Cohort analysis reveals an m5C-related two-gene signature prognosticates oral squamous cell carcinoma survival, highlighting potential targets for individualized risk stratification.
Purpose To evaluate the prognostic value of RNA 5-methylcytosine (m5C)-related biomarkers in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Method The TCGA-OSCC cohort (n = 324) was used as the discovery cohort, and GSE41613 (n = 97) served as the independent validation cohort. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) quantified m5C scores in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) OSCC cohort. Kaplan–Meier analysis assessed survival, and single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) evaluated immune infiltration. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), differential expression, and Cox regression constructed the prognostic signature. Drug sensitivity and Gene Ontology (GO)/Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses were conducted. Biomarker expression was validated by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), Western blotting, and immunofluorescence. Result Patients with a lower level of m 5 C had a longer lifespan than those with a high level of m 5 C. Different immune cells in the tumour microenvironment were correlated with m5C levels. Integration of m 5 C score-associated WGCNA modules with tumor-versus-normal DEGs identified 217 m 5 C-related genes, from which Cox regression further selected ZNF662 and HMMR to establish the dual-gene prognostic signature. Pharmacological sensitivity analysis showed that the therapeutic effects of the high-risk and low-risk groups were not the same. Functional enrichment showed neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction and calcium-signaling pathways. RT-qPCR, Western blotting and immunofluorescence confirmed decreased ZNF662 and increased HMMR expression in OSCC cell lines, mirroring the low-ZNF662/high-HMMR expression pattern associated with the high-risk group in silico. Conclusion The ZNF662/HMMR signature represents a parsimonious m5C score-associated prognostic model that may complement conventional clinicopathological assessment for OSCC risk stratification and help identify high-risk patients who may require closer surveillance and individualized management, pending prospective validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: