
Electrospinning is a production technique for obtaining polymer nanofibers relatively low-cost and straightforward to produce fine fibers. Chitosan (CTS) is a well-known biopolymer widely used for drug delivery, hydrogels, tissue engineering, wound healing, and mats. This work aims to study different chitosan-organic acid solutions' conductivity using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and equivalent circuit fitting to understand this parameter's influence in the electrospinning process for fiber formation in different organic acids as solvents. The conductivity of dilute chitosan solutions decreases until reaching a minimum value as chitosan concentration increases; conductivity increases linearly as concentration increases. We measured solution resistance, polarization resistance, and relaxation time of chitosan solutions in acetic, formic, lactic, and citric acids using electrical impedance spectroscopy with equivalent circuit modeling. There is no direct correlation between the electrospinnability of the different organic acids solutions with their solution conductivity. We obtained chitosan nanofibers and particles when electrospun a chitosan concentrated solution (4 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%) and obtained submicron particles with a more diluted solution (1 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%). We also obtained chitosan particles from formic acid solutions and completely different ordered and elongated particles with citric acid solutions. Getting insight into the organic acid-chitosan interactions will help improve the electrospinning process to obtain fibers, particles, or both in a controlled fashion and may help design tailored materials.
Citation: Sergio A. Salazar-Brann, Rosalba Patiño-Herrera, Jaime Navarrete-Damián, José F. Louvier-Hernández. Electrospinning of chitosan from different acid solutions[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(1): 112-129. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021011
[1] | Ibrahim Sambo Farouq, Nuraddeen Umar Sambo, Ali Umar Ahmad, Aminu Hassan Jakada, Isma'il Aliyu Danmaraya . Does financial globalization uncertainty affect CO2 emissions? Empirical evidence from some selected SSA countries. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(2): 247-263. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021011 |
[2] | Iuliana Matei . Is financial development good for economic growth? Empirical insights from emerging European countries. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(4): 653-678. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020030 |
[3] | Mustafa Hassan Mohammad Adam . Nexus among foreign direct investment, financial development, and sustainable economic growth: Empirical aspects from Sudan. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(4): 640-657. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022028 |
[4] | Kuashuai Peng, Guofeng Yan . A survey on deep learning for financial risk prediction. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(4): 716-737. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021032 |
[5] | Md Qamruzzaman, Jianguo Wei . Do financial inclusion, stock market development attract foreign capital flows in developing economy: a panel data investigation. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(1): 88-108. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.1.88 |
[6] | Mariam Naz, Syed Faizan Iftikhar, Ambreen Fatima . Does financial inclusiveness matter for the formal financial inflows? Evidence from Pakistan. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(1): 19-35. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020002 |
[7] | Gigamon Joseph Prah . Innovation and economic performance: The role of financial development. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(4): 696-721. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022031 |
[8] | Gaoke Liao, Zhenghui Li, Mengxin Wang, Khaldoon Albitar . Measuring China's urban digital finance. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(3): 385-404. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022017 |
[9] | Naliniprava Tripathy . Does measure of financial development matter for economic growth in India?. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(3): 508-525. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.3.508 |
[10] | Tinghui Li, Jiehua Ma . Does digital finance benefit the income of rural residents? A case study on China. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(4): 664-688. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021030 |
Electrospinning is a production technique for obtaining polymer nanofibers relatively low-cost and straightforward to produce fine fibers. Chitosan (CTS) is a well-known biopolymer widely used for drug delivery, hydrogels, tissue engineering, wound healing, and mats. This work aims to study different chitosan-organic acid solutions' conductivity using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and equivalent circuit fitting to understand this parameter's influence in the electrospinning process for fiber formation in different organic acids as solvents. The conductivity of dilute chitosan solutions decreases until reaching a minimum value as chitosan concentration increases; conductivity increases linearly as concentration increases. We measured solution resistance, polarization resistance, and relaxation time of chitosan solutions in acetic, formic, lactic, and citric acids using electrical impedance spectroscopy with equivalent circuit modeling. There is no direct correlation between the electrospinnability of the different organic acids solutions with their solution conductivity. We obtained chitosan nanofibers and particles when electrospun a chitosan concentrated solution (4 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%) and obtained submicron particles with a more diluted solution (1 wt%) in concentrated acetic acid (90 vol%). We also obtained chitosan particles from formic acid solutions and completely different ordered and elongated particles with citric acid solutions. Getting insight into the organic acid-chitosan interactions will help improve the electrospinning process to obtain fibers, particles, or both in a controlled fashion and may help design tailored materials.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of death associated with cancer worldwide, which has been estimated to cause 50,000 deaths per year in America [1,2]. The pathogenesis of CRC is a complicated process involved in mutations of various oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that pinpoint multiple cellular events, such as endoplasmic reticulum stress [3], oxidative stress [4], epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [5], abnormal cell proliferation and apoptosis [6].
Although surgery combined with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy has effectively improved the prognosis of CRC, metastasis or neoplasm recurrence still occur in more than 50% of the CRC patients who have received a definite diagnosis or underwent intended curative treatment, contributing to a relatively poor 5-year survival rate [7]. Additionally, it is difficult for doctors to achieve early diagnosis of CRC for the reason that specificity of auxiliary examination indices is lacking in clinic, so that many patients may eventually miss the optional chances for surgery, thereby increasing the risk of death [8]. Hence, the detection of early-stage biomarkers and identification of core therapeutic target appear significant to decrease CRC-related deaths.
Recent years, the high-throughput gene microarray has been widely used to screen the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between normal samples and tumor samples in human beings and animal models, which makes it accessible for us to further explore the entire molecular alterations of tumors at multiple levels involving DNA, RNA, proteins, epigenetic alterations, and metabolism [9,10]. However, it still has a long way to go to put these microarrays in application in clinic because the DEGs identified by gene profiling were countless and the statistical analyses were also too complicated [11]. Therefore, it is urgent to verify a proper number of genes and develop a suitable approach which can be operated by routine assay in clinic.
In this study, we selected the GSE32323 from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and applied bioinformatics analysis to screen the DEGs in CRC. Subsequently, we used STRING to construct the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network to identify the hub genes with top15 degree of connectivity in CRC. Moreover, we made the analysis of these DEGs, including biological process (BP), molecular function (MF), cellular component (CC) and KEGG pathways. We chose top5 up-regulated and top5 down-regulated DEGs to make the overall survival (OS) analysis, aiming to observe the associations between the DEGs and the prognosis of CRC. Finally, we confirmed the mRNA expression level of the top5 up-regulated and top5 down-regulated DEGs by Q-PCR in samples obtained from patients with CRC in our hospital. These genes will assist us to screen and identify significant biomarkers and therapeutic targets of CRC in the near future.
The heading levels should not be more than 4 levels. The fond of heading and subheadings should be 12 point normal Times New Roman. The first letter of headings and subheadings should be capitalized. The gene expression profile of GSE32323 was downloaded from the GEO database, which was a free and publicly available database. 17 pairs of cancer and non-cancerous tissues from patients with CRC in this dataset were detected by Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 arrays by Ahmed K [12]. We also downloaded the raw Series Matrix File of GSE32323 from the GEO database.
In our study, the online software GEO2R was employed to analyze the tissue samples in GSE32323 dataset. GEO2R is an online software by which users can divide the samples into two and more groups and select out the DEGs. We used the Benjamini and Hochberg methods by default to discover false rate and used the adjust P value to reduce the errors of false positive. The choice criterion contains the adjust P value < 0.05 and |logFC| ≥ 2.
