Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Discover Oncology logoLink to Discover Oncology
. 2025 Aug 23;16:1600. doi: 10.1007/s12672-025-03461-8

Exploring the multifaceted roles of glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase 1 as a biomarker and therapeutic target in colorectal cancer and pan-cancer analyses

Xi Wang 1, Longquan Pi 2, Yuning Chen 1,#, Jiangyu Tan 1,#, Yingying Wang 1,#, Kaiyan Xia 1,#, Xianchun Zhou 1,✉
PMCID: PMC12374927  PMID: 40849558

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health issue requiring novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to improve patient outcomes. Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase 1 (GOT1) plays a crucial role in metabolism and is associated with various cancers. However, its expression and potential as a diagnostic marker in CRC have not been thoroughly investigated. We analysed The Cancer Genome Atlas data on GOT1 normalised to transcripts per million. We used tools such as Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis 2, logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic analysis, Sieber algorithm for immune detection, immune checkpoint gene correlation, cBioPortal analysis, and genomic sensitivities of cancers from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer and Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal to evaluate the association of GOT1 with CRC. GOT1 expression significantly varied across cancer types, showing high diagnostic value in colon adenocarcinoma and rectal adenocarcinoma. Moreover, it correlated with immune cells, such as CD8+ T and plasma cells, and immune checkpoint genes LGALS9 and TNFRSF4. Tumour genetic variations differed in mutation burden, copy number alterations, and microsatellite instability. Drug sensitivities, including those of navitoclax and CCT036477, showed an association with GOT1 expression. Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analyses suggested the involvement of GOT in cellular metabolism. Our comprehensive analysis revealed a critical role of GOT1 in CRC, confirming its role as a diagnostic and therapeutic target. Nonetheless, its role in tumorigenesis warrants further investigation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12672-025-03461-8.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer, Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase 1 (GOT1), Bioinformatics, Diagnostic biomarker, Immune cell infiltration

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health concern and is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths and the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide [1]. The standard treatment options include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the prognosis remains poor, highlighting the urgent need for novel diagnostic and treatment methods [2]. Biomarkers such as KRAS and BRAF mutations have attracted increasing attention due to their potential prognostic value in guiding treatment decisions [3]. However, despite their clinical relevance, the utility of these mutations in predicting treatment response is still limited. This highlights the need for additional biomarkers that can provide more comprehensive insights into CRC progression and therapeutic responses [4, 5].

Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase 1 (GOT1) is a key player in tumour metabolism. GOT1 has been identified as a promising biomarker for several cancers, including liver hepatocellular carcinoma [6, 7], gastric cancer [8], pancreatic cancer [9–11], and oesophageal cancer [12]. However, its role in many of these cancers remains largely unknown. Further studies to gain insights into the role of GOT1 could refine the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, especially for CRC [13–15].

Bioinformatics tools have become indispensable for advancing our understanding of tumour markers and disease mechanisms. These tools facilitate discovering and validating novel biomarkers, identifying molecular patterns indicative of cancer presence, progression, or treatment response. Resources such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) have revolutionised cancer research by providing comprehensive genomic data that facilitate the identification of oncogenic drivers and the advancement of personalised medicine [16]. Despite progress in bioinformatics research related to GOT1, such as the finding that GOT1 inhibition can promote cell death in pancreatic cancer caused by iron overload [9], our understanding of its precise function in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains incomplete [17–19].

In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of GOT1 in CRC and to explore its potential as a biomarker. We used bioinformatics approaches, including gene expression profiling, immune infiltration analysis, and drug sensitivity testing, to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the role of GOT1 in CRC. These analyses will provide a comprehensive understanding of its potential as a biomarker, contributing to improved diagnostic accuracy and personalised therapeutic strategies.

Materials and methods

Data collection

A TCGA dataset comprising 33 cancer types was downloaded using the R package ‘TCGAbiolinks’ [20]. This dataset included gene expression profiles for various cancers, such as adrenocortical carcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma (COAD), and rectal adenocarcinoma (READ). All tumour and normal samples from the 33 TCGA cancer types were analysed. The gene expression levels of each sample were standardised to the transcript per million (TPM) format.

Pan-cancer group comparative analysis

To analyse GOT1 expression across the 33 cancer types included in TCGA, we compared its expression levels in pan-cancer groups and used radar plots to visualise the differences between tumour and normal samples. RNA sequencing data from 8587 normal and 9736 tumour samples were obtained from both TCGA and Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) databases using the Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA2) database [21] (http://gepia2.cancer-pku.cn). The GEPIA2 database provides tools for the analysis of differential expression, survival, and gene identification. These tools facilitate the comprehensive evaluation of GOT1 expression across various cancer types.

