-phosphate and D-xylulose 5-phosphate. This reaction links the pentose phosphate pathway with the glycolytic pathway.
PRPS1, 5631 5 Xq22.3 This gene encodes an enzyme that catalyzes the phosphoribosylation of ribose 5-phosphate to 5-phosphoribosyl-1-pyrophosphate. This process is necessary for purine metabolism and nucleotide biosynthesis. Defects in this gene cause phosphoribosylpyrophosphate synthetase superactivity.
IGC GNAI2, 2771 7 3p21.31 The protein encoded is an alpha subunit of guanine nucleotide-binding proteins (G proteins). The protein is involved in the hormonal regulation of adenylate cyclase.
RHOA, 387 7 3p21.31 This gene encodes a member of the Rho family of small GTPases, which function as molecular switches in signal transduction cascades. Rho proteins promote reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton and regulate cell shape, attachment, and motility. Overexpression of this gene is associated with tumor cell proliferation and metastasis.
MAPKAPK3, 7867 5 3p21.2 This gene encodes a member of the Ser/Thr protein kinase family. This kinase functions as a mitogen-activated protein kinase MAP kinase. MAP kinases, also known as extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs), act as an integration point for multiple biochemical signals. This kinase was shown to be activated by growth inducers and stress stimulation of cells.
MST1R, 4486 9 3p21.31 This gene encodes a cell surface receptor for macrophage-stimulating protein (MSP) with tyrosine kinase activity. This protein is expressed on the ciliated epithelia of the lung’s mucociliary transport apparatus and, together with MSP, is thought to be involved in host defense.

Discussion

Design study

Our study’s choice of seven patients per group is based on rigorous selection criteria. Although our repository has approximately 600 GC samples, only those with at least 50% cancer cells (see Table 1) were included to reduce the “noise” from non-cancerous cells, which is essential for accurate results. In molecular biology and genetic studies, it is expected to face logistical and financial constraints that limit the collection of large sample sizes. Additionally, in highly controlled experiments, a smaller sample size can be sufficient to detect significant effects. Despite a limited “n”, wide confidence intervals help interpret the precision of our results. Furthermore, previous studies in the literature have used similar sample sizes and support our methodology. Finally, as an exploratory study, this research provides a foundation for larger-scale studies to generate valuable hypotheses for future experiments (Larios-Serrato et al., 2022).

Chronic gastritis is associated with inflammatory and cellular changes that can lead to GC. Notably, H. pylori infection can cause atrophic chronic gastritis, a precursor to gastric cancer (Kumar et al., 2020). Comparing gastritis with cancer samples can help explore the inflammation-to-cancer transition and the molecular changes involved in the progression of premalignant lesions to malignancies (Sui et al., 2020). Correa’s model describes gastric epithelium progression from chronic gastritis to intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and eventually adenocarcinoma (Correa & Piazuelo, 2012). It is relevant to use gastritis as a comparison group, since it represents an early phase within this cancer evolution model. Given the difficulty in collecting healthy gastric tissue due to ethical concerns with biopsies in asymptomatic individuals, gastritis is a clinically relevant control. Functionally, comparing inflamed (gastritis) tissues with cancerous ones may highlight genes or pathways that distinguish non-neoplastic inflammation from tumor-progressing inflammation, providing critical insights into tumorigenic transformation mechanisms.

LOH, chromosomes, and cytogenetics

GC has a high mortality rate due to its characteristics, such as late detection and silent progression; therefore, research into tumor biology is required to find early markers and carry out an opportune intervention. LOH is among the aspects that could contribute to a timely diagnosis according to prognosis (Huo et al., 2021; Battista et al., 2021). It has been proposed that LOH could function as independent prognostic markers (Koo et al., 2004), and those could even function as alternative targets for treatment (Hwang et al., 2021).

LOH is involved in different cancer types, showing its importance as a “predisposing” factor. According to other studies, specific LOH genes are more relevant than the length of affection. LOH-genes-NAG, TP53, PTEN, RUNX3 (Bellini et al., 2012; Li et al., 2005; Carvalho et al., 2005) could have a carcinogenic potential as signaling early events; of these, TP53 (Bellini et al., 2012) and PTEN (Li et al., 2005) have polymorphisms or copy number variations due to LOH-events (Battista et al., 2021; Poremba et al., 1995; Oki et al., 2005).

Here, 11 LOH-genes were determined, besides the small sample which were selected according to their apparition frequency in the analyzed samples, their participation in metabolic pathways (p-value < 0.05), their established interactions (networks), and their enrichment in Cancer Hallmark’s genes database (p.adjust < 0.05). Thus, PTPRJ and NUP160 were determined into NAG samples, RHOA, GNAI2, and MAPKAPK3 for ICG, and no unique or relevant genes were identified for DCG. NAG LOH-genes that are relevant to carcinogenesis participate in proliferation and growth, while those for IGC are on genomic instability, tissue invasion, metastasis, and the arrest of cell death; and DGC genes are for energy metabolism, destruction of immune evasion, and replicative immortality. Other genes were shared between IGC and NAG-IGC-DGC, whose p-values are close and could be considered similar LOH events, since they are involved in sustained angiogenesis. On the other hand, IGC genes also promote inflammation, and although the p-values are not significant, there was a difference in the NAG-IGC-DGC group. Then, those molecular, cellular, and metabolic LOH alterations should be monitored in GC patients. These findings must be validated to develop tests with molecular profiles for diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatment, as well as, most importantly, screening tests.

When analyzing the metabolic pathways associated with LOH genes, the common ones were signal transduction, immune system, cell cycle, and extracellular matrix organization, which would be involved in early GC stages. Developmental biology is added to IGC samples because of the semaphorins interactions (Table 3, genes PLXNB1 and RHOA), which have been found to function as tumor suppressors and inhibit tumor progression by various mechanisms; however, they also can function as inducers and promoters of tumor progression (Neufeld et al., 2016). Another metabolic pathway found here (IGC) was protein and carbohydrate metabolism, where processes such as post-translational modifications (phosphorylations) and hyaluronan metabolism (degradation proteins Hyal 1–3) are affected. Hyaluron plays a fundamental role in tissue architecture and the regulation of cellular function, which could be related to proliferation and migration, since hyaluronan accumulation at the extracellular matrix and its derived fragments due to the altered expression of hyaluronidases enhance cancer progression, remodeling the tumor microenvironment (Kobayashi, Chanmee & Itano, 2020), just like in GC (Vizoso et al., 2004).

Marker genes

The results described above determined five shared genes among the three sample groups analyzed (IGC-DGC-NAG): IRAK1, IKBKG, PAK3, TKTL1, and PRPS1. These genes are associated with various typical functions of cancer development and progression. IRAK1 is involved in the interleukin 1 receptor, then regulates inflammation genes in immune cells. It is one of the most emerging Hallmarks of Cancer (because of avoiding immune destruction or tumor inflammation), affecting the disease development due to its possible oncogenic and immunological functions (Liu et al., 2022). IKBKG is linked to the NF-kB pathway, which is crucial for cancer since its involvement in cell survival and proliferation (Yin, Wang & Lu, 2020; Gong et al., 2020) is another of the principal Cancer of Hallmarks. PAK3 can regulate cell growth and migration, potentially contributing to metastasis; it can also regulate Circ 0000190, a circular RNA that inhibits CG through the caspase-3, p27, and cyclin D axis (Wang et al., 2020).

On the other hand, TKTL1 is associated with metabolism reprogramming, since it is involved in glucose metabolism in GC cells (Kämmerer et al., 2015). Moreover, it regulates other events such as proliferation, metastasis, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, resistance to chemoradiotherapy, and survival (Ahopelto et al., 2020). Finally, the relapse-specific mutations in phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate synthetase 1 gene (PRPS1), a rate-limiting purine biosynthesis enzyme that confers significant drug resistance to combination chemotherapy in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Wang et al., 2018), suggest that these genes shared could indicate a core of early genes, given that they are also found in NAG, a non-cancerous lesion.

The NDUFS3 gene, which encodes a subunit of complex I of OXPHOS, was also identified among the shared genes. This gene also plays a significant role in metabolic reprogramming, an early event in carcinogenesis that occurs in the first phases of disease development. Metabolic reprogramming is a crucial aspect of the Warburg effect. The common feature of this altered metabolism is increased glucose uptake and fermentation of glucose to lactate, which is a common feature in cancer. Also, the H. pylori infection, like some of the NAG samples in this study, shows increased complex I, further highlighting the role of NDUFS3 (Feichtinger et al., 2017) and metabolic reprogramming as an early carcinogenesis event. Furthermore, in the MKN28 and MKN45 cell lines derived from moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma and undifferentiated adenocarcinoma of medullary type, a decrease in this complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain is also observed (Puurand et al., 2012).

According to the NAG interaction network, PTPRJ and NUP160 genes could regulate cellular and molecular processes contributing to inflammation, immune response, energy and metabolism, and proliferation. PTPRJ encodes a protein from the tyrosine phosphatase family and dephosphorylates CTNND1, related to cell proliferation, adhesion, and migration (Du & Grandis, 2015; Holsinger et al., 2002), as with inflammation and regulation of the immune response. NUP160 encodes for a nuclear porin complex protein that regulates the transport of macromolecules between the nucleus and the cytoplasm (Xu & Powers, 2009); its deregulation can modify gene expression and cell signaling.

IGC network (Fig. 2) shows four multiple interaction genes in cancer signaling and progression process; RHOA encodes for a protein of the Rho-GTPase family and is associated with signaling (Nam, Kim & Lee, 2019), Ras homologous A (RHOA) as a significant signaling hub in GC regulates several cellular processes, including the cytoskeletal structure and cell adhesion. Recently, it was shown that RHOA can be targeted by small molecule inhibitors in cancer, implicating it as a potential druggable target (Kaibuchi, Kuroda & Amano, 1999). Therefore, it is linked to cancer progression. GNAI2 encodes the alpha subunit of the Guanine nucleotide-binding proteins (G proteins), and in stomach adenocarcinoma it is considered a prognostic marker (Li et al., 2024). Also, it is essential for the transduction of extracellular signals and is related to cellular processes such as growth, migration, regulation of proliferation, differentiation, and the response to external stimuli. MAPKAPK3 has been proposed as a therapeutic target (Cazes et al., 2022) that regulates cell stress response, proliferation, and survival; it has also been reported as an element of diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction (Niloofa, De Zoysa & Seneviratne, 2021).

Moreover, the MST1R (or RON) gene encodes macrophage-stimulating receptor-1 or Ron family tyrosine kinase receptors, which can act in the HIF-1α and β-catenin pathways. This receptor is involved in oncogenesis by regulating cell migration, adhesion, and survival; it plays an essential role in the inflammatory response and metastasis. In this way, RHOA and GNAI2 are related to the signaling and regulation of critical cellular processes in cancer. In contrast, the MST1R/RON gene is involved in the tumor progression of various types of cancer, and GC mutations have been reported (Purwar et al., 2023).

LOH and clinic

In certain tumor types, the LOH impacts over 20% of the genome, diminishing allelic diversity across numerous genes (Zhang & Sjöblom, 2021). Clinically, mutations associated with LOH on specific chromosomes can serve as biomarkers for assessing cancer risk and prognosis, may guide the development of new therapies, and offer insights into its evolution (Cavenee et al., 1983). LOH analysis is particularly relevant in oncology and is a biomarker in breast (Kaur et al., 2018), ovarian (Ryland et al., 2015), and leukemia cancers (Fitzgibbon et al., 2005). It is also linked to hereditary cancer syndromes, making it valuable in risk assessment programs for individuals with a family history of cancer (Lozac’hmeur et al., 2024).

Challenges in LOH

The study of LOH in cancer presents significant methodological and biological challenges. Variability in detection platforms, such as SNP arrays and genomic sequencing, leads to inconsistent sensitivity levels, increasing the risk of false positives or negatives. Additionally, distinguishing LOH from complex structural variants, like duplications or point mutations, complicates precise identification. Cellular context further challenges LOH analysis; it does not permanently fully inactivate tumor suppressor genes, mainly if the remaining gene copy retains partial function. Genes with haploinsufficiency add complexity, as LOH may not yield significant functional consequences. Contamination from non-cancerous cells in solid tumor samples also affects LOH detection accuracy. In contrast, genetic diversity in polyclonal tumors can skew LOH frequency estimates, complicating the interpretation of its relevance to tumor progression. Given the scarcity of LOH-focused studies, further research is essential to identify LOH-affected genes and understand their roles in cancer, potentially aiding diagnostic and therapeutic advances (Zhang & Sjöblom, 2021).

