Fig. 5: Molecular heterogeneity of different fusion types of tRCC. | Nature Communications

Fig. 5: Molecular heterogeneity of different fusion types of tRCC.

From: Proteogenomic characterization of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma

Fig. 5

a Volcano plot showing DEPs (two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p value <0.05, FC > 2) of TFEB-tRCC and TFE3-tRCC tumors. b, c Comparisons of TFEB and TFE3 product levels and activities in TFEB-tRCC (n = 5) and TFE3-tRCC (n = 54) tumors. d DEPs in TFEB-tRCC and TFE3-tRCC tumors enriched biological pathways. e Elevated proteins in different TFE3-tRCC fusion types and involved biological processes. f Comparison of TFE3 activities and kidney signature scores among different TFE3-tRCC fusion types (APSCR1, n = 18; LUC7L3, n = 3; PRCC, n = 4, MED15, n = 4; SFPQ, n = 11; Rare, n = 9; NONO, n = 5). P values are derived from two-sides Wilcoxon rank-sum test. g Kaplan–Meier curves of PFS for patients with different TFE3 activities and kidney signature scores (two-sided log-rank test). h Kaplan–Meier curves of PFS for ASPSCR1 and LUC7L3 TFE3-tRCC tumors versus other TFE3-tRCC tumors in this cohort (two-sided log-rank test). i Proportions of ISUP grades for ASPSCR1 and LUC7L3 TFE3-tRCC tumors versus other TFE3-tRCC tumors (One-sided Fisher’s exact test). Data in b, c, f are shown using boxplots. Boxplots show the median (central line), the 25–75% IQR (box limits), the ±1.5 × IQR (whiskers). P values are derived from two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Back to article page