Fig. 1: TAMs are positively correlated with mesenchymal status in GBM.

A Heat map showing 28 immune cell-associated mRNA signature expression patterns between two classified GBM subtypes (Cluster I and Cluster II). B Immune cell infiltration fractions (n = 22) were compared between mesenchymal and non-mesenchymal GBM. C Sensitivity and specificity of macrophage ssGSEA score on diagnosing mesenchymal GBM. D The scatterplot showing R coefficients of Pearson’s correlation between mesenchymal related signature scores and macrophage scores. E Column diagram showing R coefficients of Pearson’s correlation between macrophage score and expression of indicated markers. MES mesenchymal, PN proneural. F Representative IHC images and staining quantification of indicated markers in patients’ samples with low and high TAM infiltration. Scale bars: 50 μm. Low TAMs infiltration group, n = 14; High TAM infiltration group, n = 13. Data is presented as means ± SD. Statistical significance in (A), (B), and (F) was analyzed using Student’s t test. ns not significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001.