Conclusions

The frequency of LOH in specific regions of chromosomes suggests that these loci contain critical regions for tumor suppression or progression. The loss of regions where the sequences of master molecules controlling gene expression (coding and non-coding) are located plays a role in controlling the cell cycle and apoptosis. In contrast, the loss of genes can affect cell adhesion and signaling. These findings support the hypothesis that LOH contributes to genetic instability and GC progression. LOH is an essential mechanism in the oncogenesis of GC that should continue to be investigated. Identifying LOH genes could provide new opportunities for developing targeted therapeutic strategies and improving the prognosis of patients with GC. Future studies should focus on the functional characterization of these genes and the development of methods to prevent or reverse LOH in precancerous and cancerous cells.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 1. Number of alterations and acumulated length in Mb, total data show before and after applying an event cut-off ≥3 patients.
peerj-13-18928-s001.xlsx (822KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. LOH genes in DGC.

To identify relevant genes (cut-off, ≥3) cells are filled with gray.

peerj-13-18928-s002.xlsx (38.4KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Frequency of LOH in cytobands.

The information was organized by event numbers.

peerj-13-18928-s003.xlsx (84.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. LOH size events.
peerj-13-18928-s004.xlsx (74.5KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. List of genes (cut-off ≥ 3 patients) affected by LOH in Venn diagram.
peerj-13-18928-s005.xlsx (79.5KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. MAIME checklist.
peerj-13-18928-s006.pdf (84.4KB, pdf)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. STROBE checklist.
peerj-13-18928-s007.pdf (152.5KB, pdf)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-7

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Brian-Alexander Cruz-Ramírez and Ms. Alejandra García-Bejarano, Unidad de Investigación Médica en Enfermedades Oncológicas, Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad-Hospital de Oncología, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social for their technical assistance.

Funding Statement

The present study was supported by the Fondo de Investigación en Salud-Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (grant nos. FIS/IMSS/PROT/G16/1573 and FIS/IMSS/PROT/PRIO/13/027). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Violeta Larios-Serrato conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Hilda A. Valdez-Salazar performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Javier Torres performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Margarita Camorlinga performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Patricia Piña-Sánchez performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Fernando Minauro analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Martha-Eugenia Ruiz-Tachiquín conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica (CNIC) del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Approval number: 2008-785-001

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The data is available at GSE117093 and BioProjet PRJNA481039.

