Fig. 2

Clinical outcomes and biological functions between ERS clusters. A The PCA diagram shows the different gene expression patterns between ERS clusters 1 and 2. B KM plot shows the OS analysis of ERS clusters 1 and 2 in the combined GEO cohort. The log-rank test was used for KM survival analysis. C The heatmap reveals the relationships between ERS clusters and 11 critical biological pathways. Rows of the heat map represent gene expression grouped by pathway. Red and blue colors represent high and low expression, respectively. FGFR3 gene signature (FGFR3), CD8 T-effector signature (CD8 + Teff), antigen processing machinery (APM), immune checkpoint signature (ICI), MKI67 and cell cycle genes (cell cycle), DNA replication-dependent histones (Histones), DNA damage repair genes (DDR), TGF-β receptor and ligand (TGFB), pan-tissue fibroblast TGF-β response genes (F-TBRS), angiogenesis signature (Angio), epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers. D The difference in mRNA expression of 20 inhibitory immune checkpoints between the ERS clusters. E The boxplot shows the differences in enrichment scores of cancer immunity cycles calculated by ssGSEA between ERS clusters. The seven steps include release of cancer cell antigens (Step 1), cancer antigen presentation (Step 2), anticancer immune priming and activation (Step3), trafficking of immune cells to tumors (Step 4), infiltration of immune cells into tumors (Step 5), recognition of cancer cells by T cells (Step 6), and killing of cancer cells (Step 7). F The distribution of 28 types of immune cells infiltration between ERS clusters inferred by ssGSEA analysis. And * represents a P-value less than 0.05, ** represents a P-value less than 0.01, *** represents a P-value less than 0.001, and **** represents a P-value less than 0.0001. The difference between the two groups was assessed using the Wilcox test