N6-methyladenosine-related microRNAs risk model trumps the isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status as a predictive biomarker for the prognosis and immunotherapy in lower grade gliomas

AIM: Lower grade gliomas [LGGs; World Health Organization (WHO) grades 2 and 3], owing to the heterogeneity of their clinical behavior, present a therapeutic challenge to neurosurgeons. The aim of this study was to explore the N6-methyladenosine (m(6)A) modification landscape in the LGGs and to develop an m(6)A-related microRNA (miRNA) risk model to provide new perspectives for the treatment and prognostic assessment of LGGs. METHODS: Messenger RNA (mRNA) and miRNA expression data of LGGs were extracted from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA) databases. An m(6)A-related miRNA risk model was constructed via least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), univariate, and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Next, Kaplan-Meier analysis, principal-component analysis (PCA), functional enrichment analysis, immune infiltrate analysis, dynamic nomogram, and drug sensitivity prediction were used to evaluate this risk model. RESULTS: Firstly, six m(6)A-related miRNAs with independent prognostic value were selected based on clinical information and used to construct a risk model. Subsequently, compared with low-risk group, LGGs in the high-risk group had a higher m(6)A writer and reader scores, but a lower eraser score. Moreover, LGGs in the high-risk group had a significantly worse clinical prognosis than those in the low-risk group. Simultaneously, this risk model outperformed other clinicopathological variables in the prognosis prediction of LGGs. Immune infiltrate analysis revealed that the proportion of M2 macrophages, regulatory T (Treg) cells, and the expression levels of exhausted immune response markers were significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. Finally, this study constructed an easy-to-use and free dynamic nomogram to help clinicians use this risk model to aid in diagnosis and prognosis assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a m(6)A-related risk model and uncovered two different m(6)A modification landscapes in LGGs. Moreover, this risk model may provide guidance and help in clinical prognosis assessment and immunotherapy response prediction for LGGs.