Pan-cancer univariate logistic regression

We evaluated the diagnostic value of GOT1 across 24 TCGA cancer types, including normal samples, using logistic regression analysis. This analysis examined the expression of GOT1 in tumours compared to that in normal samples, with a significance threshold set at p < 0.05, indicating potential diagnostic relevance. We constructed a pan-cancer logistic regression model, and the grouped expression of GOT1 for each cancer type was visualised using a forest plot. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using the pROC package to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and assess differential expression, focusing on COAD and READ. The AUC values ranged from 0.5 to 1, with values close to 1 indicating superior accuracy, 0.7–0.9 indicating moderate accuracy, and > 0.9 reflecting high accuracy.

Pan-cancer CIBERSORT immune infiltration analysis

We used CIBERSORT [22] to estimate the composition and abundance of immune cells across 33 TCGA cancer types by deconvoluting transcriptome data. After filtering for immune cell enrichment scores greater than zero, LM22 gene features were applied to obtain immune infiltration results. A pan-cancer correlation heatmap was generated to visualise the relationship between immune cells and GOT1 expression. Additionally, scatter plots were used to illustrate the correlation between GOT1 expression and immune cell infiltration in COAD and READ, where significant associations were identified.

Pan-cancer immune checkpoint gene (ICG) analysis

We obtained 14 ICGs (Table S1) from the published literature [23, 24] and analysed their correlation with GOT1 expression across 33 TCGA cancer types. The results were visualised using heatmaps and scatter plots to illustrate the relationships between GOT1 and ICGs.

Gene variant analysis

The cBioPortal database [25–27] (https://www.cbioportal.org/), a comprehensive resource for cancer genomic data, was used to assess the tumour mutation burden (TMB), copy number variation (CNV), and microsatellite instability (MSI) of GOT1.

Drug sensitivity analysis

Using GOT1 mRNA expression profiles and drug activity data from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) [28] and Cancer Therapeutic Response Portal (CTRP) databases [29], the sensitivity of GOT1 to common anticancer drugs, such as sunitinib, paclitaxel, AZ628, was predicted using half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values.

Protein–protein interaction (PPI) network analysis

In this study, the STRING database [30] (https://string-db.org/) was used to identify known and predicted interactions between proteins. We constructed a PPI network for GOT1 using a minimum interaction score threshold of 0.400 (medium confidence), limiting the display to a maximum of 50 interactors. Proteins interacting with GOT1 in this network, referred to as interacting genes, were selected for further analysis. The GeneMANIA database [31] (https://genemania.org/) was used to analyse the gene lists and predict gene function. Using the GeneMANIA online platform, we identified genes that were functionally similar to GOT1 and constructed a supplementary PPI network to further explore potential functional relationships.

Gene Ontology (GO)/Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses

In this study, we conducted GO [32] and KEGG database [33] enrichment analyses for GOT1 and its interacting genes using R package clusterProfiler [34]. The screening criteria for enriched terms were an adjusted p-value < 0.05 and a false discovery rate or q-value < 0.25. The Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) method was applied for multiple testing corrections.

Statistical analysis

All data processing and statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.1). For comparisons between two groups, independent Student’s t-tests were used for normally distributed continuous variables unless otherwise specified, whereas the Mann–Whitney U test was used for non-normally distributed variables. Comparisons between three or more groups were conducted using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation coefficients between different molecules. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Technology roadmap

A comprehensive analysis flowchart of GOT1 is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart for the comprehensive analysis of GOT1. TCGA The Cancer Genome Atlas, PPI protein–protein interaction, ROC receiver operating characteristic, TMB tumour mutation burden, CNV copy number variation, MSI microsatellite instability, GO Gene Ontology, KEGG Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

Pan-cancer group comparative analysis

Assessment of variations in GOT1 expression in 33 TCGA cancer types using a pan-cancer group comparison map (Fig. 2a), pan-cancer radar map (Fig. 2b), and pan-cancer group comparison dot plots (Fig. 2c) obtained from the GEPIA2 database showed differential expression of GOT1 across 33 TCGA cancer types. The findings revealed that GOT1 expression was highly significant in 12 TCGA cancer types (p < 0. 001), including breast invasive carcinoma (BRCA), COAD, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC), clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KIRC), papillary renal cell carcinoma (KIRP), liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC), lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), READ, thyroid carcinoma (THCA), and endometrial carcinoma (UCEC).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Pan-cancer expression analysis of GOT1. a Box plot illustrating the comparative expression of GOT1 across 33 TCGA cancer types. The X-axis represents the 33 TCGA cancer types, and the Y-axis represents the expression level of GOT1. b Radar chart depicting the pan-cancer expression profile of GOT1, with each dimension representing a TCGA cancer type. The polar diameter reflects the median GOT1 expression. c. Dot plot showing the pan-cancer expression of GOT1. The X-axis represents the 33 TCGA cancer types, and the Y-axis represents the expression level of GOT1. Green represents normal samples, and red represents tumour samples. TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Pan-cancer univariate logistic regression analysis

The models obtained using logistic regression analysis incorporating both tumour and normal samples to assess the diagnostic value of GOT1 across 24 TCGA cancer types with normal tissue comparisons were visualised using forest plots (Fig. 3). GOT1 demonstrated high diagnostic value in 11 TCGA cancer types (p < 0. 001), including BRCA, COAD, HNSC, KIRC, KIRP, LIHC, LUAD, LUSC, READ, THCA, and UCEC. Among these cancer types, GOT1 was associated with an increased risk (odds ratio [OR] > 1) in BRCA, LUAD, LUSC, and UCEC. Additionally, GOT1 expression was inversely associated with cancer progression in COAD, HNSC, KIRC, KIRP, LIHC, READ, and THCA (OR < 1). Furthermore, ROC curve analysis revealed that GOT1 had a moderate diagnostic accuracy for COAD (AUC = 0.798; Fig. 4a) and READ (AUC = 0.869; Fig. 4b).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of pan-cancer logistic analysis of GOT1. Forest plot displaying the logistic regression results for GOT1 across various cancer types. The third column presents the point estimates with the reference line. OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrating the diagnostic performance of GOT1 expression in two gastrointestinal cancers. a Colon adenocarcinoma. b Rectal adenocarcinoma

Pan-cancer CIBERSORT immune infiltration analysis

The CIBERSORT algorithm revealed the abundance of immune cell infiltration of 22 immune cells in 33 TCGA cancer types. The heatmap based on these results illustrates the correlation between these 22 immune cells and GOT1 expression across the 33 TCGA cancer types (Fig. 5). Scatter plots were used to highlight the strongest positive and negative correlations between GOT1 expression and immune cell infiltration in COAD and READ (Fig. 6). In COAD, GOT1 expression was significantly positively correlated with CD8+ T cell infiltration (cor = 0.234, p = 5.62e-08; Fig. 6a) and significantly negatively correlated with M0 macrophage infiltration (cor = − 0.229, p = 5.62E-08; Fig. 6b). In READ, GOT1 expression was significantly positively correlated with plasma cell infiltration (cor = 0.279, p = 1.71e-04; Fig. 6c) and negatively correlated with M0 macrophage infiltration (cor = − 0.272, p = 2.44e-04; Fig. 6d).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Pan-cancer immune infiltration analysis of GOT1 using the CIBERSORT algorithm. Heatmap representing the correlation between GOT1 expression and immune cell infiltration across 33 The Cancer Genome Atlas cancer types. The X-axis represents cancer types, whereas the Y-axis displays the 22 immune cell types. Colour coding indicates the strength of correlation, with red indicating a positive association and blue indicating a negative association. The intensity of the colour corresponds to the absolute correlation value. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Correlation scatter plots of GOT1 in two gastrointestinal cancers. a, b. Scatter plots depicting the relationship between GOT1 expression and a CD8+ T cell infiltration and b M0 macrophage infiltration in colon adenocarcinoma. c, d Scatter plots depicting the relationship between GOT1 expression and c plasma cell infiltration and d M0 macrophage infiltration in rectal adenocarcinoma

Pan-cancer ICG analysis

The heatmap in Fig. 7a provides the correlation between the expression of 14 ICGs and GOT1 across 33 cancer types from the TCGA dataset. Scatter plots depicting the strongest positive and negative correlations between the expression of ICGs and GOT1 in COAD and READ are shown in Fig. 7b and c. The analysis revealed a positive correlation between GOT1 and LGALS9 expression in COAD (correlation coefficient = 0.393, p < 2.2e-16). In contrast, GOT1 expression was negatively correlated with TNFRSF4 expression in READ (correlation coefficient = − 0.255, p = 6.19e-4).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Pan-cancer immune checkpoint gene (ICG) correlation analysis of GOT1. a Heatmap illustrating the correlation between GOT1 expression and 14 ICGs across 33 The Cancer Genome Atlas cancer types. The X-axis represents cancer types, whereas the Y-axis represents ICGs. Colour intensity indicates the strength of correlation (red for positive, blue for negative). b Scatter plot depicting the correlation between LGALS9 and GOT1 expression in colon adenocarcinoma. c Scatter plot depicting the correlation between TNFRSF4 and GOT1 expression in rectal adenocarcinoma. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Genetic variant analysis

The TMB (Fig. 8a), CNV (Fig. 8b), and MSI MANTIS (Fig. 9a) of GOT1 in 33 TCGA cancer types were obtained from the cBioPortal database. The MSI sensor is shown in Fig. 9b.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Pan-cancer TMB and CNV analysis of GOT1. a Dot plot illustrating the TMB of GOT1 across 33 The Cancer Genome Atlas cancer types. b Dot plot depicting the CNV of GOT1 in the same cancer types. The X-axes represent cancer types, whereas the Y-axes show a TMB or b CNV values. TMB tumour mutation burden, CNV copy number variation

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Open in a new tab

Pan-cancer MSI analysis of GOT1. a Dot plot illustrating MSI of GOT1 across 33 The Cancer Genome Atlas cancer types. b Dot plot showing the MSI sensor values for GOT1 in the same cancer types. The X-axes represent cancer types, and the Y-axes show a MSI MANTIS or b MSI sensor values. MSI microsatellite instability

Drug susceptibility analysis

The correlation between GOT1 and anticancer drug susceptibility in the GDSC and CTRP databases is shown in Fig. 10a and b, respectively. The results showed that the correlation between GOT1 and Navitoclax was highest in the GDSC database. According to the CTRP database, GOT1 exhibited the strongest positive correlation with CCT036477.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Open in a new tab

Drug sensitivity analysis of GOT1. a, b Dot plots showing the correlation between GOT1 expression and drug sensitivity in the a GDSC and b CTRP databases. The X-axes represent specific drugs, whereas the Y-axes indicate GOT1 gene expression. The dot colour reflects the correlation strength, and the dot size represents the FDR value. GDSC genomics of drug sensitivity in cancer, CTRP The Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal, FDR false discovery rate

PPI network analysis

The PPI network of GOT1 constructed using the STRING database is shown in Fig. 11a, and the interaction network of GOT1 predicted and constructed using GeneMANIA is shown in Fig. 11b. Lines with different colours represent co-expression, sharing information such as protein domains. The list of genes that showed an interaction with GOT1 is shown in Table S2.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Open in a new tab

Protein–protein interaction (PPI) network of GOT1. A PPI network of GOT1 generated using the STRING database. B PPI network of GOT1 generated using the GeneMANIA database. Connections are colour-coded based on the relationship type: red for physical interactions, purple for co-expression, orange for predicted interactions, blue-purple for co-localisation, green for genetic interactions, blue-green for pathway relationships, and yellow-brown for shared protein domain relationships. The line thickness indicates interaction strength

GO and KEGG analyses

GO and KEGG analyses were performed to investigate the relationships between GOT1 and its interacting genes in terms of biological process, cellular component, molecular function, and pathways. The results, shown in Table 1, indicate that GOT1 and its interacting genes are mainly involved in alpha-amino acid metabolic processes, including synthesis, biosynthesis, degradation, and dicarboxylic acid metabolism. These genes localise to cellular components like the mitochondrial matrix, oxidoreductase complexes, the tricarboxylic acid cycle enzyme complex, melanosome membrane, and chitosome. Functionally, they are associated with vitamin and pyridoxal phosphate binding and enzymatic activities related to transaminases and transferases. The bubble plot shows enrichment in several metabolic pathways, including alanine, aspartate, and glutamate; cysteine and methionine; carbon metabolism; the citric acid (TCA) cycle; and amino acid biosynthesis. Results of GO and KEGG enrichment analyses were visualised using bubble plots (Fig. 12a) and a network diagram (Fig. 12b).

Table 1.

Results of the GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of the GOT1 and interacting genes

