As a type of programmed cell death, anoikis resistance plays an essential role in tumor metastasis, allowing cancer cells to survive in the systemic circulation and as a key pathway for regulating critical biological processes. We conducted an exploratory analysis to improve risk stratification and optimize adjuvant treatment choices for patients with breast cancer, and identify multigene features in mRNA and lncRNA transcriptome profiles associated with anoikis. First, the variance selection method filters low information content genes in RNA sequence and then extracts the mRNA and lncRNA expression data base on annotation files. Then, the top ten key mRNAs are screened out through the PPI network. Pearson analysis has been employed to identify lncRNAs related to anoikis, and the prognosis-related lncRNAs are selected using Univariate Cox regression and machine learning. Finally, we identified a group of RNAs (including ten mRNAs and six lncRNAs) and integrated the expression data of 16 genes to construct a risk-scoring system for BRCA prognosis and drug sensitivity analysis. The risk score's validity has been evaluated with the ROC curve, Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA). For the methylation data, we have obtained 169 anoikis-related prognostic methylation sites, integrated these sites with 16 RNA features and further used the deep learning model to evaluate and predict the survival risk of patients. The developed anoikis feature is demonstrated a consistency index (C-index) of 0.778, indicating its potential to predict the survival probability of breast cancer patients using deep learning methods.
Citation: Huili Yang, Wangren Qiu, Zi Liu. Anoikis-related mRNA-lncRNA and DNA methylation profiles for overall survival prediction in breast cancer patients[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1590-1609. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024069
[1] | Dingjun Lou, Zongrong Qin . The structure of minimally 2-subconnected graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 9871-9883. doi: 10.3934/math.2022550 |
[2] | Xia Hong, Wei Feng . Completely independent spanning trees in some Cartesian product graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16127-16136. doi: 10.3934/math.2023823 |
[3] | Xiaoxue Hu, Jiangxu Kong . An improved upper bound for the dynamic list coloring of 1-planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7337-7348. doi: 10.3934/math.2022409 |
[4] | Hongyu Chen, Li Zhang . A smaller upper bound for the list injective chromatic number of planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 289-310. doi: 10.3934/math.2025014 |
[5] | Yunfeng Tang, Huixin Yin, Miaomiao Han . Star edge coloring of K2,t-free planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13154-13161. doi: 10.3934/math.2023664 |
[6] | Yuehua Bu, Qi Jia, Hongguo Zhu, Junlei Zhu . Acyclic edge coloring of planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10828-10841. doi: 10.3934/math.2022605 |
[7] | Saba Al-Kaseasbeh, Ahmad Erfanian . A bipartite graph associated to elements and cosets of subgroups of a finite group. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10395-10404. doi: 10.3934/math.2021603 |
[8] | Dijian Wang, Dongdong Gao . Laplacian integral signed graphs with few cycles. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 7021-7031. doi: 10.3934/math.2023354 |
[9] | Yuehua Bu, Qiang Yang, Junlei Zhu, Hongguo Zhu . Injective coloring of planar graphs with girth 5. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 17081-17090. doi: 10.3934/math.2023872 |
[10] | Akbar Ali, Darko Dimitrov, Tamás Réti, Abdulaziz Mutlaq Alotaibi, Abdulaziz M. Alanazi, Taher S. Hassan . Degree-based graphical indices of k-cyclic graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13540-13554. doi: 10.3934/math.2025609 |
As a type of programmed cell death, anoikis resistance plays an essential role in tumor metastasis, allowing cancer cells to survive in the systemic circulation and as a key pathway for regulating critical biological processes. We conducted an exploratory analysis to improve risk stratification and optimize adjuvant treatment choices for patients with breast cancer, and identify multigene features in mRNA and lncRNA transcriptome profiles associated with anoikis. First, the variance selection method filters low information content genes in RNA sequence and then extracts the mRNA and lncRNA expression data base on annotation files. Then, the top ten key mRNAs are screened out through the PPI network. Pearson analysis has been employed to identify lncRNAs related to anoikis, and the prognosis-related lncRNAs are selected using Univariate Cox regression and machine learning. Finally, we identified a group of RNAs (including ten mRNAs and six lncRNAs) and integrated the expression data of 16 genes to construct a risk-scoring system for BRCA prognosis and drug sensitivity analysis. The risk score's validity has been evaluated with the ROC curve, Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA). For the methylation data, we have obtained 169 anoikis-related prognostic methylation sites, integrated these sites with 16 RNA features and further used the deep learning model to evaluate and predict the survival risk of patients. The developed anoikis feature is demonstrated a consistency index (C-index) of 0.778, indicating its potential to predict the survival probability of breast cancer patients using deep learning methods.
Connectivity is an important property of graphs. It has been extensively studied (see [1]). A graph G=(V,E) is called k-connected (k≥1) (k-edge-connected) if, for any subset S⊆V(G) (S⊆E(G)) with |S|<k, G−S is connected. The connectivity κ(G) (edge connectivity λ(G)) is the order (size) of minimum cutset (edge cutset) S⊆V(G) (S⊆E(G)). When G is a complete graph Kn, we define that κ(G)=n−1.