Gene ontology analysis (GO), serving as a useful approach to annotate genes and gene products, could also identify characteristic biological attributing to high-throughput genome or transcriptome data. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) is a collection of databases, aiming to handle biological pathways, genomes, diseases, chemical substances and drugs. We divided these DEGs into up-regulated group and down-regulated group. The Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID, https://david.ncifcrf.gov/), an online web based on the bioinformatics, is routinely applied for annotating genes and protein function [13]. We input these DEGs separately into DAVID to acquire the GO and KEGG analysis, P < 0.05 as choice criterion. Finally, we used the ImageGP (http://www.ehbio.com/ImageGP/index.php/Home/Index/index.html) to visualize the major biological processes (BP), molecular function (MF) and cell composition (CC) of these DEGs.
GEPIA (http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/index.html), designed by Chenwei Li, Zefang Tang, and Boxi Kang of Zhang Lab, Peking University, is a newly developed interactive web server aiming at analyzing the RNA sequencing expression data of 9736 tumors and 8587 normal samples from the GTEx and TCGA projects in a standard processing pipeline [14]. In this study, we employed the boxplot to visualize the mRNA expression of top5 up-regulated and top5 down-regulated DEGs in CRC tissues and and normal colorectum tissues. Transcripts per million (TPM) is the number of transcripts from this particular gene normalized first by gene length, and then by sequencing depth (in millions) in the sample. GEPIA also provides the transcripts per million (TPM) of these DEGs to display their relative expression levels.
Similarly, we used the GEPIA database to get the overall survival information of these DEGs. The logrank P value and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals were showed on the plot. P < 0 05 was statistically significant.
We enrolled 15 male patients who were diagnosed with CRC by pathology reports in our hospital. The samples from patients with CRC for the validation of these DEGs were supported by the ethics committee in our hospital. The paired carcinoma and adjacent tissues were firstly isolated. Then total RNA was isolated using the TRIzol (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) kit, the concentrations and purities of which were quantified by an ultraviolet spectrophotometer. The RNA was then reversely transcribed according to the previous literature [15]. The expression levels of top5 up-regulated genes and top5 down-regulated genes were normalized to GAPDH. Relative mRNA expression levels were analyzed by 2-∆∆cycle threshold (CT) method.
Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING) is an online app for evaluating PPI network [16]. For finding the potential correlation of DEGs, we used online app STRING to map the DEGs, subsequently the Cytoscape software was utilized to construct a PPI network. The confidence score ≥ 0.4 and maximum number of interactors = 0 were set as the criterion.
The overall flow diagram of our study is presented in Figure 1. In our study, a total of 17 paired carcinoma and adjacent tissue from patients with CRC were analyzed. We applied the GEO2R online analysis tool with default parameters to screen the DEGs, using adjusted P value < 0.05 and logFC ≤ −2 or logFC ≥ 2 as the cut-off criteria. We captured 451 DEGs including 145 up-regulated DEGs and 306 downregulated DEGs. Whereafter, the DEGs were presented in the form of a heatmap and a volcano plot (Figure 2A-B). In the heatmap, the top25 up-regulated genes and top25 down-regulated genes between carcinoma and adjacent tissue were presented. Among the 451 DEGs, the top5 up-regulated genes involved DPEP1, KRT23, CLDN1, LGR5 and FOXQ1, while the top5 down-regulated genes were CLCA4, ZG16, SLC4A4, ADH1B and GCG. The gene tiles and biological functions of top5 upregulated and top5 down regulated genes were displayed in Table 1.
DEGs | Gene title | Gene symbol | LogFC | Biological function |
Down-regulated | Chloride channel accessory 4 | CLCA4 | 4.91 | Calcium sensitive chloride conductance protein |
Zymogen granule protein 16 | ZG16 | 4.45 | Promoting cell growth and stemness. | |
Solute carrier family 4 member 4 | SLC4A4 | 4.43 | Sodium bicarbonate cotransporter | |
Alcohol dehydrogenase 1B (class I), beta polypeptide | ADH1B | 4.29 | Metabolizing ethanol, retinol, and aliphatic alcohol | |
Glucagon | GCG | 4.15 | Counteracting the action of insulin in the bloodstream. | |
Up-regulated | Dipeptidase 1 | DPEP1 | −4.14 | Kidney membrane enzyme |
Keratin 23 | KRT23 | −4.28 | Intermediate filament proteins | |
Claudin 1 | CLDN1 | −4.46 | Tight junctions | |
Leucine rich repeat containing G protein-coupled receptor 5 | LGR5 | −4.51 | Leucine-rich repeat-containing receptor | |
Forkhead box Q1 | FOXQ1 | −5.55 | Embryonic development and cell cycle regulation |
To ensure the credibility and reliability of the microarray of GSE32323 and get further credible analysis, we re-identified the top5 up-regulated genes and top5 down-regulated genes via Q-PCR. Q-PCR (Figure 5A-B) showed that the mRNA expression levels of DPEP1, KRT23, CLDN1, LGR5 and FOXQ1 were significantly higher in carcinoma group compared with adjacent tissue group (P < 0.05). Meantime, the mRNA expression levels of CLCA4, ZG16, SLC4A4, ADH1B and GCG were obviously down-regulated in carcinoma tissues from patients with CRC (P < 0.05).
To ensure the credibility of the microarray of GSE32323 and proceed further credible analysis, we validated the top5 up-regulated genes and top5 down-regulated genes based on TCGA database via GEPIA. The results showed that the mRNA expression levels of CLCA4, ZG16, SLC4A4, ADH1B and GCG were significantly lower in carcinoma group compared to adjacent tissue group while the mRNA expression level of DPEP1, KRT23, CLDN1, LGR5 and FOXQ1 in carcinoma group were statistically higher than the adjacent tissue group (P < 0.05) (Figure 3A-J). Meanwhile, the TPM analysis demonstrated that the relative expressions of these DEGs were consist with those based on GSE32323 (P < 0.05) (Figure 4A-J).
Furthermore, we analyzed the potential association between the expression levels of top5 upregulated genes as well as top5 downregulated genes and the OS of patients with CRC. The Kaplan-Meier showed that only 1(ZG16) of the 10 genes displayed significantly correlation with the OS of patients with CRC (Figure 6A-J). The high level of ZG16 may contribute to a poorer prognosis of CRC (Logrank p = 0.044, HR = 0.61).
The results (Table2 & Figure 7A-C) from GO term enrichment analysis varied from expression levels and GO classification of the DEGs. By analyzing GO enrichment of these up-regulated and down-regulated DEGs via DAVID, we found that the up-regulated DEGs in BP were mainly enriched in negative regulation of cell proliferation, positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter, proteolysis, positive regulation of transcription, DNA-templated and negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter while the down-regulated DEGs in BP were mainly concentrated on cell adhesion, negative regulation of cell proliferation, positive regulation of cell proliferation, response to drug and nervous system development. As for CC, the up-regulated DEGs were principally enriched in extracellular region, extracellular space, integral component of plasma membrane, proteinaceous extracellular matrix and cell surface while the down-regulated DEGs were enriched in integral component of membrane, plasma membrane, extracellular exosome, extracellular space and extracellular region. Additionally, MF analysis uncovered that the up-regulated DEGs were mainly enriched in chemokine activity, CXCR chemokine receptor binding, serine-type endopeptidase activity, extracellular matrix binding and Wnt-protein binding while the down-regulated DEGs are responsible for carbonate dehydratase activity, heparin binding, structural constituent of cytoskeleton, hormone activity and zinc ion binding.
Expression | Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | FDR |
Down-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007155~cell adhesion | 13 | 0.038728513 | 0.013503078 | 19.70156803 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.035749397 | 0.011658571 | 17.24378143 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008284~positive regulation of cell proliferation | 11 | 0.03277028 | 0.07067658 | 69.36458376 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0042493~response to drug | 10 | 0.029791164 | 0.014890967 | 21.50558949 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007399~nervous system development | 9 | 0.026812048 | 0.028891454 | 37.69742039 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0016021~integral component of membrane | 83 | 0.247266661 | 0.004198766 | 5.157367461 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005886~plasma membrane | 71 | 0.211517264 | 0.001689338 | 2.105290204 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0070062~extracellular exosome | 67 | 0.199600798 | 6.59E-08 | 8.30E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 43 | 0.128102005 | 1.82E-08 | 2.29E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 34 | 0.101289957 | 0.002466544 | 3.060090837 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004089~carbonate dehydratase activity | 5 | 0.014895582 | 1.89E-05 | 0.0259938 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008201~heparin binding | 9 | 0.026812048 | 7.38E-04 | 1.012297275 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005200~structural constituent of cytoskeleton | 7 | 0.020853815 | 0.002187539 | 2.974720065 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005179~hormone activity | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.005649705 | 7.515474579 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008270~zinc ion binding | 25 | 0.07447791 | 0.007595654 | 9.980321245 | |
Up-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.072115385 | 4.45E-05 | 0.070505424 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045944~positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 12 | 0.072115385 | 0.047923342 | 54.04862787 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0006508~proteolysis | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.004653246 | 7.118885476 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045893~positive regulation of transcription, DNA-templated | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.005625306 | 8.544770506 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0000122~negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.040288919 | 47.85424336 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 25 | 0.150240385 | 2.24E-05 | 0.026796109 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 23 | 0.138221154 | 1.30E-05 | 0.015593466 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005887~integral component of plasma membrane | 17 | 0.102163462 | 0.0098955 | 11.22182273 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005578~proteinaceous extracellular matrix | 10 | 0.060096154 | 3.33E-05 | 0.039831238 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0009986~cell surface | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.044084961 | 41.70407607 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008009~chemokine activity | 6 | 0.036057692 | 1.24E-05 | 0.016078978 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0045236~CXCR chemokine receptor binding | 4 | 0.024038462 | 1.86E-05 | 0.024112254 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004252~serine-type endopeptidase activity | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.00101144 | 1.305200327 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0050840~extracellular matrix binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01109514 | 13.48485303 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0017147~Wnt-protein binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01556121 | 18.42243874 | |
GO: Gene Ontology; FDR: False Discovery Rate. |
To obtain a more comprehensive information regarding to the critical pathways of those selected DEGs, KEGG pathways analysis were also carried out via DAVID. The results in Table3 and Figure 7D disclosed the most vital KEGG pathways of the down-regulated and up-regulated DEGs. The down-regulated DEGs were mainly enriched in mineral absorption, pancreatic secretion, nitrogen metabolism, aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption and bile secretion. By contrast, the up-regulated DEGs were mainly responsible for chemokine signaling pathway, pathways in cancer, transcriptional misregulation in cancer, PPAR signaling pathway and rheumatoid arthritis.
Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | Genes | FDR |
Down-regulatedDEGs | hsa04978:Mineral absorption | 6 | 0.017874698 | 4.69E-04 | TRPM6, MT1M, MT1E, MT1H, MT1X, MT1F | 0.546769342 |
hsa04972:Pancreatic secretion | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.010495925 | KCNMA1, CLCA1, CLCA4, ATP2A3, CA2, SLC4A4 | 11.59221263 | |
hsa00910:Nitrogen metabolism | 5 | 0.014895582 | 8.18E-05 | CA12, CA7, CA4, CA2, CA1 | 0.095443878 | |
hsa04960:Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.002219912 | SGK1, NR3C2, HSD11B2, SCNN1G, SCNN1B | 2.561720438 | |
hsa04976:Bile secretion | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.016846119 | AQP8, SLC51B, CA2, SLC4A4, ABCG2 | 17.99502607 | |
Up-regulatedDEGs | hsa04062:Chemokine signaling pathway | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.001681492 | CXCL1, PLCB4, PPBP, CXCL5, CXCL3, CXCL8, CXCL11 | 1.951113014 |
hsa05200:Pathways in cancer | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.053070195 | BMP4, PLCB4, MET, CXCL8, AXIN2, MYC, MMP1 | 47.1893587 | |
hsa05202:Transcriptional misregulation in cancer | 6 | 0.036057692 | 0.005889645 | MET, CXCL8, MMP3, MYC, WT1, PLAU | 6.682415976 | |
hsa03320:PPAR signaling pathway | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.011041824 | SCD, ACSL6, MMP1, FABP6 | 12.19046418 | |
hsa05323:Rheumatoid arthritis | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.022861328 | CXCL5, CXCL8, MMP3, MMP1 | 23.72114711 | |
KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; FDR: False Discovery Rat |
Applying the STRING online tool, 213 nodes with 264 PPI relationships were found, accounting for about 77.8% of these selected DEGs. According to the degree of connectivity of these DEGs, we constructed the PPI network and selected the top 15 hub genes (Table 4). The top 15 hub genes, possessing high degree of connectivity in CRC are as follows, MYC, CXCR1, TOP2A, CXCL12, SST, TIMP1, SPP1, PPBP, CDK1, THBS1, CXCL1, PYY, LPAR1, BMP2 and MMP3. Among these 15 hub genes: MYC, CXCR1, TOP2A, SPP1, PPBP, CDK1, CXCL1 and MMP3 were significantly up-regulated while CXCL12, SST, TIMP1, THBS1, PYY, LPAR1 and BMP2 significantly down-regulated (P < 0.05). The 15 hub genes could interact with 243 genes directly, and MYC acted as the most intensive gene which could interact with 46 up-regulated genes and 31 down-regulated genes. Intriguingly, among these hub genes, there also displayed very strong interactions (Figure 8).
Gene | Degree of connectivity | Adjusted P value |
MYC | 34 | 9.25E-11 |
CXCR1 | 28 | 1.87E-03 |
TOP2A | 23 | 2.90E-02 |
CXCL12 | 20 | 1.95E-08 |
SST | 18 | 7.36E-09 |
TIMP1 | 17 | 1.05E-02 |
SPP1 | 17 | 3.95E-02 |
PPBP | 17 | 9.73E-04 |
CDK1 | 16 | 1.13E-02 |
THBS1 | 16 | 2.99E-08 |
CXCL1 | 15 | 1.91E-03 |
PYY | 15 | 1.77E-08 |
LPAR1 | 15 | 8.36E-11 |
BMP2 | 15 | 1.06E-05 |
MMP3 | 14 | 7.22E-05 |
CRC is a one of the serious public health problems, which is also being the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the major factor resulting in cancer-related deaths around the world [17,18]. CRC screening has been demonstrated to greatly decrease the morbidity and the mortality in a great many longstanding or newly economically developed countries [19]. However, at present, there is no an efficient and specific diagnostic methodology and treatment strategy for CRC, which is mainly attributed to the intricate pathogenesis, and its symptoms that are difficult to diagnose in the first several years [20]. Our study mainly focused on the expression profiling selected from microarray studies of CRC. In this study, a total of 17 pairs of cancer and non-cancerous tissues isolated from patients with CRC were analyzed. 451 DEGs including 145 up-regulated DEGs and 306 downregulated DEGs were screened. To obtain a comprehensive understanding of these DEGs, we performed GO function and KEGG pathway analysis.
Our analysis screened 451 DEGs with a quadruple fold change between carcinoma and adjacent tissue from patients with CRC. In our heat map, a total of 50 DEGs including top25 up-regulated genes and top25 down-regulated genes were displayed. From our perspective, these DEGs would be promised to be possible candidates for the diagnosis of CRC in future. Currently, some of these DEGs, in fact, have been already disclosed to be novel indicators of CRC. H Meng et al. [21] found that ZG16 exhibited an extremely high expression in normal epithelial cells from rectum, colon and small intestine in an organ-specific fashion while its protein expression was completely lost in CRC tissues. Furthermore, another study proved that the gene expression and copy number alterations of ZG16 significantly correlated with MLH1 silencing, microsatellite instability (MSI), hyper-mutation status, presence of synchronous adenomas, CpG island methylator phenotype, histological type and gender. Survival analysis showed that patients with higher ZG16 gene expression level displayed longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared with those having relatively lower level. Another study showed that the expression of DPEP1 was strikingly up-regulated in human CRC tissue than that in normal mucosa. Meanwhile, high level of DPEP1 was found to be significantly associated with localisation and histological stage of CRC [22]. Our study screened the DEGs of CRC from the angle of bioinformatics for the first time, however, the clinical practice of these DEGs needs to be further investigated.