References

  • Ahopelto et al. (2020).Ahopelto K, Laitinen A, Hagström J, Böckelman C, Haglund C. Transketolase-like protein 1 and glucose transporter 1 in gastric cancer. Oncology. 2020;98:643–652. doi: 10.1159/000507350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Arakawa et al. (2017).Arakawa N, Sugai T, Habano W, Eizuka M, Sugimoto R, Akasaka R, Toya Y, Yamamoto E, Koeda K, Sasaki A, Matsumoto T, Suzuki H. Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy number alterations in early and advanced gastric cancers. Molecular Carcinogenesis. 2017;56:527–537. doi: 10.1002/mc.22514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bardou et al. (2014).Bardou P, Mariette J, Escudié F, Djemiel C, Klopp C. jvenn: an interactive Venn diagram viewer. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:293. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Battista et al. (2021).Battista S, Ambrosio MR, Limarzi F, Gallo G, Saragoni L. Molecular alterations in gastric preneoplastic lesions and early gastric cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(13):6652. doi: 10.3390/ijms22136652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bellini et al. (2012).Bellini MF, Cadamuro AC, Succi M, Proença MA, Silva AE. Alterations of the TP53 gene in gastric and esophageal carcinogenesis. Journal of Biomedicine & Biotechnology. 2012;2012(2012):891961. doi: 10.1155/2012/891961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bray et al. (2024).Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2024;74:229–263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (2014).Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014;513:202–209. doi: 10.1038/nature13480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Carvalho et al. (2005).Carvalho R, Milne ANA, Polak M, Corver WE, Offerhaus GJA, Weterman MAJ. Exclusion of RUNX3 as a tumour-suppressor gene in early-onset gastric carcinomas. Oncogene. 2005;24:8252–8258. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cavenee et al. (1983).Cavenee WK, Dryja TP, Phillips RA, Benedict WF, Godbout R, Gallie BL, Murphree AL, Strong LC, White RL. Expression of recessive alleles by chromosomal mechanisms in retinoblastoma. Nature. 1983;305:779–784. doi: 10.1038/305779a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cazes et al. (2022).Cazes A, Childers BG, Esparza E, Lowy AM. The MST1R/RON tyrosine kinase in cancer: oncogenic functions and therapeutic strategies. Cancers. 2022;14(8):2037. doi: 10.3390/cancers14082037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Choi et al. (2018).Choi JH, Kim YB, Ahn JM, Kim MJ, Bae WJ, Han SU, Woo HG, Lee D. Identification of genomic aberrations associated with lymph node metastasis in diffuse-type gastric cancer. Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 2018;50:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s12276-017-0009-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Choi, Lee & Cho (2018).Choi WH, Lee S, Cho S. Microsatellite alterations and protein expression of 5 major tumor suppressor genes in gastric adenocarcinomas. Translational Oncology. 2018;11:43–55. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.10.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chung et al. (2010).Chung WC, Jung SH, Lee KM, Paik CN, Kwak JW, Jung JH, Yoo JY, Lee MK, Chung I-S. Genetic instability in gastric epithelial neoplasias categorized by the revised vienna classification. Gut and Liver. 2010;4:179–185. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2010.4.2.179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Correa & Piazuelo (2012).Correa P, Piazuelo MB. The gastric precancerous cascade. Journal of Digestive Diseases. 2012;13:2–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-2980.2011.00550.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Du & Grandis (2015).Du Y, Grandis JR. Receptor-type protein tyrosine phosphatases in cancer. Chinese Journal of Cancer. 2015;34:61–69. doi: 10.5732/cjc.014.10146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fabregat et al. (2018).Fabregat A, Jupe S, Matthews L, Sidiropoulos K, Gillespie M, Garapati P, Haw R, Jassal B, Korninger F, May B, Milacic M, Roca CD, Rothfels K, Sevilla C, Shamovsky V, Shorser S, Varusai T, Viteri G, Weiser J, Wu G, Stein L, Hermjakob H, D’Eustachio P. The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Research. 2018;46:D649–D655. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Feichtinger et al. (2017).Feichtinger RG, Neureiter D, Skaria T, Wessler S, Cover TL, Mayr JA, Zimmermann FA, Posselt G, Sperl W, Kofler B. Oxidative phosphorylation system in gastric carcinomas and gastritis. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. 2017;2017(2017):1320241. doi: 10.1155/2017/1320241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fitzgibbon et al. (2005).Fitzgibbon J, Smith L-L, Raghavan M, Smith ML, Debernardi S, Skoulakis S, Lillington D, Lister TA, Young BD. Association between acquired uniparental disomy and homozygous gene mutation in acute myeloid leukemias. Cancer Research. 2005;65:9152–9154. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gong et al. (2020).Gong Y, Zhao W, Jia Q, Dai J, Chen N, Chen Y, Gu D, Huo X, Chen J. IKBKB rs2272736 is associated with gastric cancer survival. Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine. 2020;13:345–352. doi: 10.2147/PGPM.S258761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Holsinger et al. (2002).Holsinger LJ, Ward K, Duffield B, Zachwieja J, Jallal B. The transmembrane receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase DEP1 interacts with p120(ctn) Oncogene. 