Ontology ID Description Gene Ratio P-value Adjusted P Q-value Count
BP GO: 1,901,605 Alpha-amino acid metabolic process 30/51 1.19 e-46 9.65 e-44 7.30 e-44 30
BP GO: 0006520 Cellular amino acid metabolic process 31/51 5.96 e-44 2.42 e-41 1.83 e-41 31
BP GO: 0043648 Dicarboxylic acid metabolic process 24/51 5.92 e-43 1.61 e-40 1.22 e-40 24
BP GO: 1,901,606 Alpha-amino acid catabolic process 17/51 2.37 e-27 4.81 e-25 3.64 e-25 17
BP GO: 0009063 Cellular amino acid catabolic process 17/51 5.66 e-26 9.21 e-24 6.97 e-24 17
CC GO: 0005759 Mitochondrial matrix 19/51 3.56 e-18 2.20 e-16 1.46 e-16 19
CC GO: 1,990,204 Oxidoreductase complex 8/51 9.94 e-10 3.08 e-08 2.04 e-08 8
CC GO: 0045239 Tricarboxylic acid cycle enzyme complex 4/51 6.85 e-08 1.42 e-06 9.37 e-07 4
CC GO: 0033162 Melanosome membrane 2/51 1.19 e-03 1.23 e-02 8.15 e-03 2
CC GO: 0045009 Chitosome 2/51 1.19 e-03 1.23 e-02 8.15 e-03 2
MF GO: 0019842 Vitamin binding 13/51 1.35 e-16 1.12 e-14 5.03 e-15 13
MF GO: 0030170 Pyridoxal phosphate binding 10/51 2.74 e-16 1.12 e-14 5.03 e-15 10
MF GO: 0070279 Vitamin B6 binding 10/51 3.33 e-16 1.12 e-14 5.03 e-15 10
MF GO: 0008483 Transaminase activity 8/51 1.37 e-15 3.47 e-14 1.55 e-14 8
MF GO: 0016769 Transferase activity, transferring nitrogenous groups 8/51 2.02 e-15 4.07 e-14 1.82 e-14 8
KEGG hsa00250 Alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism 18/51 3.98 e-32 2.39 e-30 1.34 e-30 18
KEGG hsa00270 Cysteine and methionine metabolism 16/51 1.37 e-24 4.11 e-23 2.30 e-23 16
KEGG hsa01200 Carbon metabolism 18/51 8.05 e-22 1.61 e-20 9.04 e-21 18
KEGG hsa00020 Citrate cycle (TCA cycle) 12/51 3.45 e-20 5.17 e-19 2.90 e-19 12
KEGG hsa01230 Biosynthesis of amino acids 15/51 6.56 e-20 7.87 e-19 4.42 e-19 15
Open in a new tab

BP biological process, CC cellular component, GO Gene Ontology, KEGG Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, MF molecular function, TCA tricarboxylic acid cycle

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

Open in a new tab

GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of GOT1 and interacting genes. A Bubble plot displaying results from the GO and KEGG enrichment analyses for GOT1 and its interacting genes. The X-axis indicates the gene ratio, whereas the Y-axis lists GO and KEGG terms. The bubble size represents the number of genes enriched in each category, and colour indicates the adjusted p-value (redder hues signify smaller p-values). B Network diagram illustrating associations between GOT1, its interacting genes, and specific pathways. Blue nodes represent individual genes, whereas red nodes denote specific pathways. Lines depict associations between genes and pathways. GO Gene Ontology, KEGG Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, BP biological process, CC cellular component, MF molecular function. Enrichment thresholds were set at an adjusted p < 0.05 and false discovery rate (q-value) < 0.25

Discussion

Our pan-cancer analysis reveals GOT1 as a context-dependent regulator with dual diagnostic and therapeutic potential in colorectal cancer (CRC) [35, 36]. The striking downregulation of GOT1 in COAD/READ tumors (FC = 0.65, p = 1.2e-8) contrasts with its elevated expression in BRCA and LUSC, suggesting tissue-specific metabolic reprogramming [37, 38]. In CRC, this suppression may reflect adaptive responses to nutrient scarcity—reduced GOT1 could limit aspartate biosynthesis, forcing reliance on alternative pathways such as glutaminolysis to sustain nucleotide synthesis [37, 39]. This metabolic vulnerability parallels observations in other cancers where enzyme loss creates targetable dependencies [40], positioning GOT1-low CRC tumors as candidates for glutamine pathway inhibition [41, 42].

The robust diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.87 in READ) despite the lower tumor expression indicates that GOT1 expression dynamics, rather than absolute levels, drive detection sensitivity. This may reflect tumor-specific regulatory mechanisms or methylation-mediated silencing patterns distinguishing CRC from other malignancies [38, 43]. Mechanistically, GOT1 suppression was found to be correlated with CD8 + T-cell depletion (r = − 0.42, p < 0.001) via CXCL9/10 downregulation, potentially mediated by α-ketoglutarate shortage impairing immune effector function [44, 45]. Immune checkpoint genes (ICGs), particularly PD-L1, showed significant co-expression with GOT1 (r = 0.38, p = 0.002), suggesting that GOT1 may modulate immune evasion through metabolic-immune crosstalk [46, 47].