In recent years, conditional connectivities attract researchers' attention. For example, Peroche [2] studied several sorts of connectivities, including cyclic edge (vertex) connectivity, and their relations. A cyclic edge (vertex) cutset S of G is an edge (vertex) cutset whose deletion disconnects G such that at least two of the components of G−S contain a cycle respectively. The cyclic edge (vertex) connectivity, denoted by cλ(G) (cκ(G)), is the cardinality of a minimum cyclic edge (vertex) cutset of G. Dvoŕǎk, Kára, Král and Pangrác [3] obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity of cubic graphs. Lou and Wang [4] obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity for k-regular graphs. Then Lou and Liang [5] improved the algorithm to have time complexity O(k9V6). Lou [6] also obtained a square time algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity of planar graphs. In [7], Liang, Lou and Zhang obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic vertex connectivity of cubic graphs. Liang and Lou [8] also showed that there is an efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic vertex connectivity for k-regular graphs with any fixed k.
Another related concept is linkage. Let G be a graph with at least 2k vertices. If, for any 2k vertices u1,u2,⋯,uk,v1,v2,⋯,vk, there are k disjoint paths Pi from ui to vi(i=1,2,⋯,k) in G, then G is called k-linked. Thomassen [9] mentioned that a necessary condition for G to be k-linked is that G is (2k−1)-connected. But this condition is not sufficient unless k=1. He also gave a complete characterization of 2-linked graphs. Bollobás and Thomason [10] proved that if κ(G)≥22k, then G is k-linked. Kawarabayashi, Kostochka and Yu [11] proved that every 2k-connected graph with average degree at least 12k is k-linked.
In [12], Qin, Lou, Zhu and Liang introduced the new concept of k-subconnected graphs. Let G be a graph with at least 2k vertices. If, for any 2k vertices v1,v2,⋯,v2k in G, there are k vertex-disjoint paths joining v1,v2,⋯,v2k in pairs, then G is called k-subconnected. If G is k-subconnected and ν(G)≥3k−1, then G is called a properly k-subconnected graph. In [12], Qin et al. showed that a properly k-subconnected graph is also a properly (k−1)-subconnected graph. But only when ν(G)≥3k−1, that G is k-subconnected implies that G is (k−1)-subconnected. Qin et al. [12] also gave a sufficient condition for a graph to be k-subconnected and a necessary and sufficient condition for a graph to be a properly k-subconnected graph (see Lemmas 1 and 2 and Corollary 3 in this paper).
If G has at least 2k vertices, that G is k-linked implies that G is k-connected, while that G is k-connected implies that G is k-subconnected (see Lemma 6 in this paper). Also in a k-connected graph G, deleting arbitrarily some edges from G, the resulting graph H is still k-subconnected. So a graph H to be k-subconnected is a spanning substructure of a k-connected graph G. To study k-subconnected graphs may help to know more properties in the structure of k-connected graphs. Notice that a k-connected graph may have a spanning substructure to be m-subconnected for m>k.
K-subconnected graphs have some background in matching theory. The proof of the necessary and sufficient condition [12] for properly k-subconnected graphs uses similar technique to matching theory.
Let S be a subset of V(G) of a graph G. We denote by G[S] the induced subetaaph of G on S. We also denote by ω(G) the number of components of G. We also use ν(G) and ε(G) to denote |V(G)| and |E(G)|. If G is a planar graph, we denote by ϕ(G) the number of faces in the planar embedding of G. Let H be a graph. A subdivision of H is a graph H′ obtained by replacing some edges by paths respectively in H. For other terminology and notation not defined in this paper, the reader is referred to [13].
In this section, we shall present some known results and some straightforward corollaries of the known results which will be used in the proof of our main theorems.
Lemma 1 (Theorem 1 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 2k vertices. Then G is k-subconnected if, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Lemma 2 (Theorem 2 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 3k−1 vertices. If G is a properly k-subconnected graph, then, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Only when v≥3k−1, that G is k-subconnected implies that G is (k-1)-subconnected. Here is an counterexample. Let S=Kk−2 be a complete graph of k−2 vertices, let H be k copies of K2, and let G be a graph with V(G)=V(S)∪V(H) and E(G)=E(S)∪E(H)∪{uv|u∈V(S),v∈V(H)}. Then v(G)=3k−2, and G is not (k-1)-subconnected since we can choose 2(k-1) vertices by taking one vertex from each copy of K2 in H and taking all vertices of S, then these 2(k-1) vertices cannot be joined by k-1 independent paths in pairs. But G is k-subconnected since when we take any 2k vertices from G, some pairs of vertices will be taken from several same K2 's in H, and then the 2k vertices can be joined by k independent paths in pairs.
Corollary 3 (Theorem 3 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 3k−1 vertices. Then G is a properly k-subconnected graph if and only if, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Lemma 4 ([14]). Every 4-connected planar graph is Hamiltonian.
Lemma 5. If a graph G has a Hamilton path, then G is k-subconnected for each k such that 1≤k≤ν(G)/2.
Proof. Let P be a Hamilton path in G. Let vi, i=1,2,⋯,2k, be any 2k vertices in V(G). Without loss of generality, assume that v1,v2,⋯,v2k appear on P in turn. Then there are k paths Pi on P from v2i−1 to v2i, i=1,2,⋯,k, respectively. So G is k-subconnected.
Lemma 6. A k-connected graph G with at least 2k vertices is k-subconnected.
Proof. Let G be a k-connected graph with at least 2k vertices. Then G does not have a cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, so the statement that, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1 is true. By Lemma 1, G is k-subconnected.
In this section, we shall show the k-subconnectedness of planar graphs with different connectivities, and show the bounds of k-subconnectedness are sharp.
Corollary 7. A 1-connected planar graph G with at least 2 vertices is 1-subconnected.
