Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 8;9:667852. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.667852

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Differences in the immune environment and predicted response to immune therapy between esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) histological subtypes. Heatmap Z-scores, ranging from –2 (blue) to 2 (red), of differentially regulated (q < 0.05) immune infiltrates according to (A) CIBERSORT, (B) xCell, (C) and TIminer utilizing the dataset of Angelova et al. (2015). (D) mRNA Z-scores of differentially expressed (>1.5-fold, q < 0.05) genes of potential immunotherapeutic interest between EAC and ESCC. The color bars on top indicate esophageal tissues from normal (gray), adenocarcinomas (orange), and squamous cell carcinoma (blue). (E) Kaplan–Meier survival plots for patient survival based on CIBERSORT’s immune prediction. (F–I) Shown here are predicted therapy benefit (F), predicted therapy response (G), immune exclusion (H), and immune dysfunction prediction (I) according to the computational method of Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE). Survival statistics utilized Mantel–Cox log-rank tests. Therapy prediction utilized Fisher’s exact test and a Student’s t-test for immune dysfunction, immune exclusion, and heatmaps, with the latter corrected by Benjamini–Hochberg correction for q-values.