Fig. 4: EPO-GEMMs recapitulate transcriptional features of human gastric cancer subtypes.
From: Somatic mouse models of gastric cancer reveal genotype-specific features of metastatic disease
a, Heat map of DEGs across the indicated EPO-GEMM samples (each column represents one mouse; healthy n = 4, MSI n = 6, MSS-CIN n = 9, MSS-GS n = 6 independent samples derived from separate mice). Hierarchical clustering segregated all samples based on six signatures (1–6). Key pathways enriched in each signature are shown on the right. Complete lists of genes and pathway predictions are provided in Supplementary Table 1. TCA, tricarboxylic acid; ER, endoplasmic reticulum. b, Comparison of GSEA NES for Hallmark pathways enriched in EPO-GEMM (x axis) and human (y axis) tumors versus healthy stomach for the indicated genotypes/subtypes. Key pathways are highlighted. Circle size represents the adjusted P value. Complete lists of pathways and NES scores are provided in Supplementary Tables 2–4. c, Heat map of CIBERSORT signatures for distinct immune subpopulations in the indicated EPO-GEMM tumor and healthy gastric samples. d, Boxplots of CIBERSORT signature scores for the indicated immune populations and EPO-GEMM tumors ((n = 9 (MYC-p53−/−), n = 6 (MYC-Apc−/−), n = 6 (MYC-p53−/−-Msh2−/−) and n = 4 (healthy stomach) independent samples derived from separate mice). The center horizontal line denotes the median (50th percentile) value; the box extends from the 25th to the 75th percentile of each group’s distribution of values. The whiskers mark the 5th and 95th percentiles. Complete lists of CIBERSORT signature scores are provided in Supplementary Table 5. Two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