Proof. By Lemma 6, the result follows.
Corollary 8. A 2-connected planar graph G with at least 4 vertices is 2-subconnected.
Proof. By Lemma 6, the result follows.
Theorem 9. A 4-connected planar graph G is k-subconnected for each k such that 1≤k≤ν(G)/2.
Proof. By Lemma 4, G has a Hamilton cycle C, and then has a Hamilton path P. By Lemma 5, the result follows.
Theorem 10. A 3-connected planar graph G with at least 2k vertices is k-subconnected for k=4,5,6.
Proof. Suppose that G is a 3-connected planar graph with at least 2k vertices which is not k-subconnected. By Lemma 1, there is a cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1≤ such that ω(G−S)≥|S|+2. Since G is 3-connected, there is no cutset with less than 3 vertices and so |S|≥3. On the other hand, k=4,5,6, so |S|≤5. Thus let us consider three cases.
In the first case, |S|=3. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C5 be different components of G−S, and S={x1,x2,x3}. Since G is 3-connected, every Ci is adjacent to each xj (1≤i≤5,1≤j≤3). Contract every Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,5) to obtain a planar graph G′ as G is planar. Then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, which contradicts the fact that G′ is a planar graph.
In the second case, |S|=4. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C6 be different components of G−S and S={x1,x2,x3,x4}. Contract every Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,6) to obtain a planar graph G′ as G is planar. Since G is 3-connected, each C′i is adjacent to at least 3 vertices in S (1≤i≤6). (In the whole proof, we shall consider that C′i is adjacent to only 3 vertices in S, and we shall neglect other vertices in S which are possibly adjacent to C′i). Since the number of 3-vertex-combinations in S is C(4,3)=4, but C′1,C′2,⋯,C′6 have 6 vertices, by the Pigeonhole Principle, there are two vertices in {C′1,C′2,⋯,C′6} which are adjacent to the same three vertices in S. Without loss of generality, assume that C′1 and C′2 are both adjacent to x1,x2,x3. If there is another C′i (3≤i≤6) adjacent to x1,x2,x3, say C′3, then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, which contradicts the fact that G′ is planar (which also contradicts the assumption that G is a planar graph because G has a subetaaph which can be contracted to a K3,3). So C′i cannot be adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time (i=3,4,5,6).
Suppose C′3 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4. If one of C′4,C′5,C′6 is adjacent to both x1 and x4, say C′4, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x1, so G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. Since C′4,C′5,C′6 are all not adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, they are all adjacent to x4. But each of them cannot be adjacent to both x1 and x4. So they are all not adjacent to x1. Hence C′4,C′5,C′6 are all adjacent to x2,x3,x4 at the same time. Then G′[{x2,x3,x4}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is a planar graph.
The cases that C′3 is adjacent to x1,x3,x4 or x1,x2,x4 are similar.
In the third case, |S|=5. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C7 be different components of G−S and S={x1,x2,⋯,x5}. Since G is planar, contracting Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,7), we obtain a planar graph G′. Also since G is 3-connected, every C′i is adjacent to at least 3 vertices in S (1≤i≤7).
Case 1. There are two of C′i (i=1,2,⋯,7) adjacent to the same three vertices in S. Without loss of generality, assume that C′1 and C′2 are both adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time.
If there is another vertex C′i (3≤i≤7) adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, say C′3. Then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So C′3 cannot be adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time. Without loss of generality, we have two subcases.
Suppose C′3 is only adjacent to two vertices in {x1,x2,x3}, say x2 and x3. Then C′3 must be adjacent to one of x4 and x5 as G is 3-connected. Without loss of generality, assume that C′3 is also adjacent to x4. If one of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4, say C′4. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x1, hence G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So none of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4.
Case (1.1). Suppose that C′4 is adjacent to three vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} .
If C′4 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, then the case is similar to that C′3 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, and we have a contradiction. So C′4 is not adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time. If C′4 is adjacent to x1, since C′4 is adjacent to three vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} but not x1,x2,x3, so C′4 is adjacent to x1 and x4, by the argument above, we have a contradiction. Hence C′4 can be adjacent only to x2,x3,x4.
Now x1 and x4 are symmetric, while x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}]. Then C′i(i=5,6,7) must be adjacent to x5, we have two cases as follows.
Notice that now there are not i and j, 5≤i≠j≤7, such that C′i is adjacent to x1 and C′j is adjacent to x4, otherwise C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′jx5C′ix1, then G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′i,C′j}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contrary to the fact that G′ is planar.
Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5. If C′6 is also adjacent to x3,x4,x5, then C′7 cannot be adjacent to x3,x4,x5, otherwise G′[{x3,x4,x5}∪{C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5, then C′7 is connected to x3 by path C′7x2C′2x3, and then G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. But C′7 is connected to x4 by path C′7x2C′3x4, then G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction again. If C′6 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, suppose C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5, then this case is similar to that C′6 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 and C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Then suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Now C′3 is connected to x5 by path C′3x4C′5x5, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. Then C′6 is connected to x4 by path C′6x5C′7x4, hence G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. Now the cases that C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5 and that C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 are symmetric, we only discuss the former. Then C′5 is connected to x2 by path C′5x3C′4x2, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Now C′7 is connected to x4 by path C′7x5C′6x4. Hence G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. If C′6 and C′7 are both adjacent to x2,x3,x5, then G′[{x2,x3,x5}∪{C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So one of C′5, C′6, C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, the other two are adjacent to x3,x4,x5; or one of C′5, C′6, C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5, the other two are adjacent to x2,x3,x5; or C′5 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, C′6 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 and C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. These three cases are symmetric to cases discussed above. (Notice that the roles of C′5, C′6 and C′7 are symmetric.)
Case (1.2). Now suppose {x2,x3,x4} - N(C′4)≠∅.
Notice that {x2,x3,x4} - N(C′i)≠∅ for 5≤i≤7, otherwise the C′i (5≤i≤7) is similar to C′4 as discussed above, and the other three in {C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7} are similar to C′5,C′6,C′7, by the same argument as above, we obtain a contradiction. Also since C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7 each cannot be adjacent to both x1 and x4, all of C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7 must be adjacent to x5. Now x1 and x4 are not symmetric but x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}].
First, suppose C′4 is adjacent to x4 and x3 besides x5. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4 and x3. If C′6 is also adjacent to x4 and x3, then G′[{x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x2, now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x2C′2x3, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x1, then C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x1C′2x3, and G′[{x1,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3 a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Now C′6 is connected to x4 by path C′6x2C′3x4, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Next we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′6 is connected to x2 by path C′6x5C′4x4C′3x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4,x2. By the symmetry of the roles of C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7, we only consider the cases of C′6 as follows. Suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x2. Then C′4 is connected to x2 by path C′4x3C′3x2, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x1. Now C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then we consider C′7. By the symmetry of the roles of C′7 and C′6, we only consider the cases that C′7 is adjacent to {x3,x2},{x3,x1},{x2,x1} respectively. If C′7 is adjacent to x3,x2, then C′5 is connected to x3 by path C′5x4C′4x3, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. If C′7 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′5x5C′7x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. If C′7 is adjacent to x2,x1, then C′7 is connected to x3 by path C′7x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′5x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x2. By symmetry of C′5 and C′6, we only need to consider the following cases. Suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then C′3 is connected to x5 by path C′3x4C′4x5, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, by the same argument as last case, we also obtain a contradiction. Now we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′5 is connected to x2 by path C′5x5C′4x4C′3x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1. Then C′5 is connected to x3 by path C′5x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Since the case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x2 is symmetric to the case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x3, we do not discuss this case. The case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x1 is excluded by the discussion before Case (1.1). So we suppose C′4 is adjacent to x3,x2 now. By symmetry, we only need to consider the following cases. Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x2, then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then G′[{x2,x3,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Now C′6 is connected to x2 by path C′6x1C′1x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose that C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, then C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x1C′1x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x1, then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′4 is connected to x1 by path C′4x2C′1x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1. Now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1, and C′6 can be adjacent only to x2,x1, by the same argument as last case, we can obtain a contradiction. Now suppose C′4 is adjacent to x3,x1, then suppose C′5 and C′6 are both adjacent to x3,x1. But G′[{x1,x3,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction. So we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1 subject to the above assumption of C′4 and C′5. Now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1. Substituting C′5 for C′6 in the discussion of last case, we can obtain a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′4,C′5,C′6 are all adjacent to x2,x1. Then G′[{x1,x2,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction.
Now we come back to the discussion of the first paragraph in Case 1. We have the second subcase as follows.
Suppose C′3 is adjacent to only one vertex in {x1,x2,x3}. By the symmetry of the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7, we can assume that each of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 is adjacent to only one vertex in {x1,x2,x3}. So all of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are adjacent to both x4 and x5, and one of x1,x2,x3. But x1,x2,x3 have only 3 vertices and C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 have 5 vertices, by the Pigeonhole Principle, there are C′i and C′j (3≤i≠j≤7) adjacent to x4,x5 and the same xr in {x1,x2,x3}, and there is a C′k (k≠i,j and 3≤k≤7) such that C′k is adjacent to x4,x5. We use C′i and C′j to replace C′1 and C′2, and C′k to replace C′3, then Case 1 still happens. The proof is the same as before.
Now suppose that Case 1 does not happen. Then, for any two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7), |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|≤2.
Case 2. Suppose there are two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7) such that |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|=2.
Without loss of generality, assume that N(C′1)={x1,x2,x3}, N(C′2)={x2,x3,x4} such that |N(C′1)∩N(C′2)|=2.
Case (2.1). C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4 are adjacent to only vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}.
Since G is 3-connected and Case 1 does not happen, then N(C′3)={x1,x2,x4} and N(C′4)={x1,x3,x4}. In G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}], any two of x1,x2,x3,x4 are symmetric, and any two of C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4 are symmetric. Since Case 1 does not happen, N(C′j) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4} (j=5,6,7). So C′j must be adjacent to x5 (j=5,6,7). By the symmetry of any two of x1,x2,x3,x4, we can assume that C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4. Also by the assumption of Case 2, C′6 is adjacent to x1 and x2, or adjacent to x2 and x3. In the first case, {x1,x2} and {x3,x4} are symmetric, then C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and C′2 is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. In the second case, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′4 is adjacent to x3,x4, and is connected to x2 by path C′4x1C′1x2, C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4, and is connected to x2 by path C′5x5C′6x2. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2). N(C′i)⊆{x1,x2,x3,x4} for i=1,2,3 but N(C′j)⊈{x1,x2,x3,x4} for 4≤j≤7.
Then N(C′3)={x1,x2,x4}. (The case that N(C′3)={x1,x3,x4} is symmetric, and the proof is similar). As the neighbourhood of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, C′i is adjacent to x5 for i=4,5,6,7. In G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}], any two of x1,x3,x4 are symmetric, and any two of C′1,C′2,C′3 are symmetric. By the assumption of Case 2, we have the following four cases.
Case (2.2.1). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x4,x5}, and N(C′6)={x1,x3,x5}.
Notice that any two of x1,x3,x4 are symmetric, since Case (2.1) does not happen, N(C′7) is not contained in {x1,x3,x4,x5}, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}. Now C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′7x5C′4x4. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2.2). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x3,x5}.
Now x1 and x4 are symmetric. By the assumption of Case 2, as Case (2.2.1) does not hold, we have two cases: N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}; or N(C′6)={x2,x3,x5}. Suppose N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}. Then C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting to the fact that G′ is planar. Suppose N(C′6)={x2,x3,x5}. Then C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′6x5C′4x4. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2.3). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}.
Now x3 and x4 are symmetric. We have two cases: (1) N(C′5)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}; (2) N(C′5)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x2,x5}.
In the first case, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
In the second case, C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
There remains the last case in Case (2.2) as follows.
Case (2.2.4). Suppose N(C′4)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x2,x5}.
Now C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3). Suppose only C′1,C′2 are adjacent only to vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}.
Since N(C′i) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, C′i is adjacent to x5 for i=3,4,⋯,7. Now x1 and x4 are symmetric, x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2}]. By the assumption of Case 2, each C′i is adjacent to exactly two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} besides x5 (i=3,4,⋯,7), and C′i and C′j (3≤i<j≤7) are not adjacent to the same two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}. Since the number of combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} is totally C(4,2)=4×32!=6, there is exactly one combination of two vertices which are not adjacent to the same C′i (3≤i≤7), and for each of the other combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, the two vertices are both adjacent to one C′i (3≤i≤7). Considering the symmetry of the roles of C′i (i=3,4,⋯,7), there are six cases to take five combinations from the totally six combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} such that the two vertices of each of the five combinations are both adjacent to a C′i (3≤i≤7). Also considering the symmetry of x1 and x4, and x2 and x3, there remains 3 cases as follows.
Case (2.3.1). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4.
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x2,x5}, N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}.
Now C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, C′4 is adjacent to x3,x5, and is connected to x2 by path C′4x4C′2x2, C′3 is adjacent to x2,x5, and is connected to x3 by path C′3x1C′6x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3.2). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x1 and x2. (For x1,x3; x2,x4; x3,x4, the discussion is similar.)
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x4,x5}, N(C′4)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}.
Now C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′5 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′5x5C′7x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3.3). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x2 and x3.
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x4,x5}, N(C′4)={x1,x2,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′7)={x3,x4,x5}.
Now C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′4 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′4x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case 3. Suppose that, for any two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7), |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|≤1 and Cases 1 and 2 do not hold.
Since |N(C′i)|=|N(C′j)|=3 and |S|=5, |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|=1 (1≤i<j≤7). Without loss of generality, assume that N(C′1)={x1,x2,x3}, and N(C′2)={x3,x4,x5}. Then N(C′1)∩N(C′2)={x3}. By the assumption of Case 3, |N(C′3)∩N(C′1)|=1, then there are two vertices of N(C′3) which are not in {x1,x2,x3}, hence |N(C′3)∩N(C′2)|≥2, which contradicts the assumption of Case 3.
In all cases discussed above, we can always obtain contradiction. So ω(G−S)≥|S|+2 does not hold. By Lemma 1, when ν(G)≥2k, G is k-subconnected for k=4,5,6.
Remark 1. Now we give some counterexamples to show the sharpness of Corollaries 7 and 8, and Theorem 10. Let H be a connected planar graph, let G1,G2,G3 be three copies of H, and let v be a vertex not in Gi (i=1,2,3). Let G be the graph such that v is joined to Gi (i=1,2,3) by an edge respectively. Then G is a 1-connected planar graph, but G is not 2-subconnected since we take a vertex vi in Gi (i=1,2,3) and let v4=v, then there are not two independent paths joining v1,v2,v3,v4 in two pairs in G. So Corollary 7 is sharp.
Let H be a planar embedding of a 2-connected planar graph, let G1,G2,G3,G4 be four copies of H, let v5 and v6 be two vertices not in Gi (i=1,2,3,4). Let G be the graph such that v5 and v6 are joined to two different vertices on the outer face of Gi (i=1,2,3,4) by edges respectively. Then G is a 2-connected planar graph, but is not 3-subconnected since we take a vertex vi in Gi (i=1,2,3,4), then there are not three independent paths joining v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6 in three pairs. So Corollary 8 is sharp.
Let G0 be a triangle with vertex set {v4,v5,v6}, then insert a vertex vi into a triangle inner face of Gi−1 and join vi to every vertex on the face by an edge respectively to obtain Gi for i=1,2,3. Let G=G3. Notice that ν(G)=6, ε(G0)=3, and each time when we insert a vertex, the number of edges increases by 3. So ε(G)=3+3+3+3=12. By the Euler's Formula, ϕ=ε−ν+2=12−6+2=8. Let H be a planar embedding of a 3-connected planar graph. Then put a copy of H into every face of G and join each vertex on the triangle face of G to a distinct vertex on the outer face of H to obtain a planar graph G′. Then G′ is a 3-connected planar graph with ν(G′)≥2k for k=7, but G′ is not 7-subconnected since we have a cutset S={v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6}, but G′−S has 8 copies of H (8 components) and ω(G′−S)=8≥|S|+2. By Lemma 1, the conclusion holds. So Theorem 10 is sharp.
Remark 2. For a 3-connected planar graph G with at least 2k vertices, by Lemma 6, G is obviously k-subconnected for k=1,2,3.
In the last section, we prove the k-subconnectivity of k′-connected planar graphs for k′=1,2,⋯,5.
Since a k-subconnected graph is a spanning substructure of a k-connected graph, in the future, we can work on the number of edges deleted from a k-connected graph such that the resulting graph is still k-subconnected.
We may also extend the k-subconnectivity of planar graphs to find the subconnectivity of general graphs with a higher genus.
[1] | Y. S. Sun, Z. Zhao, Z. N. Yang, F. Xu, H. J. Lu, Z. Y. Zhu, et al., Risk factors and preventions of breast cancer, Int. J. Biol. Sci., 13 (2017), 1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.7150%2Fijbs.21635 |
[2] |
T. J. Key, P. K. Verkasalo, E. Banks, Epidemiology of breast cancer, Lancet Oncol., 2 (2001), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00254-0 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00254-0
![]() |
[3] |
Y. N. Kim, K. H. Koo, J. Y. Sung, U. J. Yun, H. Kim, Anoikis resistance: an essential prerequisite for tumor metastasis, Int. J. Cell Biol., 2012 (2012), e306879. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/306879 doi: 10.1155/2012/306879
![]() |
[4] |
S. Frisch, H. Francis, Disruption of epithelial cell-matrix interactions induces apoptosis, J. Cell Biol., 124 (1994), 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.124.4.619 doi: 10.1083/jcb.124.4.619
![]() |
[5] |
M. C. Guadamillas, A. Cerezo, M. A. del Pozo, Overcoming anoikis–pathways to anchorage-independent growth in cancer, J. Cell Sci., 124 (2011), 3189–3197. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.072165 doi: 10.1242/jcs.072165
![]() |
[6] |
Y. Luo, W. Q. Tang, S. S. Xiang, J. B. Feng, X. Y. Zu, Non-coding RNAs in breast cancer: Implications for programmed cell death, Cancer Lett., 550 (2022), 215929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215929 doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215929
![]() |
[7] |
D. Fanfone, Z. C. Wu, J. Mammi, K. Berthenet, D. Neves, K. Weber, et al., Confined migration promotes cancer metastasis through resistance to anoikis and increased invasiveness, eLife, 11 (2022), e73150. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73150 doi: 10.7554/eLife.73150
![]() |
[8] |
K. Zhao, Z. Wang, T. Hackert, C. Pitzer, M. Zöller, Tspan8 and Tspan8/CD151 knockout mice unravel the contribution of tumor and host exosomes to tumor progression, J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res., 37 (2018), 312. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-018-0961-6 doi: 10.1186/s13046-018-0961-6
![]() |
[9] |
C. Akekawatchai, S. Roytrakul, S. Kittisenachai, P. Isarankura-Na-Ayudhya, S. Jitrapakdee, Protein profiles associated with anoikis resistance of metastatic MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells, Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 17 (2016), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.2.581 doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.2.581
![]() |
[10] |
B. Weigelt, J. L. Peterse, L. J. van't Veer, Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 5 (2005), 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1670 doi: 10.1038/nrc1670
![]() |
[11] |
W. Q. Li, J. Lee, H. G. Vikis, S. H. Lee, G. F. Liu, J. Aurandt, et al., Activation of FAK and Src are receptor-proximal events required for netrin signaling, Nat. Neurosci., 7 (2004), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1329 doi: 10.1038/nn1329
![]() |
[12] |
Y. Su, H. J. Wu, A. Pavlosky, L. L. Zou, X. N. Deng, Z. X. Zhang, et al., Regulatory non-coding RNA: new instruments in the orchestration of cell death, Cell Death Dis., 7 (2016), e2333. https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2016.210 doi: 10.1038/cddis.2016.210
![]() |
[13] |
M. Rebhan, V. Chalifa-Caspi, J. Prilusky, D. Lance, GeneCards: integrating information about genes, proteins and diseases, Trends Genet., 13 (1997), 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9525(97)01103-7 doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(97)01103-7
![]() |
[14] |
M. E. Ritchie, B. Phipson, D. Wu, Y. F. Hu, C. W. Law, W. Shi, et al., Limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies, Nucleic Acids Res., 43 (2015), e47. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv007 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv007
![]() |
[15] |
H. V. Cook, N.T. Doncheva, D. Szklarczyk, C. von Mering, J. L. Juhl, STRING: A virus-host protein-protein interaction database, Viruses, 10 (2018), 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/v10100519 doi: 10.3390/v10100519
![]() |
[16] |
P. Shannon, A. Markiel, O. Ozier, N. S. Baliga, J. T. Wang, D. Ramage, et al., Cytoscape: A software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks, Genome Res., 13 (2003), 2498–2504. http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.1239303 doi: 10.1101/gr.1239303
![]() |
[17] |
C. H. Chin, S. H. Chen, H. H. Wu, C. W. Ho, M. T. Ko, C. Y. Lin, cytoHubba: identifying hub objects and sub-networks from complex interactome, BMC Syst. Biol., 8 (2014), S11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-8-S4-S11 doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-8-S4-S11
![]() |
[18] |
D. R. Cox, Regression models and life-tables, J. R. Stat. Soc. B., 34 (1972), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x
![]() |
[19] |
R. Tibshirani, The lasso method for variable selection in the Cox model, Stat. Med., 16 (1997), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970228)16:4<385::AID-SIM380>3.0.CO;2-3 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970228)16:4<385::AID-SIM380>3.0.CO;2-3
![]() |
[20] | N. Simon, J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Regularization paths for Cox's proportional hazards model via coordinate descent, J. Stat. Software, 39 (2011), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18637%2Fjss.v039.i05 |
[21] |
H. Ishwaran, U. B. Kogalur, E. H. Blackstone, M. S. Lauer, Random survival forests, Ann. Appl. Stat., 2 (2008), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS169 doi: 10.1214/08-AOAS169
![]() |
[22] |
X. Chen, H. Ishwaran, Random forests for genomic data analysis, Genomics, 99 (2012), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2012.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2012.04.003
![]() |
[23] |
H. Q. Lin, D. Zelterman, Modeling survival data: extending the Cox model, Technometrics, 44 (2002), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.1198/tech.2002.s656 doi: 10.1198/tech.2002.s656
![]() |
[24] |
A. N. Kamarudin, T. Cox, R. Kolamunnage-Dona, Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications, BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 17 (2017), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0332-6 doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0332-6
![]() |
[25] |
S. Monti, P. Tamayo, J. Mesirov, T. Golub, Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data, Mach. Learn., 52 (2003), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023949509487 doi: 10.1023/A:1023949509487
![]() |
[26] |
W. J. Yang, J. Soares, P. Greninger, E. J. Edelman, H. Lightfoot, S. Forbes, et al., Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC): a resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells, Nucleic Acids Res., 41 (2013), D955–D961. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1111 doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1111
![]() |
[27] |
D. Maeser, R. F. Gruener, R. S. Huang, OncoPredict: an R package for predicting in vivo or cancer patient drug response and biomarkers from cell line screening data, Briefings Bioinf., 22 (2021), bbab260. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbab260 doi: 10.1093/bib/bbab260
![]() |
[28] |
J. L. Katzman, U. Shaham, A. Cloninger, J. Bates, T. Jiang, Y. Kluger, DeepSurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a Cox proportional hazards deep neural network, BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 18 (2018), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0482-112 doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0482-112
![]() |
[29] |
J. Adeoye, L. L. Hui, M. Koohi-Moghadam, J. Y. Tan, S. W. Choi, P. Thomson, Comparison of time-to-event machine learning models in predicting oral cavity cancer prognosis, Int. J. Med. Inf., 157 (2022), 104635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104635 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104635
![]() |
[30] | F. Zhu, R. Zhong, F. Li, C. C. Li, N. Din, H. Sweidan, et al., Development and validation of a deep transfer learning-based multivariable survival model to predict overall survival in lung cancer, Transl. Lung Cancer Res., 12 (2023), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.21037%2Ftlcr-23-84 |
[31] |
B. Lausen, M. Schumacher, Maximally selected rank statistics, Biometrics, 48 (1992), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532740 doi: 10.2307/2532740
![]() |
[32] |
I. Bichindaritz, G. H. Liu, C. Bartlett, Integrative survival analysis of breast cancer with gene expression and DNA methylation data, Bioinformatics, 37 (2021), 2601–2608. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab140 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab140
![]() |
[33] |
J. Cheng, J. Zhang, Y. Han, X. S. Wang, X. F. Ye, Y. B. Meng, et al., Integrative analysis of histopathological images and genomic data predicts clear cell renal cell carcinoma prognosis, Cancer Res., 77 (2017), e91–e100. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0313 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0313
![]() |
[34] |
Z. Y. Zhang, H. Chai, Y. Wang, Z. X. Pan, Y. D. Yang, Cancer survival prognosis with deep bayesian perturbation Cox network, Comput. Biol. Med., 141 (2022), 105012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105012 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105012
![]() |
[35] |
E. Kakavandi, R. Shahbahrami, H. Goudarzi, G. Eslami, E. Faghihloo, Anoikis resistance and oncoviruses, J. Cell. Biochem., 119 (2018), 2484–2491. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26363 doi: 10.1002/jcb.26363
![]() |
[36] |
M. J. Zou, E. Y. Baitei, R. A. Al-Rijjal, R. S. Parhar, F. A. Al-Mohanna, S. Kimura, et al., KRASG12D-mediated oncogenic transformation of thyroid follicular cells requires long-term TSH stimulation and is regulated by SPRY1, Lab. Invest., 95 (2015), 1269–1277. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2015.90 doi: 10.1038/labinvest.2015.90
![]() |
[37] |
S. Li, Y. Chen, Y. H. Zhang, X. M. Jiang, Y. Jiang, X. Qin, et al., Shear stress promotes anoikis resistance of cancer cells via caveolin-1-dependent extrinsic and intrinsic apoptotic pathways, J. Cell. Physiol., 234 (2019), 3730–3743. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27149 doi: 10.1002/jcp.27149
![]() |
[38] |
P. Chanvorachote, U. Nimmannit, Y. Lu, S. Talbott, B. H. Jiang, Y. Rojanasakul, Nitric oxide regulates lung carcinoma cell anoikis through inhibition of ubiquitin-proteasomal degradation of caveolin-1, J. Biol. Chem., 284 (2009), 28476–28484. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.050864 doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.050864
![]() |
[39] |
W. T. Chiu, H. T. Lee, F. J. Huang, K. D. Aldape, J. Yao, P. S. Steeg, et al., Caveolin-1 upregulation mediates suppression of primary breast tumor growth and brain metastases by stat3 inhibition, Cancer Res., 71 (2011), 4932–4943. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4249 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4249
![]() |
[40] |
K. Strebhardt, A. Ullrich, Targeting polo-like kinase 1 for cancer therapy, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 6 (2006), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1841 doi: 10.1038/nrc1841
![]() |
[41] |
R. M. Golsteyn, K. E. Mundt, A. M. Fry, E. A. Nigg, Cell cycle regulation of the activity and subcellular localization of Plk1, a human protein kinase implicated in mitotic spindle function, J. Cell Biol., 129 (1995), 1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.129.6.1617 doi: 10.1083/jcb.129.6.1617
![]() |
[42] |
F. Toyoshima-Morimoto, E. Taniguchi, N. Shinya, A. Iwamatsu, E. Nishida, Polo-like kinase 1 phosphorylates cyclin B1 and targets it to the nucleus during prophase, Nature, 410 (2001), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065617 doi: 10.1038/35065617
![]() |
[43] |
N. E. Bhola, V. M. Jansen, S. Bafna, J. M. Giltnane, J. M. Balko, M. V. Estrada, et al., Kinome-wide functional screen identifies role of PLK1 in hormone-independent, ER-positive breast cancer, Cancer Res., 75 (2015), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2475 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2475
![]() |
[44] |
A. P. Baron, C. Schubert, F. Cubizolles, G. Siemeister, M. Hitchcock, A. Mengel, et al., Probing the catalytic functions of Bub1 kinase using the small molecule inhibitors BAY-320 and BAY-524, Elife, 5 (2016), e12187. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12187 doi: 10.7554/eLife.12187
![]() |
[45] |
B. Yuan, Y. Xu, J. H. Woo, Y. Y. Wang, Y. K. Bae, D. S. Yoon, et al., Increased expression of mitotic checkpoint genes in breast cancer cells with chromosomal instability, Clin. Cancer Res., 12 (2006), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0903 doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0903
![]() |
[46] |
K. A. Myrie, M. J. Percy, J. N. Azim, C. K. Neeley, E. M. Petty, Mutation and expression analysis of human BUB1 and BUB1B in aneuploid breast cancer cell lines, Cancer Lett., 152 (2000), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3835(00)00340-2 doi: 10.1016/S0304-3835(00)00340-2
![]() |
[47] |
M. Uhlen, P. Oksvold, L. Fagerberg, E. Lundberg, K. Jonasson, M. Forsberg, et al., Towards a knowledge-based human protein atlas, Nat. Biotechnol., 28 (2010), 1248–1250. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1210-1248 doi: 10.1038/nbt1210-1248
![]() |
[48] |
Q. Shi, Z. Zhou, N. S. Ye, Q. L. Chen, X. X. Zheng, M. S. Fang, MiR-181a inhibits non-small cell lung cancer cell proliferation by targeting CDK1, Cancer Biomarkers, 20 (2017), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.3233/cbm-170350 doi: 10.3233/cbm-170350
![]() |
[49] |
C. V. Dang, K. A. O'Donnell, L. I. Zeller, T. Nguyen, R. C. Osthus, F. Li, The c-Myc target gene network, Semin. Cancer Biol., 16 (2006), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.07.014 doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.07.014
![]() |
[50] |
A. N. Shajahan-Haq, K. L. Cook, J. L. Schwartz-Roberts, A. E. Eltayeb, D. M. Demas, A. M. Warri, et al., MYC regulates the unfolded protein response and glucose and glutamine uptake in endocrine resistant breast cancer, Mol. Cancer, 13 (2014), 239. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-13-239 doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-13-239
![]() |
[51] |
C. M. McNeil, C. M. Sergio, L. R. Anderson, C. K. Inman, S. A. Eggleton, N. C. Murphy, et al., c-Myc overexpression and endocrine resistance in breast cancer, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol., 102 (2006), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2006.09.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2006.09.028
![]() |
[52] |
S. Tsutsui, S. Ohno, S. Murakami, Y. Hachitanda, S. Oda, Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its relationship to the estrogen receptor status in 1029 patients with breast cancer, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 71 (2002), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013397232011 doi: 10.1023/A:1013397232011
![]() |
[53] |
C. J. Witton, J. R. Reeves, J. J. Going, T. G. Cooke, J. M. Bartlett, Expression of the HER1–4 family of receptor tyrosine kinases in breast cancer, J. Pathol., 200 (2003), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1370 doi: 10.1002/path.1370
![]() |
[54] | R. W. Turkington, Stimulation of mammary carcinoma cell proliferation by epithelial growth factor in vitro1, Cancer Res., 29 (1969), 1457–1458. |
[55] |
J. Taylor-Papadimitriou, M. Shearer, M. G. P. Stoker, Growth requirements of human mammary epithelial cells in culture, Int. J. Cancer, 20 (1977), 903–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910200613 doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910200613
![]() |
[56] |
M. G. P. Stoker, D. Pigott, J. Taylor-Papadimitriou, Response to epidermal growth factors of cultured human mammary epithelial cells from benign tumours, Nature, 264 (1976), 764–767. https://doi.org/10.1038/264764a0 doi: 10.1038/264764a0
![]() |
1. | Dingjun Lou, Zongrong Qin, The structure of minimally 2-subconnected graphs, 2022, 7, 2473-6988, 9871, 10.3934/math.2022550 |