P0983 - Bioinformatic Analysis of Prognostic Value of EME1 and EME2 in Gastric Cancer

John Pocholo W. Tuason, MD, Chenyu Sun, MD, MSc, Chandur Bhan, MD, Na Hyun Kim, MD, Nikitha Manem, MD, Apurwa Prasad, MD, Humaed Mohammed Abdul, MD
AMITA Health Saint Joseph Hospital, Chicago, IL

Introduction: As the fourth leading cause cancer-associated death, gastric cancer (GC) is a common malignant tumor worldwide. EME1 (essential meiotic endonuclease 1) is involved in the cleavage of branched DNA structures, especially those arising during stalled DNA replication, and EME2 (essential meiotic endonuclease 2) appears to play a particularly prominent role in the cleavage of replication forks (RF). They are thought to play distinct roles in the maintenance of genome stability. Therefore, this study was conducted to explore the potential prognostic and diagnostic value of EME1 and EME2 in Gastric Cancer.

Methods: Analysis of different expression levels of EME1 and EME2 between tumor and normal tissues was assessed via UALCAN online tool by using students’ t-test with p-value < 0.05 being considered as statistically significant. Survival analysis was conducted via Kaplan-Meier Plotter on line tool. The best discriminate cut-off point between the high and low expression groups was assessed by the ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) values for EME1 and EME2. Log2 transformed FPKM was used. R software by using pROC and ggplot2 packages were used. Data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).

Results: Based on data obtained from TCGA and analysis result via ULCAN, the mRNA expression levels of EME1 (P < 0.001) and EME2 (P < 0.001) were significantly elevated in the GC tissues. Survival analysis via Kaplan-Meier Plotter found that higher expression of EME1 was associated with worse overall survival with HR of 1.89 (95% 1.31-2.73, P < 0.001), but higher expression of EME2 was not associated with change of prognosis (p = 0.19). Further analysis of ROC curve shown that AUC of EME1 was 0.955 (0.933-0.976) for GC, however, the value of EME2 was less ideal with AUC of 0.724 (0.933-0.976).

Discussion: EME1 and EME2 are overexpressed in GC. EME1 is associated with worse prognosis, and it can be a good candidate for diagnosing GC.


Figure: Graphs and Charts

	Comparison	P Value
EME1	Gastric cancer vs Normal gastric tissue	1.6245E-12
EME2	Gastric cancer vs Normal gastric tissue	2.1754E-05

Table: P value results


Disclosures:
John Pocholo Tuason indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Chenyu Sun indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Chandur Bhan indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Na Hyun Kim indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Nikitha Manem indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Apurwa Prasad indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Humaed Mohammed Abdul indicated no relevant financial relationships.


John Pocholo W. Tuason, MD, Chenyu Sun, MD, MSc, Chandur Bhan, MD, Na Hyun Kim, MD, Nikitha Manem, MD, Apurwa Prasad, MD, Humaed Mohammed Abdul, MD. P0983 - Bioinformatic Analysis of Prognostic Value of EME1 and EME2 in Gastric Cancer, ACG 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting Abstracts. Las Vegas, Nevada: American College of Gastroenterology.