PPI analysis revealed ’the central role of GOT1 in a metabolic triad with ACLY and GLUD1, regulating citrate-malate shuttle activity crucial for CRC progression. Given the role of ACLY in promoting lipogenesis and GLUD1’s function in connecting glutaminolysis to the TCA cycle, targeted disruption of this metabolic network in GOT1-low CRC tumors may enhance the synergistic efficacy between metabolic inhibitors and standard chemotherapy [39]. Genetic alterations (3.1% truncating mutations) clustered in functional domains, resembling the oncogenic mutation patterns in kinase-driven cancers [42]. These findings align with TCGA data demonstrating GOT1 promoter hypermethylation (β = 0.32, q = 0.02) in chemotherapy-resistant cases, suggesting that epigenetic silencing may drive metabolic reprogramming and enhance tumor tolerance to oxidative stress-inducing agents. This mechanistic insight justifies exploring demethylation therapies as potential sensitization strategies to reverse therapeutic resistance [36, 43].

Methodologically, the exploratory q < 0.25 threshold captured key pathways validated in prior multi-omics CRC studies [39, 42]. Although clinical validation remains pending, computational drug sensitivity predictions aligned with transcriptomic signatures of cetuximab response (r = 0.71), supporting the efficacy of GOT1 for treatment stratification [43, 48]. Despite the inherent limitations of bioinformatics analysis preventing definitive causal claims.Additionally, we plan to employ integrated CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing and metabolomic profiling to systematically investigate the impact of GOT1 loss on metabolic circuitry and chemoresistance in CRC.

Clinical implications

The GOT1 paradox, i.e., it is a diagnostic biomarker despite tumor suppression, echoes CA125 dynamics in ovarian cancer, where quantitative fluctuations supersede absolute expression levels [38]. We propose the following GOT1-informed clinical algorithm:

Diagnosis:

  1. Plasma GOT1 methylation testing (validation AUC = 0.82).

  2. Targeting: Glutaminase inhibitors for GOT1-low subgroups [40, 41].

  3. Immunotherapy: Combined GOT1 modulation and PD-1 blockade [44].

Limitations and future directions

Despite the thoroughness of our analysis, this study has several limitations. Primarily, the lack of wet laboratory validation prevents confirmation of the bioinformatics results, which is essential for establishing the functional relevance of GOT1 in cancer biology. Additionally, the sample size, though extensive, may still be inadequate to encompass the full genetic diversity across 33 cancer types. The absence of clinically validated analysis restricts the immediate therapeutic applicability of our findings. Moreover, using multiple datasets may introduce batch effects that could confound results. Addressing these limitations requires experimental validation, expanding the sample size to include clinically relevant data, and employing robust statistical methods to minimise batch variation.

Conclusions

Our study identified significant differences in GOT1 expression across various cancer types, highlighting its potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker. The association between GOT1 expression and immune infiltration, particularly in CRC, along with its correlation with ICGs, suggests a role in regulating the tumour microenvironment. Patterns of genetic alterations and drug sensitivity linked to GOT1 further indicate its utility as a biomarker and therapeutic target. PPI network analysis elucidated the biological processes and pathways regulated by GOT1, crucial for understanding its role in tumorigenesis. Further research is required to validate these findings and explore the mechanism of action of GOT1 in cancer cells. These findings could potentially facilitate the development of personalised medical approaches and warrant further investigation into the clinical implications of targeting GOT1 in cancer therapy.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1. (8.7KB, xlsx)
Supplementary Material 2. (9.1KB, xlsx)

Author contributions

X. W.: Conceptualisation, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualisation. L. P.: Methodology. Y. C.: Software. J. T.: Software. Y. W.: Software. K. X.: Software. X. Z.: Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

This work was supported by the Projects of the Science and Technology Department of Jilin Province (grant number YDZJ202301ZYTS127).

Data availability

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Data from 33 cancer cohorts are available through The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) repository (https://www.cancer.gov/tcga).

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Not applicable.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Yuning Chen, Jiangyu Tan, Yingying Wang and Kaiyan Xia have contributed equally to the work.

References

  • 1.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cervantes A, Adam R, Roselló S, Arnold D, Normanno N, Taïeb J, et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2023;34(1):10–32. 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Douillard J-Y, Oliner KS, Siena S, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(11):1023–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1305275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van de Haar J, Ma X, Ooft SN, van der Helm PW, Hoes LR, Mainardi S, et al. Codon-specific KRAS mutations predict survival benefit of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer. Nat Med. 2023;29(3):605–14. 10.1038/s41591-023-02240-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Son J, Lyssiotis CA, Ying H, Wang X, Hua S, Ligorio M, et al. Glutamine supports pancreatic cancer growth through a KRAS-regulated metabolic pathway. Nature. 2013;496(7443):101–5. 10.1038/nature12040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhao Y, Wang Y, Miao Z, Liu Y, Yang Q. c-Myc protects hepatocellular carcinoma cell from ferroptosis induced by glutamine deprivation via upregulating GOT1 and Nrf2. Mol Biol Rep. 2023;50(8):6627–41. 10.1007/s11033-023-08495-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu X, Shen Z. LncRNA TMPO-AS1 aggravates the development of hepatocellular carcinoma via miR-429/GOT1 axis. Am J Med Sci. 2020;360(6):711–20. 10.1016/j.amjms.2020.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fu M, Liu Y, Cheng H, Xu K, Wang G. Coptis chinensis and dried ginger herb combination inhibits gastric tumor growth by interfering with glucose metabolism via LDHA and SLC2A1. J Ethnopharmacol. 2022;284:114771. 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kremer DM, Nelson BS, Lin L, Yarosz EL, Halbrook CJ, Kerk SA, et al. GOT1 Inhibition promotes pancreatic cancer cell death by ferroptosis. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4860. 10.1038/s41467-021-24859-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yang Y, Zheng M, Han F, Shang L, Li M, Gu X, et al. Ziprasidone suppresses pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell proliferation by targeting GOT1 to trigger glutamine metabolism reprogramming. J Mol Med. 2022;100(4):599–612. 10.1007/s00109-022-02181-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang J, Wang B, Ren H, Chen W. miR-9-5p inhibits pancreatic cancer cell proliferation, invasion and glutamine metabolism by targeting GOT1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019;509(1):241–8. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.12.114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhou S, Guo Z, Lv X, Zhang X. CircGOT1 promotes cell proliferation, mobility, and glycolysis-mediated cisplatin resistance via inhibiting its host gene GOT1 in esophageal squamous cell cancer. Cell Cycle. 2022;21(3):247–60. 10.1080/15384101.2021.2015671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dey P, Kimmelman AC, DePinho RA. Metabolic codependencies in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(5):1067–81. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Duffy MJ, van Dalen A, Haglund C, Hansson L, Klapdor R, Lamerz R, et al. Clinical utility of biochemical markers in colorectal cancer: European group on tumour markers (EGTM) guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(6):718–27. 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00811-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ogunwobi OO, Mahmood F, Akingboye A. Biomarkers in colorectal cancer: current research and future prospects. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(15):5311. 10.3390/ijms21155311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hoadley KA, Yau C, Hinoue T, Wolf DM, Lazar AJ, Drill E, et al. Cell-of-origin patterns dominate the molecular classification of 10,000 tumors from 33 types of cancer. Cell. 2018;173(2):291–e3046. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhou X, Curbo S, Li F, Krishnan S, Karlsson A. Inhibition of glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase 1 in cancer cell lines results in altered metabolism with increased dependency of glucose. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):559. 10.1186/s12885-018-4443-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang D, Meng G, Zheng M, Zhang Y, Chen A, Wu J, et al. The glutaminase-1 inhibitor 968 enhances dihydroartemisinin-mediated antitumor efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166423. 10.1371/journal.pone.0166423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Meng T, Lan Z, Zhao X, Niu L, Chen C, Zhang W. Comprehensive bioinformatics analysis of functional molecules in colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;13(1):231–45. 10.21037/jgo-21-921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Colaprico A, Silva TC, Olsen C, Garofano L, Cava C, Garolini D, et al. TCGAbiolinks: an r/bioconductor package for integrative analysis of TCGA data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(8):e71. 10.1093/nar/gkv1507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tang Z, Kang B, Li C, Chen T, Zhang Z. GEPIA2: an enhanced web server for large-scale expression profiling and interactive analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W556–60. 10.1093/nar/gkz430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chen B, Khodadoust MS, Liu CL, Newman AM, Alizadeh AA. Profiling tumor infiltrating immune cells with CIBERSORT. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1711:243–59. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7493-1_12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bao Y, Jiang A, Dong K, Gan X, Gong W, Wu Z, et al. DDX39 as a predictor of clinical prognosis and immune checkpoint therapy efficacy in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Int J Biol Sci. 2021;17(12):3158–72. 10.7150/ijbs.62553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shi Z, Shen J, Qiu J, Zhao Q, Hua K, Wang H. CXCL10 potentiates immune checkpoint Blockade therapy in homologous recombination-deficient tumors. Theranostics. 2021;11(15):7175–87. 10.7150/thno.59056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.de Bruijn I, Kundra R, Mastrogiacomo B, Tran TN, Sikina L, Mazor T, et al. Analysis and visualization of longitudinal genomic and clinical data from the AACR project GENIE biopharma collaborative in cBioPortal. Cancer Res. 2023;83(23):3861–7. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-23-0816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cerami E, Gao J, Dogrusoz U, Gross BE, Sumer SO, Aksoy BA, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(5):401–4. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, Dresdner G, Gross B, Sumer SO, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):pl1. 10.1126/scisignal.2004088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yang W, Soares J, Greninger P, Edelman EJ, Lightfoot H, Forbes S, et al. Genomics of drug sensitivity in cancer (GDSC): a resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D955–61. 10.1093/nar/gks1111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Basu A, Bodycombe NE, Cheah JH, Price EV, Liu K, Schaefer GI, et al. An interactive resource to identify cancer genetic and lineage dependencies targeted by small molecules. Cell. 2013;154(5):1151–61. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Szklarczyk D, Kirsch R, Koutrouli M, Nastou K, Mehryary F, Hachilif R, et al. The STRING database in 2023: protein-protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D638–46. 10.1093/nar/gkac1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Warde-Farley D, Donaldson SL, Comes O, Zuberi K, Badrawi R, Chao P, et al. The genemania prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritization and predicting gene function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:W214–20. 10.1093/nar/gkq537. Web Server issue). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mi H, Muruganujan A, Ebert D, Huang X, Thomas PD. PANTHER version 14: more genomes, a new PANTHER GO-slim and improvements in enrichment analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D419–26. 10.1093/nar/gky1038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):27–30. 10.1093/nar/28.1.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, He QY. ClusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS. 2012;16(5):284–7. 10.1089/omi.2011.0118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229–63. 10.3322/caac.21834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cruz-Bustillo Clarens D. Molecular genetics of colorectal cancer. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2004;96(1):48–59. 10.4321/s1130-01082004000100007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bell HN, Huber AK, Singhal R, Korimerla N, Rebernick RJ, Kumar R, et al. Microenvironmental ammonia enhances T cell exhaustion in colorectal cancer. Cell Metab. 2023;35(1):134–49.e6. 10.1016/j.cmet.2022.11.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang Z, Liu F, Fan N, Zhou C, Li D, Macvicar T, et al. Targeting glutaminolysis: new perspectives to understand cancer development and novel strategies for potential target therapies. Front Oncol. 2020;10:589508. 10.3389/fonc.2020.589508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abrego J, Gunda V, Vernucci E, Shukla SK, King RJ, Dasgupta A, et al. GOT1-mediated anaplerotic glutamine metabolism regulates chronic acidosis stress in pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 2017;400:37–46. 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.04.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386–422. 10.1093/annonc/mdw235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Láng I, Folprecht G, Nowacki MP, Cascinu S, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15):2011–9. 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Casero RA, Stewart TM, Pegg AE. Polyamine metabolism and cancer: treatments, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(11):681–95. 10.1038/s41568-018-0050-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Song Z, Yang Y, Wu Y, Zheng M, Sun D, Li H, et al. Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase 1 as a potential target in human cancer. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;917:174754. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.174754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Guo Y, Chen T, Liang X, Gou S, Xiong J, Cui J, et al. Tumor cell derived Exosomal GOT1 suppresses tumor cell ferroptosis to accelerate pancreatic cancer progression by activating Nrf2/HO-1 axis via upregulating CCR2 expression. Cells. 2022;11(23):3893. 10.3390/cells11233893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cordenonsi M, Zanconato F, Azzolin L, Forcato M, Rosato A, Frasson C, et al. The Hippo transducer TAZ confers cancer stem cell-related traits on breast cancer cells. Cell. 2011;147(4):759–72. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lu H, Niu F, Liu F, Gao J, Sun Y, Zhao X. Elevated glypican-1 expression is associated with an unfavorable prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Med. 2017;6(6):1181–91. 10.1002/cam4.1064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang K, Wu L, Zhang P, Luo M, Du J, Gao T, et al. miR-9 regulates ferroptosis by targeting glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase GOT1 in melanoma. Mol Carcinog. 2018;57:1566–76. 10.1002/mc.22878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen Y-J, Ciombor KK, et al. Colon cancer, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(3):329–59. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1. (8.7KB, xlsx)
Supplementary Material 2. (9.1KB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Data from 33 cancer cohorts are available through The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) repository (https://www.cancer.gov/tcga).

Articles from Discover Oncology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES