# Characterization of the Immune Cell Infiltration Landscape and a New Prognostic Score in Glioblastoma

Authors: Jian Wang; Shumei Chi
Journal: Journal of Healthcare Engineering
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive, malignant primary brain tumor, which has abundant tumor-infiltrating immune cells and stroma in the tumor microenvironment (TME). So far, the TME landscape of GBM has not been elucidated. GBM samples were retrieved from TCGA and GEO databases. We used ESTIMATE and CIBERSORT algorithms to calculate risk score associated with TME, and immune cell infiltration (ICI) score of each patient is calculated by PCA. GSEA analysis is explored for each subgroup. Finally, the patient prognosis in different ICI score subgroup is determined. Two ICI clusters are determined in 208 GBM patients, and 207 differentially expressed genes (DGEs) are found between ICI clusters. And then, two gene clusters were determined. Finally, we obtained ICI score for each patient using principal component analysis (PCA). Patients were divided into high and low ICI score subgroups by setting the median as cutoff. Through GSEA, we found ECM-receptor interaction, mTOR signaling pathway, pathways in cancer, TGF-beta signaling pathway, and other immunosuppressive pathway related genes in the low ICI score group. Furthermore, patients with high ICI score group have more better prognosis. Targeting the stroma in GBM may be an effective new therapeutic approach, and the ICI score is an effective potential prognostic classifier of GBM.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Glioma is a common and lethal primary malignant central nervous system tumor with a poor prognosis. It accounts for 30% of all brain tumors and central nervous system tumors and 80% of all malignant brain tumors [1]. The median survival time of patients with glioma is about 20 to 36 months, and the survival time of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is less than 14 months [2]. At present, the mechanism of occurrence and development of GBM is still unclear, and exploring molecular indicators related to tumor staging and prognosis is conducive to the early diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic evaluation of GBM [3].In recent years, more and more evidence has shown that tumor microenvironment (TME) is involved in the occurrence and development of tumors [4, 5]. The interaction between tumor cells, stromal cells, and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (tumor-infiltrating immune cells, TIC) is critical to the progression of malignant tumors, including promotion of proliferation and immortality, invasion and metastasis, and immune surveillance evasion [6, 7]. TME affects clinical outcomes, including potential therapeutic regulation targets [8]. Some studies have reported that TICs represent a promising TME indicator to evaluate the therapeutic effect [9–11]. TIC components and their activation status are important parameters that affect patient prognosis and tumor characteristics [12]. Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) treatment can activate T cells and induce the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in tumor cells [13]. In many cancers, including CM, CD8+ T cell activation can prolong the survival time of patients [14]. In the tumor microenvironment, immune cells can play an anti-glioma effect. At the same time, the interaction between glioma cells and other immune cells can promote the immune escape of glioma cells [15].Immunotherapy activates the host’s natural defense system to recognize and eliminate tumor cells [16]. It has become an effective treatment method with unparalleled synergistic survival benefits in a variety of cancers [17]. However, a major limitation of this treatment is that it can only benefit a small number of patients. Therefore, there is an urgent need to study new therapeutic markers to determine the ideal GBM subgroup for immunotherapy. Extensive research on TME has shown that tumor-infiltrating immune cells play an important role in tumor dissemination, recurrence, metastasis, and immunotherapy response [16, 17]. For example, increased levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TLSs) including CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells can improve the response and survival rate of immunotherapy [18]. It is worth noting that the excessive infiltration of extracellular matrix in tumor tissues will reduce the transport of TLS to the tumor [19]. This shows that the relationship between cells in TME is more critical than single-cell populations. So far, the broad landscape of TME in GBM has not been elucidated.In the past few decades, bioinformatics has continued to develop. The mechanism of the tumor development and metastasis of GBM has been further clarified [20]. In this study, we used the CIBERSORT and ESTIMATE algorithms to clarify the immune infiltration of tumor TME [21, 22]. In addition, we divided GBM into 2 discrete subtypes based on the pattern of immune cell infiltration. Preferably, we have established an ICI score to describe various immune environments, which can accurately predict the prognosis of patients.


## 2. Our Proposed Method

### 2.1. Data Sources

The gene expression data and corresponding clinical information of glioma tumor samples were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA,https://www.cancer.gov/tcga) and Gene Expression Comprehensive Gene (GEO, https://www.ncbi.nih.gov/geo/) database download. A total of 208 tumor samples are derived from two data (TCGA-GBM is derived from TCGA database, and GSE43378 is derived from GEO database). All microarray data are generated using Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 platform. Use ComBat algorithm (243) to remove batch effects for data merging.


### 2.2. Consensus Clustering of Tumor Infiltrating Immune Cells

The ESTIMATE algorithm (https://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org/estimate/) is used to calculate the matrix score and immune score of the TCGA-GBM dataset and GSE43378 dataset. Use the CIBERSORT algorithm (https://cibersort.stanford.edu/) to infer the relative proportion of 22 tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIIC) subtypes. According to the ICI mode of each sample, the GBM hierarchical agglomerative clustering is performed. Use the ConsensuClusterPlus R package to perform unsupervised clustering, repeated 1000 times to ensure classification stability.


### 2.3. The DEGs Related to ICI Cluster

Patients are divided into different ICI clusters according to the immune cell infiltration, and the limma R package is used to determine the DEGs between ICI clusters to find out the genes related to the ICI pattern. The difference must meet the following conditions:p < 0.05 (adjuste) and absolute fold-change >1.


## 2.1. Data Sources

The gene expression data and corresponding clinical information of glioma tumor samples were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA,https://www.cancer.gov/tcga) and Gene Expression Comprehensive Gene (GEO, https://www.ncbi.nih.gov/geo/) database download. A total of 208 tumor samples are derived from two data (TCGA-GBM is derived from TCGA database, and GSE43378 is derived from GEO database). All microarray data are generated using Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 platform. Use ComBat algorithm (243) to remove batch effects for data merging.


## 2.2. Consensus Clustering of Tumor Infiltrating Immune Cells

The ESTIMATE algorithm (https://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org/estimate/) is used to calculate the matrix score and immune score of the TCGA-GBM dataset and GSE43378 dataset. Use the CIBERSORT algorithm (https://cibersort.stanford.edu/) to infer the relative proportion of 22 tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIIC) subtypes. According to the ICI mode of each sample, the GBM hierarchical agglomerative clustering is performed. Use the ConsensuClusterPlus R package to perform unsupervised clustering, repeated 1000 times to ensure classification stability.


## 2.3. The DEGs Related to ICI Cluster

Patients are divided into different ICI clusters according to the immune cell infiltration, and the limma R package is used to determine the DEGs between ICI clusters to find out the genes related to the ICI pattern. The difference must meet the following conditions:p < 0.05 (adjuste) and absolute fold-change >1.


## 3. Dimensionality Reduction and Generation of ICI Score

According to the expression of DEGs, the unsupervised clustering method is used to classify TCGA patients. The DEG values that are positively correlated and negatively correlated with cluster markers are called ICI gene markers A and B, respectively. The Boruta algorithm is used to use principal component analysis to reduce the dimensionality of ICI gene markers A and B, and the principal component 1 is extracted as the marker score. Finally, we use the method similar to gene expression grade index to define the ICI score of each patient:(1)ICI score=∑PC1A−∑PC1B.All statistical analysis is performed using R software. The Wilcoxon test is used to compare the two groups, and the Kruskal–Wallis test is used to compare three or more groups. The median divided the patients into two subtypes, and the Kaplan–Meier survival curve is drawn and compared using the log-rank test. The definition of two-tailedp < 0.05 is statistically significant.


## 4. Experimental Results

### 4.1. Immune Infiltration in TME of GBM

Using CIBERSORT and ESTIMATE algorithms, we quantify immune cells in GBM tumor tissues, as shown in Figure1(a). Based on 99 tumor samples with immune cell infiltration (ICI) profiles from the metacohort (TCGA-GBM and GSE43378), the R software Conesus Clusterplus software package is used for unsupervised clustering, and GBM patients were divided into two different subtypes. Survival analysis showed a significant statistical difference between the two subtypes (log-rank test, p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1(b). Then, we compared the immune cell composition of TME to further clarify the biological differences of different subtypes. Among the two immune subtypes, compared with ICI cluster A, ICI cluster B has a better prognosis, and the immune score is significantly higher. Among them, ICI cluster B is mainly infiltrated by naive B cells, activated NK cells, monocytes, activated dendritic cells, eosinophils, and macrophages M1 and M2, while ICI cluster A is mainly infiltrated by B memory cells, T regulatory cells, and resting NK cell, as shown in Figure 1(c). In addition, we drew a correlation coefficient heat map to visualize the interaction of immune cells in TME, as shown in Figure 1(d). We also analyzed two important immune checkpoints in each ICI subtype, namely, PD1, PD-L1, and CTLA4. The expression level of CTLA4 in ICI cluster B is significantly increased, while the expression level of CTLA4 in ICI cluster A is lower. The Wilcoxon test is used to detect the significant difference between the expression levels of two different ICI subtypes of immune cells and CTLA4, as shown in Figure 1(e).Figure 1
The immuno-cell infiltration in the TME of GBM. (a) The two clusters of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in two independent GBM cohorts. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in ICI cluster A and B. Log-rank test showed an overallp < 0.001. (c) The fraction of tumor-infiltrating immune cells, immune score, and stromal score of two ICI clusters. The statistical difference of two ICI clusters is compared through the Wilcoxon test. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (d) Cellular interaction of the tumor-infiltrating immune cell types. (e) Difference in CTLA4 expression between distinct ICI clusters (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)


### 4.2. Identify Immune-Related Gene Subtypes

We used the R software limma software package to perform a difference analysis to analyze the transcriptome differences between the two ICI clusters and obtain 207 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) to analyze their biological characteristics. We performed unsupervised clustering on the DGEs obtained from the previous difference analysis and divided 208 BGM patients into two gene clusters, namely, gene clusters A and B. ICI gene marker A represents a positive correlation between gene markers and gene clusters, there are 42 in total, and the remaining DEGs are called ICI gene markers B. The heat map of genotyping is shown in Figure2(a). At the same time, we use Boruta algorithm to reduce the dimensionality of ICI gene signatures A and B. The significant enrichment biological process obtained by GSEA analysis is shown in Figures 2(b) and 2(c).Figure 2
Identification of immunogenic gene clusters. (a) The two clusters of DEGs between two ICI cluster groups to classify patients into two groups: gene clusters A and B. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in gene cluster A and B. Log-rank test showed an overallp < 0.001. (c) and (d) Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the two ICI-relevant signature genes: ICI signature genes A (b) and B (c). (e) The fraction of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and immune and stromal scores of two gene clusters. The statistical difference of three ICI clusters is compared through the Wilcoxon test. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (f) and (g) Difference in PD1 (f (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05)) and PD-L1 (g (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.001)) expression between different ICI gene clusters.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)Afterwards, we used Kaplan–Meier analysis to find that, in the overall cohort, patients with gene group B had a better prognosis, while patients with gene group A had a worse prognosis (log-rank test,p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 2(d). As shown in Figure 2(e), gene cluster A shows increased infiltration of T regulatory cells, resting NK cells, and macrophages M0; gene cluster B shows the highest infiltration rate of activated NK cells, monocytes, and eosinophils. The active immunophenotype is characterized by the presence of plasma cells and memory-activated CD4+ T cells. According to previous studies, T regulatory cells are immune cells that have been anti-tumor. However, what is interesting is that we found that gene cluster A is associated with a significantly high matrix score. Just as previous studies have found, many stromal cell infiltrations affect the migration of immune cells to the tumor cells to play an anti-tumor effect. The expression level of PD1 and PD-L1 in gene cluster A is significantly increased, while the expression level of CTLA4 in gene cluster B is lower. The Wilcoxon test is used to detect the significant difference between the two different genotypes of immune cells and the expression levels of PD1/PD-L1, as shown in Figures 2(f) and 2(g).