2002;21:7067–7076. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hosseini et al. (2007).Hosseini HA, Ahani A, Galehdari H, Froughmand AM, Hosseini M, Masjedizadeh A, Zali MR. Frequent loss of heterozygosity at 8p22 chromosomal region in diffuse type of gastric cancer. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2007;13:3354–3358. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i24.3354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Huo et al. (2021).Huo X, Xiao X, Zhang S, Du X, Li C, Bai Z, Chen Z. Characterization and clinical evaluation of microsatellite instability and loss of heterozygosity in tumor-related genes in gastric cancer. Oncology Letters. 2021;21(6):430. doi: 10.3892/ol.2021.12691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hwang et al. (2021).Hwang MS, Mog BJ, Douglass J, Pearlman AH, Hsiue EH-C, Paul S, Di Napoli SR, Konig MF, Pardoll DM, Gabelli SB, Bettegowda C, Papadopoulos N, Vogelstein B, Zhou S, Kinzler KW. Targeting loss of heterozygosity for cancer-specific immunotherapy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2021;118:e2022410118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022410118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kaibuchi, Kuroda & Amano (1999).Kaibuchi K, Kuroda S, Amano M. Regulation of the cytoskeleton and cell adhesion by the Rho family GTPases in mammalian cells. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1999;68:459–486. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.68.1.459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kämmerer et al. (2015).Kämmerer U, Gires O, Pfetzer N, Wiegering A, Klement RJ, Otto C. TKTL1 expression in human malign and benign cell lines. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-15-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kaur et al. (2018).Kaur RP, Vasudeva K, Kumar R, Munshi A. Role of p53 gene in breast cancer: focus on mutation spectrum and therapeutic strategies. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2018;24:3566–3575. doi: 10.2174/1381612824666180926095709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kobayashi, Chanmee & Itano (2020).Kobayashi T, Chanmee T, Itano N. Hyaluronan: metabolism and function. Biomolecules. 2020;10(11):1525. doi: 10.3390/biom10111525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Koo et al. (2004).Koo SH, Jeong TE, Kang J, Kwon KC, Park JW, Noh SM. Prognostic implications for gastric carcinoma based on loss of heterozygosity genotypes correlation with clinicopathologic variables. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics. 2004;153:26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2003.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar et al. (2020).Kumar S, Metz DC, Ellenberg S, Kaplan DE, Goldberg DS. Risk factors and incidence of gastric cancer after detection of helicobacter pylori infection: a large cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:527–536.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Larios-Serrato et al. (2022).Larios-Serrato V, Martínez-Ezquerro JD, Valdez-Salazar HA, Torres J, Camorlinga-Ponce M, Piña Sánchez P, Ruiz-Tachiquín ME. Copy number alterations and epithelial-mesenchymal transition genes in diffuse and intestinal gastric cancers in Mexican patients. Molecular Medicine Reports. 2022;25(5):191. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2022.12707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lengauer, Kinzler & Vogelstein (1998).Lengauer C, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature. 1998;396:643–649. doi: 10.1038/25292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2024).Li M, Lu M, Li J, Gui Q, Xia Y, Lu C, Shu H. Single-cell data revealed CD14-type and FCGR3A-type macrophages and relevant prognostic factors for predicting immunotherapy and prognosis in stomach adenocarcinoma. PeerJ. 2024;12:e16776. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2005).Li Y-L, Tian Z, Wu D-Y, Fu B-Y, Xin Y. Loss of heterozygosity on 10q23.3 and mutation of tumor suppressor gene PTEN in gastric cancer and precancerous lesions. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005;11:285–288. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i2.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu & Meltzer (2017).Liu X, Meltzer SJ. Gastric cancer in the era of precision medicine. Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2017;3:348–358. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu et al. (2022).Liu M, Que Y, Hong Y, Zhang L, Zhang X, Zhang Y. A pan-cancer analysis of IRAK1 expression and their association with immunotherapy response. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. 2022;9:904959. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.904959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lozac’hmeur et al. (2024).Lozac’hmeur A, Danek T, Yang Q, Rosasco MG, Welch JS, Go WY, Ng EW, Mardiros A, Maloney DG, Garon EB, Kirtane K, Simeone DM, Molina JR, Salahudeen AA, Stein MM, Hecht JR. Detecting HLA loss of heterozygosity within a standard diagnostic sequencing workflow for prognostic and therapeutic opportunities. NPJ Precision Oncology. 2024;8(1):174. doi: 10.1038/s41698-024-00665-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Machlowska et al. (2020).Machlowska J, Baj J, Sitarz M, Maciejewski R, Sitarz R. Gastric cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, classification, genomic characteristics and treatment strategies. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020;21(11):4012. doi: 10.3390/ijms21114012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Menyhart, Kothalawala & Győrffy (2024).Menyhart O, Kothalawala WJ, Győrffy B. A gene set enrichment analysis for the cancer Hallmarks. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2024 doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2024.101065. Epub ahead of print 3 August 2024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Milne et al. (2010).Milne AN, Leguit R, Corver WE, Morsink FH, Polak M, De Leng WW, Carvalho R, Offerhaus GJ. Loss of CDC4/FBXW7 in gastric carcinoma. Cellular Oncology. 2010;32:347–359. doi: 10.3233/CLO-2010-523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nam, Kim & Lee (2019).Nam S, Kim JH, Lee DH. RHOA in gastric cancer: functional roles and therapeutic potential. Frontiers in Genetics. 2019;10:438. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Neufeld et al. (2016).Neufeld G, Mumblat Y, Smolkin T, Toledano S, Nir-Zvi I, Ziv K, Kessler O. The role of the semaphorins in cancer. Cell Adhesion & Migration. 2016;10:652–674. doi: 10.1080/19336918.2016.1197478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Niloofa, De Zoysa & Seneviratne (2021).Niloofa R, De Zoysa MI, Seneviratne LS. Autoantibodies in the diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of colorectal cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2021;17:819–833. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_64_19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nobili et al. (2011).Nobili S, Bruno L, Landini I, Napoli C, Bechi P, Tonelli F, Rubio CA, Mini E, Nesi G. Genomic and genetic alterations influence the progression of gastric cancer. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2011;17:290–299. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i3.290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ohshima et al. (2019).Ohshima K, Fujiya K, Nagashima T, Ohnami S, Hatakeyama K, Urakami K, Naruoka A, Watanabe Y, Moromizato S, Shimoda Y, Ohnami S, Serizawa M, Akiyama Y, Kusuhara M, Mochizuki T, Sugino T, Shiomi A, Tsubosa Y, Uesaka K, Terashima M, Yamaguchi K. Driver gene alterations and activated signaling pathways toward malignant progression of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Science. 2019;110:3821–3833. doi: 10.1111/cas.14202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Oki et al. (2005).Oki E, Tokunaga E, Nakamura T, Ueda N, Futatsugi M, Mashino K, Yamamoto M, Watanabe M, Ikebe M, Kakeji Y, Baba H, Maehara Y. Genetic mutual relationship between PTEN and p53 in gastric cancer. Cancer Letters. 2005;227:33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2004.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ottini et al. (2006).Ottini L, Falchetti M, Lupi R, Rizzolo P, Agnese V, Colucci G, Bazan V, Russo A. Patterns of genomic instability in gastric cancer: clinical implications and perspectives. Annals of Oncology. 2006;17(Suppl 7):vii97–vii102. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Poremba et al. (1995).Poremba C, Yandell DW, Huang Q, Little JB, Mellin W, Schmid KW, Böcker W, Dockhorn-Dworniczak B. Frequency and spectrum of p53 mutations in gastric cancer–a molecular genetic and immunohistochemical study. Virchows Archiv. 1995;426:447–455. doi: 10.1007/BF00193167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Purwar et al. (2023).Purwar R, Tripathi M, Rajput M, Pal M, Pandey M. Novel mutations in a second primary gastric cancer in a patient treated for primary colon cancer. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2023;21(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03057-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Puurand et al. (2012).Puurand M, Peet N, Piirsoo A, Peetsalu M, Soplepmann J, Sirotkina M, Peetsalu A, Hemminki A, Seppet E. Deficiency of the complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain but improved adenylate control over succinate-dependent respiration are human gastric cancer-specific phenomena. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. 2012;370:69–78. doi: 10.1007/s11010-012-1399-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ryland et al. (2015).Ryland GL, Doyle MA, Goode D, Boyle SE, Choong DYH, Rowley SM, Li J, Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Bowtell DDL, Tothill RW, Campbell IG, Gorringe KL. Loss of heterozygosity: what is it good for? BMC Medical Genomics. 2015;8:45. doi: 10.1186/s12920-015-0123-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shannon et al. (2003).Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, Amin N, Schwikowski B, Ideker T. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Research. 2003;13:2498–2504. doi: 10.1101/gr.1239303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sondka et al. (2024).Sondka Z, Dhir NB, Carvalho-Silva D, Jupe S, Madhumita, McLaren K, Starkey M, Ward S, Wilding J, Ahmed M, Argasinska J, Beare D, Chawla MS, Duke S, Fasanella I, Neogi AG, Haller S, Hetenyi B, Hodges L, Holmes A, Lyne R, Maurel T, Nair S, Pedro H, Sangrador-Vegas A, Schuilenburg H, Sheard Z, Yong SY, Teague J. COSMIC: a curated database of somatic variants and clinical data for cancer. Nucleic Acids Research. 2024;52:D1210–D1217. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sui et al. (2020).Sui Z, Chen J, Li P, Shao L, Ye J, Lu X, Cai J. Risk for gastric cancer in patients with gastric atrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Cancer Research. 2020;9:1618–1624. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2020.01.54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Szklarczyk et al. (2021).Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Nastou KC, Lyon D, Kirsch R, Pyysalo S, Doncheva NT, Legeay M, Fang T, Bork P, Jensen LJ, Von Mering C. Correction to ‘The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein-protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets’. Nucleic Acids Research. 2021;49(18):10800. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tapial et al. (2021).Tapial S, García JL, Corchete L, Holowatyj AN, Pérez J, Rueda D, Urioste M, González-Sarmiento R, Perea J. Copy neutral loss of heterozygosity (cnLOH) patterns in synchronous colorectal cancer. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG. 2021;29:709–713. doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-00774-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Vizoso et al. (2004).Vizoso FJ, Del Casar JM, Corte MD, García I, Corte MG, Alvarez A, García-Muñiz JL. Significance of cytosolic hyaluronan levels in gastric cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2004;30:318–324. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2003.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wall, Christiansen & Orwant (2000).Wall L, Christiansen T, Orwant J. Programming perl. O’Reilly Media, Incorporated; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2018).Wang D, Chen Y, Fang H, Zheng L, Li Y, Yang F, Xu Y, Du L, Zhou B-BS, Li H. Increase of PRPP enhances chemosensitivity of PRPS1 mutant acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells to 5-Fluorouracil. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. 2018;22:6202–6212. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.13907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2020).Wang GJ, Yu TY, Li YR, Liu YJ, Deng BB. Circ_0000190 suppresses gastric cancer progression potentially via inhibiting miR-1252/PAK3 pathway. Cancer Cell International. 2020;20:351. doi: 10.1186/s12935-020-01422-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2016).Wang H, Xu M, Cui X, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Sui Y, Wang D, Peng L, Wang D, Yu J. Aberrant expression of the candidate tumor suppressor gene DAL-1 due to hypermethylation in gastric cancer. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:21755. doi: 10.1038/srep21755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wu et al. (2022).Wu X, Wang Q, Liu P, Sun L, Wang Y. Potential value of the homologous recombination deficiency signature we developed in the prognosis and drug sensitivity of gastric cancer. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;13:1026871. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1026871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Xiao et al. (2006).Xiao Y-P, Wu D-Y, Xu L, Xin Y. Loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instabilities of fragile histidine triad gene in gastric carcinoma. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2006;12:3766–3769. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i23.3766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Xu & Powers (2009).Xu S, Powers MA. Nuclear pore proteins and cancer. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2009;20:620–630. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.03.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yin, Wang & Lu (2020).Yin M, Wang X, Lu J. Advances in IKBKE as a potential target for cancer therapy. Cancer Medicine. 2020;9:247–258. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang & Sjöblom (2021).Zhang X, Sjöblom T. Targeting loss of heterozygosity: a novel paradigm for cancer therapy. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14(1):57. doi: 10.3390/ph14010057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu et al. (2017).Zhu X-Y, Yang J-Y, He Y, Liu G-H, Sun Y, Ding Y. Correlation between gastric carcinoma and ZAC gene-associated microsatellite instability and loss of heterozygosity. Oncology Letters. 2017;14:2422–2426. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information 1. Number of alterations and acumulated length in Mb, total data show before and after applying an event cut-off ≥3 patients.
peerj-13-18928-s001.xlsx (822KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. LOH genes in DGC.

To identify relevant genes (cut-off, ≥3) cells are filled with gray.

peerj-13-18928-s002.xlsx (38.4KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Frequency of LOH in cytobands.

The information was organized by event numbers.

peerj-13-18928-s003.xlsx (84.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. LOH size events.
peerj-13-18928-s004.xlsx (74.5KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. List of genes (cut-off ≥ 3 patients) affected by LOH in Venn diagram.
peerj-13-18928-s005.xlsx (79.5KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. MAIME checklist.
peerj-13-18928-s006.pdf (84.4KB, pdf)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. STROBE checklist.
peerj-13-18928-s007.pdf (152.5KB, pdf)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18928/supp-7

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The data is available at GSE117093 and BioProjet PRJNA481039.


Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES