Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Oct 7;22(3):734–745. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0143

Figure 1. Correlation of PC1, EMT and ΔPC1.EMT scores with each other and with stages, and metastasis on the Moffitt468 CRC dataset.

Figure 1

(A Top panel) PC1 vs. EMT shows strong correlation but metastatic tumor (open red circles) and Stage IV primary tumors with evidence of synchronous metastasis (filled red squares) displayed a slight propensity for higher PC1 scores than EMT scores compared to Stages I-III primary tumors (blue repression line). The gray line (EMT=0) is the dividing line as defxined (8) (EMT<0, non-EMT epithelial-like; EMT>0, EMT mesenchymal-like). (A, middle and bottom panels) ΔPC1.EMT outperformed EMT and PC1 in predicting metastasis. Red box highlights higher ΔPC1.EMT (above the median value)-captured non-EMT subpopulations (EMT<0). (B) Comparison between ΔPC1.EMT, PC1 and EMT scores in progressively deciphering metastatic potential of primary CRCs (stages I vs. II vs. III vs. IV) vs. metastatic lesions. Trend F and P values are given for the three scores. Six samples that lack stage information were removed.