### 4.3. Construction of ICI Score

We use principal component analysis (PCA) to calculate two total scores to quantify the patient’s ICI infiltration: (1) Score A represents the ICI score of ICI feature gene A (ISA) and (2) Score B represents the ICI score of ICI signature gene B (ISB). In this study, the individual score of each patient is calculated by the combination of ISA and ISB, and the prognostic feature score is obtained, which is defined as the ICI score. Using the median as the cutoff value, GBN patients were divided into two groups with high ICI score and low ICI score. Figure3(a) shows the patient distribution of the two gene clusters. In order to analyze the immune activity and tolerance of each group, we first selected CD274, PDCD1, CTLA4, IDO1, HAVCR2, and LAG3 and, as immune checkpoint related markers, CD8A, PRF1, CXCL9, CXCL10, IFNG, GZMA, GZMB, TNF, and TBX2 serve as a marker for immune activity. We observed that IDO1, CD274, PRF1, GZMB, CXCL9, and TBX2 were significantly overexpressed in the high ICI group (Wilcoxon test), as shown in Figure 3(b). In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) showed that, in the group with low ICI score, VEGF, TGF-b, and cancer-related pathway signaling pathways were significantly enriched, while in the group with high ICI score, there is no significant enrichment of signals, as shown in Figure 3(c).Figure 3
Calculate for the ICI scores. (a) Alluvial diagram of ICI gene cluster distribution in groups with different ICI clusters, ICI scores, and survival states. (b) Immune checkpoint-relevant genes and immune-activation-relevant genes expressed in high and low ICI score subgroups. (c) Enrichment plots in the low ICI score subgroup. (d) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of all patients in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test,p < 0.001. (e) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in GSE43378 cohort in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test, p = 0.001. (f) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in TCGA-GBM cohort in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test, p = 0.012.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Subsequent analysis included evaluating the impact of the ICI score on the prognosis. Kaplan–Meier is used to analyze the ICI score subgroups, and the results showed that the OS rate of the high ICI score group is significantly better than that of the low ICI score group (log-rank test,p < 0.0001), as shown in Figure 3(d). In addition, Figure 3(e) is the prognostic efficiency of ICI score that is verified in GenBank: GSE43378, and Figure 3(f) shows the TCGA-GBM cohorts.


## 4.1. Immune Infiltration in TME of GBM

Using CIBERSORT and ESTIMATE algorithms, we quantify immune cells in GBM tumor tissues, as shown in Figure1(a). Based on 99 tumor samples with immune cell infiltration (ICI) profiles from the metacohort (TCGA-GBM and GSE43378), the R software Conesus Clusterplus software package is used for unsupervised clustering, and GBM patients were divided into two different subtypes. Survival analysis showed a significant statistical difference between the two subtypes (log-rank test, p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1(b). Then, we compared the immune cell composition of TME to further clarify the biological differences of different subtypes. Among the two immune subtypes, compared with ICI cluster A, ICI cluster B has a better prognosis, and the immune score is significantly higher. Among them, ICI cluster B is mainly infiltrated by naive B cells, activated NK cells, monocytes, activated dendritic cells, eosinophils, and macrophages M1 and M2, while ICI cluster A is mainly infiltrated by B memory cells, T regulatory cells, and resting NK cell, as shown in Figure 1(c). In addition, we drew a correlation coefficient heat map to visualize the interaction of immune cells in TME, as shown in Figure 1(d). We also analyzed two important immune checkpoints in each ICI subtype, namely, PD1, PD-L1, and CTLA4. The expression level of CTLA4 in ICI cluster B is significantly increased, while the expression level of CTLA4 in ICI cluster A is lower. The Wilcoxon test is used to detect the significant difference between the expression levels of two different ICI subtypes of immune cells and CTLA4, as shown in Figure 1(e).Figure 1
The immuno-cell infiltration in the TME of GBM. (a) The two clusters of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in two independent GBM cohorts. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in ICI cluster A and B. Log-rank test showed an overallp < 0.001. (c) The fraction of tumor-infiltrating immune cells, immune score, and stromal score of two ICI clusters. The statistical difference of two ICI clusters is compared through the Wilcoxon test. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (d) Cellular interaction of the tumor-infiltrating immune cell types. (e) Difference in CTLA4 expression between distinct ICI clusters (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)


## 4.2. Identify Immune-Related Gene Subtypes

We used the R software limma software package to perform a difference analysis to analyze the transcriptome differences between the two ICI clusters and obtain 207 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) to analyze their biological characteristics. We performed unsupervised clustering on the DGEs obtained from the previous difference analysis and divided 208 BGM patients into two gene clusters, namely, gene clusters A and B. ICI gene marker A represents a positive correlation between gene markers and gene clusters, there are 42 in total, and the remaining DEGs are called ICI gene markers B. The heat map of genotyping is shown in Figure2(a). At the same time, we use Boruta algorithm to reduce the dimensionality of ICI gene signatures A and B. The significant enrichment biological process obtained by GSEA analysis is shown in Figures 2(b) and 2(c).Figure 2
Identification of immunogenic gene clusters. (a) The two clusters of DEGs between two ICI cluster groups to classify patients into two groups: gene clusters A and B. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in gene cluster A and B. Log-rank test showed an overallp < 0.001. (c) and (d) Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the two ICI-relevant signature genes: ICI signature genes A (b) and B (c). (e) The fraction of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and immune and stromal scores of two gene clusters. The statistical difference of three ICI clusters is compared through the Wilcoxon test. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. (f) and (g) Difference in PD1 (f (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05)) and PD-L1 (g (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.001)) expression between different ICI gene clusters.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)Afterwards, we used Kaplan–Meier analysis to find that, in the overall cohort, patients with gene group B had a better prognosis, while patients with gene group A had a worse prognosis (log-rank test,p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 2(d). As shown in Figure 2(e), gene cluster A shows increased infiltration of T regulatory cells, resting NK cells, and macrophages M0; gene cluster B shows the highest infiltration rate of activated NK cells, monocytes, and eosinophils. The active immunophenotype is characterized by the presence of plasma cells and memory-activated CD4+ T cells. According to previous studies, T regulatory cells are immune cells that have been anti-tumor. However, what is interesting is that we found that gene cluster A is associated with a significantly high matrix score. Just as previous studies have found, many stromal cell infiltrations affect the migration of immune cells to the tumor cells to play an anti-tumor effect. The expression level of PD1 and PD-L1 in gene cluster A is significantly increased, while the expression level of CTLA4 in gene cluster B is lower. The Wilcoxon test is used to detect the significant difference between the two different genotypes of immune cells and the expression levels of PD1/PD-L1, as shown in Figures 2(f) and 2(g).


## 4.3. Construction of ICI Score

We use principal component analysis (PCA) to calculate two total scores to quantify the patient’s ICI infiltration: (1) Score A represents the ICI score of ICI feature gene A (ISA) and (2) Score B represents the ICI score of ICI signature gene B (ISB). In this study, the individual score of each patient is calculated by the combination of ISA and ISB, and the prognostic feature score is obtained, which is defined as the ICI score. Using the median as the cutoff value, GBN patients were divided into two groups with high ICI score and low ICI score. Figure3(a) shows the patient distribution of the two gene clusters. In order to analyze the immune activity and tolerance of each group, we first selected CD274, PDCD1, CTLA4, IDO1, HAVCR2, and LAG3 and, as immune checkpoint related markers, CD8A, PRF1, CXCL9, CXCL10, IFNG, GZMA, GZMB, TNF, and TBX2 serve as a marker for immune activity. We observed that IDO1, CD274, PRF1, GZMB, CXCL9, and TBX2 were significantly overexpressed in the high ICI group (Wilcoxon test), as shown in Figure 3(b). In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) showed that, in the group with low ICI score, VEGF, TGF-b, and cancer-related pathway signaling pathways were significantly enriched, while in the group with high ICI score, there is no significant enrichment of signals, as shown in Figure 3(c).Figure 3
Calculate for the ICI scores. (a) Alluvial diagram of ICI gene cluster distribution in groups with different ICI clusters, ICI scores, and survival states. (b) Immune checkpoint-relevant genes and immune-activation-relevant genes expressed in high and low ICI score subgroups. (c) Enrichment plots in the low ICI score subgroup. (d) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of all patients in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test,p < 0.001. (e) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in GSE43378 cohort in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test, p = 0.001. (f) Kaplan–Meier curves are plotted to show the OS of patients in TCGA-GBM cohort in high and low ICI score groups. Log-rank test, p = 0.012.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Subsequent analysis included evaluating the impact of the ICI score on the prognosis. Kaplan–Meier is used to analyze the ICI score subgroups, and the results showed that the OS rate of the high ICI score group is significantly better than that of the low ICI score group (log-rank test,p < 0.0001), as shown in Figure 3(d). In addition, Figure 3(e) is the prognostic efficiency of ICI score that is verified in GenBank: GSE43378, and Figure 3(f) shows the TCGA-GBM cohorts.


## 5. The Analysis and Discussion

At present, the understanding of glioma is no longer limited to the original histopathological diagnosis, but has transitioned to molecular pathology diagnosis; 1p/19q co-deletion, IDH mutation, and other molecular markers are used in the diagnosis, treatment, and diagnosis of glioma; however, the prognosis is judged, but the treatment effect of glioma is still unsatisfactory, and the median survival time is 20 to 36 months. Advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have improved our understanding of transcriptional changes in gliomas. Although more and more biomarkers related to the survival of glioma patients have been discovered, the heterogeneity of the tumor immune microenvironment and the regulatory mechanism of key genes that interact with the immune microenvironment have not yet been elucidated. Therefore, the use of bioinformatics to analyze and mine public databases can discover new glioma immune-related differential genes and identify different subtypes, which will help the diagnosis and treatment of glioma in the future.More and more evidences show that immune cell dysfunction in GBM-TME promotes immune suppression, thereby promoting the survival and progression of related tumors. In this study, we divided 208 GBM samples into two different immune subtypes based on the ICI of each GBM sample. Our analysis shows that the density of activated NK cells, monocytes, activated dendritic cells, eosinophils, macrophages M1, and higher immune scores are related to the prognosis of patients, which is consistent with previous studies. This emphasizes the fact that the pre-existing immune response has anti-tumor effects and positively affects the response to immunotherapy. Molecular analysis of GBM has identified a series of cytokines, chemokines, and other TME components, which determine the host’s ability to resist the tumor immune response. In the process of tumorigenesis, these molecular changes may interfere with the intercellular communication between infiltrating immune cells, thereby breaking the balance between immune tolerance and immune activity.Subsequently, we analyzed the differential genes of different immune subtypes and performed unsupervised clustering of 207 DEGs to identify two different genotypes. We found that gene cluster A showed T regulatory cells and resting NK cells and macrophages M0 infiltration increased; gene cluster B showed the highest infiltration rate of activated NK cells, monocytes, and eosinophils. The prognosis of gene cluster A population is poor. According to previous studies, T regulatory cells and macrophages M0 have anti-tumor effects, but what is interesting is that we found that gene cluster A infiltrates a large amount of matrix. Previous studies have found that a large number of stromal components may interfere with the arrival of immune cells and cytokines around tumor cells, preventing them from acting as anti-tumor agents. This seems to indicate that the content of a single immune cell cannot fully understand the patient’s immune infiltration and prognosis. At the same time, in addition to immune cells, we should also pay attention to the matrix components in the tumor microenvironment.Individual heterogeneity has always been the reason for the difference in tumor treatment effect. For this reason, we used Boruta algorithm to construct the ICI score of everyone to quantify the ICI pattern and identify the tumor subtypes of GBM. In the past, similar prognostic models based on tumor subtype-specific biomarkers have been established in other tumors and have good predictive effects. Through GSEA, we found ECM-receptor interaction, mTOR signaling pathway, pathways in cancer, TGF-beta signaling pathway, and other immunosuppressive pathway-related genes. These genes were significantly enriched in the group with lower ICI score. Extracellular matrix (ECM) is a complex mixture composed of structural macromolecules and functional macromolecules. It plays an important role in the formation of tissues and organs and the maintenance of cell tissue structure and function. The specific interaction between cells and ECM is mediated by not only transmembrane molecules, mainly integrins, but also proteoglycans, CD36, or other cell surface-related components. These interactions lead to direct or indirect control of cell activities such as proliferation, apoptosis, adhesion, migration, and differentiation. Similarly, members of the TGF-beta family also regulate the abovementioned wide range of cellular functions. A recent study showed that activating the mTOR/AKT signaling pathway can promote the proliferation and invasion of glioma cells. Therefore, targeting the mTOR/AKT signaling pathway may be an effective target for the treatment of glioma. Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) signaling is a typical way to regulate tumorigenesis and tissue homeostasis, and it has been confirmed to be involved in the pathogenesis of various malignant tumors including glioma. In particular, the TGF-β pathway is a key regulator of glioma stem cells (GSCs).


## 6. Conclusion

In conclusion, in this study, we comprehensively analyzed the ICI landscape of GBM, and constructed an ICI model for individual prognosis assessment and immunophenotype, expanded the application of GBM genomics data, and, better from the perspective of immunology, understood the GBM tumor microenvironment. The differences in ICI patterns are related to tumor heterogeneity and prognostic complexity. Therefore, this research on tumor ICI model can transform tumor genomics knowledge into a more clinically meaningful evaluation model.



---

*Source: 4326728-2022-03-09.xml*