In our study, we picked out 15 hub genes of CRC, all of which were located in the core nodes in PPI network, meaning that these genes could be critical therapeutic targets to protect against CRC. For instance, somatostatin (SST), encoding a well-characterized growth-regulatoryand gastrointestinal neuroendocrine peptide, has been proved to be a tumor suppressor gene and own potent anti-tumor effects. SST could suppress tumors through direct and indirect mechanisms. Direct anti-tumor effects involve inhibiting cell proliferation; inducing cell cycle arrest; promoting apoptosis; and suppressing cell invasion while indirect anti-tumor effects are blocking the synthesis and secretion of growth factors as well as growth-promoting hormones, meanwhile stopping angiogenesis which is vital in neoplasm growth and spread [23]. Corroborative evidence has unveiled the decreased protein and mRNA expression of SST in CRC tissues [24]. One of the possible reason contributing to the down-regulation of SST was attributed to the higher SST methylation levels in tumor tissues. As expected, another study showed that pretreatment of demethylation agents into SST methylated CRC cells induced the up-regulation of SST expression in vitro [25]. Clinical research demonstrated that serum methylation level of SST in patients with CRC were obviously predictive of tumor recurrence and cancer-related death [26]. Collectively, our study proved that up-regulating SST in CRC cells may exert potent anti-tumor activity.
An interesting finding of our study was that many DEGs in CRC were related with chemokines and their receptors. To be more specific, GO analysis showed that up-regulated DEGs enriched in MF were mainly responsible for chemokine activity and CXCR chemokine receptor binding. Also, KEGG pathways analysis also disclosed that the up-regulated genes including CXCL1, PLCB4, PPBP, CXCL5, CXCL3, CXCL8, CXCL11 are implicated with chemokine signaling pathway. Additionally, 3 of the top15 hub genes based PPI network were also chemokines and their receptors, namely CXCR1, CXCL12 and CXCL1. Mountainous evidence proved that the interactions between chemokines as well as chemokine receptors could mediate the recruitment of different immune cell subsets into tumour microenvironment where the host immune system and tumour cells could interact [27]. On the one hand, chemokines regulate the molecules affecting tumour immunity as well as therapeutic outcomes in patients [28,29]. On the other one hand, chemokines could also target stromal cells and tumor cells, thereby regulating tumour stemness, angiogenesis [30], proliferation [31], apoptosis [32], and survival [33]. These findings suggested that therapies targeting chemokines in CRC may synergize with current cancer therapies, especially immunotherapies by affecting tumour immunological phenotypes, and improving antitumour immune responses.
In conclusion, we provided a comprehensive and novel analysis of gene expression profiles patients with CRC. Particularly, the top5 down-regulated genes including CLCA4, ZG16, SLC4A4, ADH1B and GCG and the top5 up-regulated genes including DPEP1, KRT23, CLDN1, LGR5 and FOXQ1, which are expected to sensitive biomarkers in diagnosis of CRC. Meanwhile, we also screened the top 15 hub genes involving MYC, CXCR1, TOP2A, CXCL12, SST, TIMP1, SPP1, PPBP, CDK1, THBS1, CXCL1, PYY, LPAR1, BMP2 and MMP3, which could be promising therapeutic targets of CRC. Additionally, genes involved in chemokines pathways were also significantly altered in patients with CRC. Anyway, this analysis may offer the powerful evidence and clues for the future genomic individualized treatment of CRC.
This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province (2014C33147), High-level Talent Project of Lishui City (2016RC29), Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Care Project (2017KY728) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (81803778).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Ghorbani-Choghamarani A, Taherinia Z, Heidarnezhad Z, et al. Application of nanofibers based on natural materials as catalyst in organic reactions (2020) . doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2020.10.028
![]() |
[2] |
Phan DN, Khan MQ, Nguyen NT, et al. (2021) A review on the fabrication of several carbohydrate polymers into nanofibrous structures using electrospinning for removal of metal ions and dyes. Carbohyd Polym 252: 117175. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117175
![]() |
[3] |
Liu M, Deng N, Ju J, et al. (2019) A review: electrospun nanofiber materials for lithium-sulfur batteries. Adv Funct Mater 29: 1905467. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201905467
![]() |
[4] |
Wang H, Niu H, Wang H, et al. (2021) Micro-meso porous structured carbon nanofibers with ultra-high surface area and large supercapacitor electrode capacitance. J Power Sources 482: 228986. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228986
![]() |
[5] |
Zhang L, Tang Y, Tong L (2020) Micro-/nanofiber optics: Merging photonics and material science on nanoscale for advanced sensing technology. Iscience 23: 100810. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2019.100810
![]() |
[6] |
Aytac Z, Huang R, Vaze N, et al. (2020) Development of biodegradable and antimicrobial electrospun zein fibers for food packaging. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8: 15354-15365. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c05917
![]() |
[7] |
Feng X, Li J, Zhang X, et al. (2019) Electrospun polymer micro/nanofibers as pharmaceutical repositories for healthcare. J Control Release 302: 19-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.03.020
![]() |
[8] |
Ngadiman NHA, Yusof NM, Idris A, et al. (2017) Development of highly porous biodegradable γ-Fe2O3/polyvinyl alcohol nanofiber mats using electrospinning process for biomedical application. Mater Sci Eng C 70: 520-534. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.002
![]() |
[9] |
Horne J, McLoughlin L, Bridgers B, et al. (2020) Recent developments in nanofiber-based sensors for disease detection, immunosensing, and monitoring. Sensor Actuat Rep 2: 100005. doi: 10.1016/j.snr.2020.100005
![]() |
[10] |
Haghdoost F, Bahrami SH, Barzin J, et al. (2021) Preparation and characterization of electrospun polyethersulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone-zeolite core–shell composite nanofibers for creatinine adsorption. Sep Purif Technol 257: 117881. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117881
![]() |
[11] |
Zhao Y, Qiu Y, Wang H, et al. Preparation of nanofibers with renewable polymers and their application in wound dressing (2016) . doi: 10.1155/2016/4672839
![]() |
[12] |
Parham S, Kharazi AZ, Bakhsheshi-Rad HR, et al. (2020) Electrospun nano-fibers for biomedical and tissue engineering applications: A comprehensive review. Materials 13: 2153. doi: 10.3390/ma13092153
![]() |
[13] |
Haider A, Haider S, Kang IK (2018) A comprehensive review summarizing the effect of electrospinning parameters and potential applications of nanofibers in biomedical and biotechnology. Arab J Chem 11: 1165-1188. doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.11.015
![]() |
[14] |
Rezaei Soulegani S, Sherafat Z, Rasouli M (2021) Morphology, physical, and mechanical properties of potentially applicable coelectrospun polysulfone/chitosan-polyvinyl alcohol fibrous membranes in water purification. J Appl Polym Sci 138: 49933. doi: 10.1002/app.49933
![]() |
[15] |
Sarode S, Upadhyay P, Khosa MA, et al. (2019) Overview of wastewater treatment methods with special focus on biopolymer chitin-chitosan. Int J Biol Macromol 121: 1086-1100. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.089
![]() |
[16] |
Lee M, Chen BY, Den W (2015) Chitosan as a natural polymer for heterogeneous catalysts support: a short review on its applications. Appl Sci 5: 1272-1283. doi: 10.3390/app5041272
![]() |
[17] |
Ma J, Sahai Y (2013) Chitosan biopolymer for fuel cell applications. Carbohyd Polym 92: 955-975. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.015
![]() |
[18] |
Nasr A, Gawad SA, Fekry AM (2020) A sensor for monitoring the corrosion behavior of orthopedic drug calcium hydrogen phosphate on a surgical 316L stainless steel alloy as implant. J Bio/Tribo-Corros 6: 36. doi: 10.1007/s40735-020-0334-5
![]() |
[19] |
Dizaji BF, Azerbaijan MH, Sheisi N, et al. (2020) Synthesis of PLGA/chitosan/zeolites and PLGA/chitosan/metal organic frameworks nanofibers for targeted delivery of Paclitaxel toward prostate cancer cells death. Int J Biol Macromol 164: 1461-1474. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.228
![]() |
[20] |
Nitta S, Kaketani S, Iwamoto H (2015) Development of chitosan-nanofiber-based hydrogels exhibiting high mechanical strength and pH-responsive controlled release. Eur Polym J 67: 50-56. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2015.03.053
![]() |
[21] |
Mombini S, Mohammadnejad J, Bakhshandeh B, et al. (2019) Chitosan-PVA-CNT nanofibers as electrically conductive scaffolds for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 140: 278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.046
![]() |
[22] |
Bayat S, Amiri N, Pishavar E, et al. (2019) Bromelain-loaded chitosan nanofibers prepared by electrospinning method for burn wound healing in animal models. Life Sci 229: 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.05.028
![]() |
[23] |
Qiu H, Zhu S, Pang L, et al. (2020) ICG-loaded photodynamic chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol composite nanofibers: Anti-resistant bacterial effect and improved healing of infected wounds. Int J Pharmaceut 588: 119797. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119797
![]() |
[24] |
Kalantari K, Afifi AM, Jahangirian H, et al. (2019) Biomedical applications of chitosan electrospun nanofibers as a green polymer–Review. Carbohyd Polym 207: 588-600. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.12.011
![]() |
[25] |
Kurita K (2006) Chitin and chitosan: functional biopolymers from marine crustaceans. Mar Biotechnol 8: 203-226. doi: 10.1007/s10126-005-0097-5
![]() |
[26] |
Kaya M, Akyuz B, Bulut E, et al. (2016) Chitosan nanofiber production from Drosophila by electrospinning. Int J Biol Macromol 92: 49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.021
![]() |
[27] |
Wang W, Meng Q, Li Q, et al. (2020) Chitosan derivatives and their application in biomedicine. Int J Mol Sci 21: 487. doi: 10.3390/ijms21020487
![]() |
[28] |
Rinaudo M (2006) Chitin and chitosan: Properties and applications. Prog Polym Sci 31: 603-632. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2006.06.001
![]() |
[29] |
Liu Y, Park M, Shin HK, et al. (2014) Facile preparation and characterization of poly (vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/graphene oxide biocomposite nanofibers. J Ind Eng Chem 20: 4415-4420. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.009
![]() |
[30] |
Xu J, Zhang J, Gao W, et al. (2009) Preparation of chitosan/PLA blend micro/nanofibers by electrospinning. Mater Lett 63: 658-660. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.12.014
![]() |
[31] |
Zhang H, Wu C, Zhang Y, et al. (2010) Elaboration, characterization and study of a novel affinity membrane made from electrospun hybrid chitosan/nylon-6 nanofibers for papain purification. J Mater Sci 45: 2296-2304. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4191-3
![]() |
[32] |
Spasova M, Manolova N, Paneva D, et al. (2004) Preparation of chitosan-containing nanofibres by electrospinning of chitosan/poly (ethylene oxide) blend solutions. E-Polymers 4: 056. doi: 10.1515/epoly.2004.4.1.624
![]() |
[33] |
Desai K, Kit K, Li J, et al. (2008) Morphological and surface properties of electrospun chitosan nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 9: 1000-1006. doi: 10.1021/bm701017z
![]() |
[34] |
Mengistu Lemma S, Bossard F, Rinaudo M (2016) Preparation of pure and stable chitosan nanofibers by electrospinning in the presence of poly (ethylene oxide). Int J Mol Sci 17: 1790. doi: 10.3390/ijms17111790
![]() |
[35] |
Ohkawa K, Cha D, Kim H, et al. (2004) Electrospinning of chitosan. Macromol Rapid Comm 25: 1600-1605. doi: 10.1002/marc.200400253
![]() |
[36] |
Ohkawa K, Minato KI, Kumagai G, et al. (2006) Chitosan nanofiber. Biomacromolecules 7: 3291-3294. doi: 10.1021/bm0604395
![]() |
[37] |
Nirmala R, Il BW, Navamathavan R, et al. (2011) Preparation and characterizations of anisotropic chitosan nanofibers via electrospinning. Macromol Res 19: 345. doi: 10.1007/s13233-011-0402-2
![]() |
[38] |
Nirmala R, Navamathavan R, El-Newehy MH, et al. (2011) Preparation and electrical characterization of polyamide-6/chitosan composite nanofibers via electrospinning. Mater Lett 65: 493-496. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2010.10.066
![]() |
[39] |
Geng X, Kwon OH, Jang J (2005) Electrospinning of chitosan dissolved in concentrated acetic acid solution. Biomaterials 26: 5427-5432. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.066
![]() |
[40] |
Homayoni H, Ravandi SAH, Valizadeh M (2009) Electrospinning of chitosan nanofibers: Processing optimization. Carbohyd Polym 77: 656-661. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.02.008
![]() |
[41] |
Ibrahim HM, Klingner A (2020) A review on electrospun polymeric nanofibers: Production parameters and potential applications. Polym Test 90: 106647. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106647
![]() |
[42] |
Rinaudo M, Milas M, Le Dung P (1993) Characterization of chitosan. Influence of ionic strength and degree of acetylation on chain expansion. Int J Biol Macromol 15: 281-285. doi: 10.1016/0141-8130(93)90027-J
![]() |
[43] |
Tan SC, Khor E, Tan T K, et al. (1998) The degree of deacetylation of chitosan: advocating the first derivative UV-spectrophotometry method of determination. Talanta 45: 713-719. doi: 10.1016/S0039-9140(97)00288-9
![]() |
[44] | ASTM D1125-14 Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2014) . |
[45] |
Viera DF, Avellaneda CO, Pawlicka A (2008) AC impedance, X-ray diffraction and DSC investigation on gelatin based-electrolyte with LiClO4. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 485: 843-852. doi: 10.1080/15421400801922304
![]() |
[46] |
Shukur MF, Majid NA, Ithnin R, et al. (2013) Effect of plasticization on the conductivity and dielectric properties of starch–chitosan blend biopolymer electrolytes infused with NH4Br. Phys Scr 2013: 014051. doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2013/T157/014051
![]() |
[47] |
Bossard F, Rinaudo M (2019) Biomaterials from chitosan processed by electrospinning. Nanoworld J 5: 32-35. doi: 10.17756/nwj.2019-069
![]() |
[48] |
Li Q, Song B, Yang Z, et al. (2006) Electrolytic conductivity behaviors and solution conformations of chitosan in different acid solutions. Carbohyd Polym 63: 272-282. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.09.024
![]() |
[49] |
Andrady AL (2008) Science and Technology of Polymer Nanofibers New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470229842
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Min Hong, Benjamin Drakeford, Kexian Zhang, The impact of mandatory CSR disclosure on green innovation: evidence from China, 2020, 2, 2643-1092, 302, 10.3934/GF.2020017 | |
2. | Cenjie Liu, Zhongbao Zhou, Qing Liu, Rui Xie, Ximei Zeng, Can a low-carbon development path achieve win-win development: evidence from China’s low-carbon pilot policy, 2020, 25, 1381-2386, 1199, 10.1007/s11027-019-09897-y | |
3. | Zimei Huang, Tinghui Li, Mark Xu, Are There Heterogeneous Impacts of National Income on Mental Health?, 2020, 17, 1660-4601, 7530, 10.3390/ijerph17207530 | |
4. | Zhenghui Li, Gaoke Liao, Khaldoon Albitar, Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation, 2020, 29, 0964-4733, 1045, 10.1002/bse.2416 | |
5. | Tinghui Li, Gaoke Liao, The Heterogeneous Impact of Financial Development on Green Total Factor Productivity, 2020, 8, 2296-598X, 10.3389/fenrg.2020.00029 | |
6. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Hamdiyah Alhassan, George Adu, Effect of natural resources extraction on energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission in Ghana, 2020, 14, 1750-6220, 20, 10.1108/IJESM-09-2018-0003 | |
7. | Yuhang Zheng, Shuanglian Chen, Nan Wang, Does financial agglomeration enhance regional green economy development? Evidence from China, 2020, 2, 2643-1092, 173, 10.3934/GF.2020010 | |
8. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Frank Adusah-Poku, The carbon dioxide emission effects of domestic credit and manufacturing indicators in South Africa, 2020, 31, 1477-7835, 1531, 10.1108/MEQ-11-2019-0245 | |
9. | Siming Liu, Peng Hou, Yingkun Gao, Yong Tan, Innovation and green total factor productivity in China: a linear and nonlinear investigation, 2020, 0944-1344, 10.1007/s11356-020-11436-1 | |
10. | Peirong Chen, Ruhe Xie, Mingxuan Lu, Zuqing Huang, The impact of the spatio-temporal neighborhood effect on urban eco-efficiency in China, 2021, 285, 09596526, 124860, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124860 | |
11. | Hamdiyah Alhassan, Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Ebenezer Owusu-Sekyere, Households' source separation behaviour and solid waste disposal options in Ghana's Millennium City, 2020, 259, 03014797, 110055, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110055 | |
12. | Zhenghui Li, Hao Dong, Zimei Huang, Pierre Failler, Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Environmental Performance, 2019, 11, 2071-1050, 3538, 10.3390/su11133538 | |
13. | Yue Liu, Siming Liu, Xueying Xu, Pierre Failler, Does Energy Price Induce China’s Green Energy Innovation?, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 4034, 10.3390/en13154034 | |
14. | Helian Xu, Guomei Zhao, Rui Xie, Kunfu Zhu, A trade-related CO2 emissions and its composition: Evidence from China, 2020, 270, 03014797, 110893, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110893 | |
15. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, The long-run effects of energy use, urbanization and financial development on carbon dioxide emissions, 2020, 14, 1750-6220, 1405, 10.1108/IJESM-01-2020-0013 | |
16. | Siming Liu, Qing Wei, Pierre Failler, Hong Lan, Fine Particulate Air Pollution, Public Service, and Under-Five Mortality: A Cross-Country Empirical Study, 2020, 8, 2227-9032, 271, 10.3390/healthcare8030271 | |
17. | Tarek Ghazouani, Impact of FDI inflow, crude oil prices, and economic growth on CO2 emission in Tunisia: Symmetric and asymmetric analysis through ARDL and NARDL approach, 2021, 12, 19986041, 1, 10.21511/ee.12(1).2021.01 | |
18. | Tinghui Li, Junhao Zhong, Mark Xu, Does the Credit Cycle Have an Impact on Happiness?, 2019, 17, 1660-4601, 183, 10.3390/ijerph17010183 | |
19. | Zejun Li, Zimei Huang, Tinghui Li, Jie Yan, Does Economic Growth Driving Force Convert? Evidence from China, 2020, 2020, 1563-5147, 1, 10.1155/2020/2768025 | |
20. | Junhao Zhong, Tinghui Li, Impact of Financial Development and Its Spatial Spillover Effect on Green Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from 30 Provinces in China, 2020, 2020, 1024-123X, 1, 10.1155/2020/5741387 | |
21. | Peng Hou, Yilin Li, Yong Tan, Yuanjie Hou, Energy Price and Energy Efficiency in China: A Linear and Nonlinear Empirical Investigation, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 4068, 10.3390/en13164068 | |
22. | Wenming Cao, Shuanglian Chen, Zimei Huang, Does Foreign Direct Investment Impact Energy Intensity? Evidence from Developing Countries, 2020, 2020, 1024-123X, 1, 10.1155/2020/5695684 | |
23. | Ismail Bulent Gurbuz, Elcin Nesirov, Gulay Ozkan, Does agricultural value-added induce environmental degradation? Evidence from Azerbaijan, 2021, 0944-1344, 10.1007/s11356-020-12228-3 | |
24. | Tinghui Li, Xue Li, Does structural deceleration happen in China? Evidence from the effect of industrial structure on economic growth quality, 2020, 2, 2689-3010, 155, 10.3934/NAR.2020009 | |
25. | Peirong Chen, Ruhe Xie, Mingxuan Lu, “Resource Conservation” or “Environmental Friendliness”: How do Urban Clusters Affect Total-Factor Ecological Performance in China?, 2020, 17, 1660-4601, 4361, 10.3390/ijerph17124361 | |
26. | Ahdi Noomen Ajmi, Roula Inglesi-Lotz, Revisiting the Kuznets curve hypothesis for Tunisia: carbon dioxide vs. Ecological footprint, 2020, 1556-7249, 1, 10.1080/15567249.2020.1850923 | |
27. | Yvette Baninla, Qian Zhang, Xiaoqi Zheng, Yonglong Lu, Drivers of changes in natural resources consumption of Central African countries, 2022, 2, 2770-4580, 80, 10.3934/ctr.2022005 | |
28. | Xiaoxue Liu, Fuzhen Cao, Shuangshuang Fan, Does Human Capital Matter for China’s Green Growth?—Examination Based on Econometric Model and Machine Learning Methods, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 11347, 10.3390/ijerph191811347 | |
29. | Gideon Ntim-Amo, Yin Qi, Ernest Ankrah-Kwarko, Martinson Ankrah Twumasi, Stephen Ansah, Linda Boateng Kissiwa, Ran Ruiping, Investigating the validity of the agricultural-induced environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis for Ghana: evidence from an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach with a structural break, 2022, 33, 1477-7835, 494, 10.1108/MEQ-05-2021-0109 | |
30. | Sami Ullah, Muhammad Nadeem, Kishwar Ali, Qaiser Abbas, Fossil fuel, industrial growth and inward FDI impact on CO2 emissions in Vietnam: testing the EKC hypothesis, 2022, 33, 1477-7835, 222, 10.1108/MEQ-03-2021-0051 | |
31. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Kwame Adjei-Mantey, Frank Adusah-Poku, The effect of transport services and ICTs on carbon dioxide emissions in South Africa, 2022, 30, 1614-7499, 10457, 10.1007/s11356-022-22863-7 | |
32. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Vera Acheampong, Solomon Aboagye, Does agricultural development affect environmental quality? The case of carbon dioxide emission in Ghana, 2022, 33, 1477-7835, 527, 10.1108/MEQ-09-2021-0222 | |
33. | Hamdiyah Alhassan, Paul Adjei Kwakwa, The effect of natural resources extraction and public debt on environmental sustainability, 2022, 1477-7835, 10.1108/MEQ-07-2022-0192 | |
34. | Lili Zhao, Wenhua Liu, Min Zhou, Fenghua Wen, Extreme event shocks and dynamic volatility interactions: The stock, commodity, and carbon markets in China, 2022, 47, 15446123, 102645, 10.1016/j.frl.2021.102645 | |
35. | Gozal Ahmadova, Blanca L. Delgado-Márquez, Javier Aguilera-Caracuel, Reporting of environmental policies and internationalization of Asia–Pacific firms: the moderating role of innovation as a source of legitimacy, 2022, 1472-4782, 10.1057/s41291-022-00203-4 | |
36. | Leonarda Sofiani Rame, Arief Hartono, Irman Firmansyah, The Effect of Demographic Factors on Waste Generation and Heavy Metal in Illegal Landfill at Malaka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara Province, 2022, 950, 1755-1307, 012055, 10.1088/1755-1315/950/1/012055 | |
37. | Vincent Ekow Arkorful, Zhao Shuliang, Benjamin Kweku Lugu, Investigating household waste separation behavior: the salience of an integrated norm activation model and the theory of planned behavior, 2022, 0964-0568, 1, 10.1080/09640568.2022.2063112 | |
38. | Hamdiyah Alhassan, Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Samuel Arkoh Donkoh, The interrelationships among financial development, economic growth and environmental sustainability: evidence from Ghana, 2022, 29, 0944-1344, 37057, 10.1007/s11356-021-17963-9 | |
39. | YuBiao Hao, XueCheng Zhang, The impact of environmental regulation on urban green output efficiency: evidence from China, 2023, 1387-585X, 10.1007/s10668-023-03110-6 | |
40. | Jing Xu, Jinzhi Weng, Rong Yuan, Impacts of financial development on the energy consumption in China from the perspective of poverty alleviation efficiency, 2023, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-023-26759-y | |
41. | Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Solomon Aboagye, Addressing Africa’s carbon dioxide emission: the role of natural resources, control of corruption, voice and accountability and regulatory quality, 2024, 35, 1477-7835, 1437, 10.1108/MEQ-11-2023-0381 | |
42. | Xiao Wang, Jiaojiao Li, Jingming Shi, Jia Li, Jianxu Liu, Songsak Sriboonchitta, Does China–Europe Railway Express Improve Green Total Factor Productivity in China?, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 8031, 10.3390/su15108031 | |
43. | George E. Halkos, George J. Papageorgiou, Emmanuel G. Halkos, John G. Papageorgiou, Dynamic Modeling of Environmental Subsidies, 2024, 12, 2227-7099, 75, 10.3390/economies12040075 | |
44. | Dilek ÇİL, Ekonomi ve Çevre Etkileşimi: Türkiye'de Finansal Gelişim ve Ulaşım Kaynaklı CO2 İlişkisi Üzerine Fourier ADL Analizi, 2023, 4, 2718-1081, 456, 10.54733/smar.1402556 | |
45. | Inès Gharbi, Md. Hasanur Rahman, Muryani Muryani, Miguel Angel Esquivias, Mohammad Ridwan, Exploring the influence of financial development, renewable energy, and tourism on environmental sustainability in Tunisia, 2025, 6, 2662-9984, 10.1007/s43621-025-00896-5 |
DEGs | Gene title | Gene symbol | LogFC | Biological function |
Down-regulated | Chloride channel accessory 4 | CLCA4 | 4.91 | Calcium sensitive chloride conductance protein |
Zymogen granule protein 16 | ZG16 | 4.45 | Promoting cell growth and stemness. | |
Solute carrier family 4 member 4 | SLC4A4 | 4.43 | Sodium bicarbonate cotransporter | |
Alcohol dehydrogenase 1B (class I), beta polypeptide | ADH1B | 4.29 | Metabolizing ethanol, retinol, and aliphatic alcohol | |
Glucagon | GCG | 4.15 | Counteracting the action of insulin in the bloodstream. | |
Up-regulated | Dipeptidase 1 | DPEP1 | −4.14 | Kidney membrane enzyme |
Keratin 23 | KRT23 | −4.28 | Intermediate filament proteins | |
Claudin 1 | CLDN1 | −4.46 | Tight junctions | |
Leucine rich repeat containing G protein-coupled receptor 5 | LGR5 | −4.51 | Leucine-rich repeat-containing receptor | |
Forkhead box Q1 | FOXQ1 | −5.55 | Embryonic development and cell cycle regulation |
Expression | Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | FDR |
Down-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007155~cell adhesion | 13 | 0.038728513 | 0.013503078 | 19.70156803 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.035749397 | 0.011658571 | 17.24378143 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008284~positive regulation of cell proliferation | 11 | 0.03277028 | 0.07067658 | 69.36458376 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0042493~response to drug | 10 | 0.029791164 | 0.014890967 | 21.50558949 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007399~nervous system development | 9 | 0.026812048 | 0.028891454 | 37.69742039 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0016021~integral component of membrane | 83 | 0.247266661 | 0.004198766 | 5.157367461 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005886~plasma membrane | 71 | 0.211517264 | 0.001689338 | 2.105290204 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0070062~extracellular exosome | 67 | 0.199600798 | 6.59E-08 | 8.30E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 43 | 0.128102005 | 1.82E-08 | 2.29E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 34 | 0.101289957 | 0.002466544 | 3.060090837 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004089~carbonate dehydratase activity | 5 | 0.014895582 | 1.89E-05 | 0.0259938 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008201~heparin binding | 9 | 0.026812048 | 7.38E-04 | 1.012297275 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005200~structural constituent of cytoskeleton | 7 | 0.020853815 | 0.002187539 | 2.974720065 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005179~hormone activity | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.005649705 | 7.515474579 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008270~zinc ion binding | 25 | 0.07447791 | 0.007595654 | 9.980321245 | |
Up-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.072115385 | 4.45E-05 | 0.070505424 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045944~positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 12 | 0.072115385 | 0.047923342 | 54.04862787 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0006508~proteolysis | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.004653246 | 7.118885476 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045893~positive regulation of transcription, DNA-templated | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.005625306 | 8.544770506 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0000122~negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.040288919 | 47.85424336 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 25 | 0.150240385 | 2.24E-05 | 0.026796109 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 23 | 0.138221154 | 1.30E-05 | 0.015593466 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005887~integral component of plasma membrane | 17 | 0.102163462 | 0.0098955 | 11.22182273 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005578~proteinaceous extracellular matrix | 10 | 0.060096154 | 3.33E-05 | 0.039831238 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0009986~cell surface | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.044084961 | 41.70407607 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008009~chemokine activity | 6 | 0.036057692 | 1.24E-05 | 0.016078978 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0045236~CXCR chemokine receptor binding | 4 | 0.024038462 | 1.86E-05 | 0.024112254 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004252~serine-type endopeptidase activity | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.00101144 | 1.305200327 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0050840~extracellular matrix binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01109514 | 13.48485303 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0017147~Wnt-protein binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01556121 | 18.42243874 | |
GO: Gene Ontology; FDR: False Discovery Rate. |
Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | Genes | FDR |
Down-regulatedDEGs | hsa04978:Mineral absorption | 6 | 0.017874698 | 4.69E-04 | TRPM6, MT1M, MT1E, MT1H, MT1X, MT1F | 0.546769342 |
hsa04972:Pancreatic secretion | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.010495925 | KCNMA1, CLCA1, CLCA4, ATP2A3, CA2, SLC4A4 | 11.59221263 | |
hsa00910:Nitrogen metabolism | 5 | 0.014895582 | 8.18E-05 | CA12, CA7, CA4, CA2, CA1 | 0.095443878 | |
hsa04960:Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.002219912 | SGK1, NR3C2, HSD11B2, SCNN1G, SCNN1B | 2.561720438 | |
hsa04976:Bile secretion | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.016846119 | AQP8, SLC51B, CA2, SLC4A4, ABCG2 | 17.99502607 | |
Up-regulatedDEGs | hsa04062:Chemokine signaling pathway | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.001681492 | CXCL1, PLCB4, PPBP, CXCL5, CXCL3, CXCL8, CXCL11 | 1.951113014 |
hsa05200:Pathways in cancer | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.053070195 | BMP4, PLCB4, MET, CXCL8, AXIN2, MYC, MMP1 | 47.1893587 | |
hsa05202:Transcriptional misregulation in cancer | 6 | 0.036057692 | 0.005889645 | MET, CXCL8, MMP3, MYC, WT1, PLAU | 6.682415976 | |
hsa03320:PPAR signaling pathway | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.011041824 | SCD, ACSL6, MMP1, FABP6 | 12.19046418 | |
hsa05323:Rheumatoid arthritis | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.022861328 | CXCL5, CXCL8, MMP3, MMP1 | 23.72114711 | |
KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; FDR: False Discovery Rat |
Gene | Degree of connectivity | Adjusted P value |
MYC | 34 | 9.25E-11 |
CXCR1 | 28 | 1.87E-03 |
TOP2A | 23 | 2.90E-02 |
CXCL12 | 20 | 1.95E-08 |
SST | 18 | 7.36E-09 |
TIMP1 | 17 | 1.05E-02 |
SPP1 | 17 | 3.95E-02 |
PPBP | 17 | 9.73E-04 |
CDK1 | 16 | 1.13E-02 |
THBS1 | 16 | 2.99E-08 |
CXCL1 | 15 | 1.91E-03 |
PYY | 15 | 1.77E-08 |
LPAR1 | 15 | 8.36E-11 |
BMP2 | 15 | 1.06E-05 |
MMP3 | 14 | 7.22E-05 |
DEGs | Gene title | Gene symbol | LogFC | Biological function |
Down-regulated | Chloride channel accessory 4 | CLCA4 | 4.91 | Calcium sensitive chloride conductance protein |
Zymogen granule protein 16 | ZG16 | 4.45 | Promoting cell growth and stemness. | |
Solute carrier family 4 member 4 | SLC4A4 | 4.43 | Sodium bicarbonate cotransporter | |
Alcohol dehydrogenase 1B (class I), beta polypeptide | ADH1B | 4.29 | Metabolizing ethanol, retinol, and aliphatic alcohol | |
Glucagon | GCG | 4.15 | Counteracting the action of insulin in the bloodstream. | |
Up-regulated | Dipeptidase 1 | DPEP1 | −4.14 | Kidney membrane enzyme |
Keratin 23 | KRT23 | −4.28 | Intermediate filament proteins | |
Claudin 1 | CLDN1 | −4.46 | Tight junctions | |
Leucine rich repeat containing G protein-coupled receptor 5 | LGR5 | −4.51 | Leucine-rich repeat-containing receptor | |
Forkhead box Q1 | FOXQ1 | −5.55 | Embryonic development and cell cycle regulation |
Expression | Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | FDR |
Down-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007155~cell adhesion | 13 | 0.038728513 | 0.013503078 | 19.70156803 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.035749397 | 0.011658571 | 17.24378143 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008284~positive regulation of cell proliferation | 11 | 0.03277028 | 0.07067658 | 69.36458376 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0042493~response to drug | 10 | 0.029791164 | 0.014890967 | 21.50558949 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0007399~nervous system development | 9 | 0.026812048 | 0.028891454 | 37.69742039 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0016021~integral component of membrane | 83 | 0.247266661 | 0.004198766 | 5.157367461 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005886~plasma membrane | 71 | 0.211517264 | 0.001689338 | 2.105290204 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0070062~extracellular exosome | 67 | 0.199600798 | 6.59E-08 | 8.30E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 43 | 0.128102005 | 1.82E-08 | 2.29E-05 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 34 | 0.101289957 | 0.002466544 | 3.060090837 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004089~carbonate dehydratase activity | 5 | 0.014895582 | 1.89E-05 | 0.0259938 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008201~heparin binding | 9 | 0.026812048 | 7.38E-04 | 1.012297275 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005200~structural constituent of cytoskeleton | 7 | 0.020853815 | 0.002187539 | 2.974720065 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0005179~hormone activity | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.005649705 | 7.515474579 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008270~zinc ion binding | 25 | 0.07447791 | 0.007595654 | 9.980321245 | |
Up-regulated | GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0008285~negative regulation of cell proliferation | 12 | 0.072115385 | 4.45E-05 | 0.070505424 |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045944~positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 12 | 0.072115385 | 0.047923342 | 54.04862787 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0006508~proteolysis | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.004653246 | 7.118885476 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0045893~positive regulation of transcription, DNA-templated | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.005625306 | 8.544770506 | |
GOTERM_BP_DIRECT | GO:0000122~negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase Ⅱ promoter | 10 | 0.060096154 | 0.040288919 | 47.85424336 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005576~extracellular region | 25 | 0.150240385 | 2.24E-05 | 0.026796109 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005615~extracellular space | 23 | 0.138221154 | 1.30E-05 | 0.015593466 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005887~integral component of plasma membrane | 17 | 0.102163462 | 0.0098955 | 11.22182273 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0005578~proteinaceous extracellular matrix | 10 | 0.060096154 | 3.33E-05 | 0.039831238 | |
GOTERM_CC_DIRECT | GO:0009986~cell surface | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.044084961 | 41.70407607 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0008009~chemokine activity | 6 | 0.036057692 | 1.24E-05 | 0.016078978 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0045236~CXCR chemokine receptor binding | 4 | 0.024038462 | 1.86E-05 | 0.024112254 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0004252~serine-type endopeptidase activity | 8 | 0.048076923 | 0.00101144 | 1.305200327 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0050840~extracellular matrix binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01109514 | 13.48485303 | |
GOTERM_MF_DIRECT | GO:0017147~Wnt-protein binding | 3 | 0.018028846 | 0.01556121 | 18.42243874 | |
GO: Gene Ontology; FDR: False Discovery Rate. |
Category | Term | Count | % | P-Value | Genes | FDR |
Down-regulatedDEGs | hsa04978:Mineral absorption | 6 | 0.017874698 | 4.69E-04 | TRPM6, MT1M, MT1E, MT1H, MT1X, MT1F | 0.546769342 |
hsa04972:Pancreatic secretion | 6 | 0.017874698 | 0.010495925 | KCNMA1, CLCA1, CLCA4, ATP2A3, CA2, SLC4A4 | 11.59221263 | |
hsa00910:Nitrogen metabolism | 5 | 0.014895582 | 8.18E-05 | CA12, CA7, CA4, CA2, CA1 | 0.095443878 | |
hsa04960:Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.002219912 | SGK1, NR3C2, HSD11B2, SCNN1G, SCNN1B | 2.561720438 | |
hsa04976:Bile secretion | 5 | 0.014895582 | 0.016846119 | AQP8, SLC51B, CA2, SLC4A4, ABCG2 | 17.99502607 | |
Up-regulatedDEGs | hsa04062:Chemokine signaling pathway | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.001681492 | CXCL1, PLCB4, PPBP, CXCL5, CXCL3, CXCL8, CXCL11 | 1.951113014 |
hsa05200:Pathways in cancer | 7 | 0.042067308 | 0.053070195 | BMP4, PLCB4, MET, CXCL8, AXIN2, MYC, MMP1 | 47.1893587 | |
hsa05202:Transcriptional misregulation in cancer | 6 | 0.036057692 | 0.005889645 | MET, CXCL8, MMP3, MYC, WT1, PLAU | 6.682415976 | |
hsa03320:PPAR signaling pathway | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.011041824 | SCD, ACSL6, MMP1, FABP6 | 12.19046418 | |
hsa05323:Rheumatoid arthritis | 4 | 0.024038462 | 0.022861328 | CXCL5, CXCL8, MMP3, MMP1 | 23.72114711 | |
KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; FDR: False Discovery Rat |
Gene | Degree of connectivity | Adjusted P value |
MYC | 34 | 9.25E-11 |
CXCR1 | 28 | 1.87E-03 |
TOP2A | 23 | 2.90E-02 |
CXCL12 | 20 | 1.95E-08 |
SST | 18 | 7.36E-09 |
TIMP1 | 17 | 1.05E-02 |
SPP1 | 17 | 3.95E-02 |
PPBP | 17 | 9.73E-04 |
CDK1 | 16 | 1.13E-02 |
THBS1 | 16 | 2.99E-08 |
CXCL1 | 15 | 1.91E-03 |
PYY | 15 | 1.77E-08 |
LPAR1 | 15 | 8.36E-11 |
BMP2 | 15 | 1.06E-05 |
MMP3 | 14 | 7.22E-05 |