Extrachromosomal circular DNAs in prostate adenocarcinoma: global characterizations and a novel prediction model

Background The role of focal amplifications and extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) is still uncertain in prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD). Here, we first mapped the global characterizations of eccDNA and then investigate the characterization of eccDNA-amplified key differentially expressed encoded genes (eKDEGs) in the progression, immune response and immunotherapy of PRAD. Methods Circular_seq was used in conjunction with the TCGA-PRAD transcriptome dataset to sequence, annotate, and filter for eccDNA-amplified differentially expressed coding genes (eDEGs) in PRAD and para-cancerous normal prostate tissues. Afterwards, risk models were created and eKDEGs linked to the PRAD prognosis were identified using Cox and Lasso regression analysis. The immune microenvironment of the risk model was quantified using a variety of immunological algorithms, which also identified its characteristics with regard to immunotherapy, immune response, and immune infiltration. Results In this research, there was no significant difference in the size, type, and chromosomal distribution of eccDNA in PRAD and para-cancerous normal prostate tissues. However, 4,290 differentially expressed eccDNAs were identified and 1,981 coding genes were amplified. Following that, 499 eDEGs were tested in conjunction with the transcriptome dataset from TCGA-PRAD. By using Cox and Lasso regression techniques, ZNF330 and PITPNM3 were identified as eKDEGs of PRAD, and a new PRAD risk model was conducted based on this. Survival analysis showed that the high-risk group of this model was associated with poor prognosis and validated in external data. Immune infiltration analysis showed that the model risks affected immune cell infiltration in PRAD, not only mediating changes in immune cell function, but also correlating with immunophenotyping. Furthermore, the high-risk group was negatively associated with anti- CTLA-4 /anti- PD-1 response and mutational burden. In addition, Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion analyses showed that high-risk group was more prone to immune escape. Drug sensitivity analyses identified 10 drugs, which were instructive for PRAD treatment. Conclusion ZNF330 and PITPNM are the eKDEGs for PRAD, which can be used as potential new prognostic markers. The two-factor combined risk model can effectively assess the survival and prognosis of PRAD patients, but also can predict the different responses of immunotherapy to PRAD patients, which may provide new ideas for PRAD immunotherapy.