Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of various indicators implying the potential significance of CARM1 in different tumors

From: Systematic pan-cancer landscape identifies CARM1 as a potential prognostic and immunological biomarker

Tumor type CARM1 RNA expression CARM1 protein expression High vs Low CARM1 expression group Predominant genomic alterations Survival (altered vs unaltered group) Correlation with CARM1 mRNA expression Prognostic value assessment Evidence from in vitro/in vivo cancer model studies
OS DFS TMB MSI Tumor neoantigen Researches on CARM1 in this cancer Effect of CARM1 on this cancer
ACC NS Related to the pathological stages ** *** Amplification (3.3%) NA PC ** NS NS Unfavorable NA NA
BLCA Up Correlated with subtypes ** ** Amplification (2.19%) DFS* NS NS NS Unfavorable NA NA
BRCA Up Up **# NA Amplification (1.29%) NS PC ** NS PC ** Unfavorable, potentially associated with HER2 expression [13], [16], [17], [18] Pro-tumorgenic
CESE NS NA NA NA Amplification (1.35%) PFS*/DFS*** NS NS NS Unfavorable NA NA
CHOL Up NA NA NA NA NS NS NS NS Not prognostic NA NA
COAD Up Up NA NA Mutation (0.84%) PFS*/DFS* NS NS NS Unfavorable NA NA
DLBC Up NA NA NA Deep deletion (4.17%) NA NS NC ** NA Not prognostic [19] Pro-tumorgenic
ESCA Up Related to the pathological stages NA NA Deep deletion (1.1%) NA NS NS NA Not enough evidence NA NA
GBM NS NA * NA Amplification (0.84%) NS NS NS NS Not enough evidence [20] Pro-proliferative
HNSC Up NA * NA Mutation/Amplification (0.96%) OS** PC ** NC ** NA Unfavorable, related to TME NA NA
KICH Down Down NA NA NA NA NS NS NA Not enough evidence NA NA
KIRC Down Up *** NA Mutation (0.35%) NA NS NS NS Unfavorable, related to TME NA NA
KIRP NS NA *** NA NA NA NC * NS NS Unfavorable, related to TME NA NA
LAML NS NA NA NA Amplification (0.5%) NA NS NS NA Not prognostic [21] Pro-tumorgenic
LGG NS NA *** ** Amplification (1.95%) NA PC *** NS NS Unfavorable NA NA
LIHC Up NA NS# NA Deep deletion (0.27%) NA NC * NS NS Favorable in some subgroups [6], [22] Pro-proliferative; Antiproliferative
LUAD Up Up *** NA Mutation (0.88%) NS PC *** PC * NS Unfavorable [23] Pro-proliferative
LUSC Up Up *** NA Amplification (1.23%) NS NS PC *** NS Unfavorable, related to TME NA NA
MESO NA NA *** * Amplification (2.3%) NA NS NS NA Unfavorable NA NA
OV NS NA NS# NA Amplification (7.88%) NA NS NS NS Vary from subgroups NA NA
PAAD NS NA * NA Mutation (1.09%) NA PC * NS NA Not enough evidence [5] Antiproliferative
PCPG Up NA NA NA NA NA NS NS NA Not prognostic NA NA
PRAD Up NA NA NA Structural variant (0.4%) DFS* NS NS NS Not enough evidence [24] Pro-tumorigenic
READ Up NA NA NA NA NA NS NC *** NS Not prognostic NA NA
SARC NS NA NA NA Amplification (5.1%) NA PC ** PC ** NA Not prognostic [25] Pro-proliferative
SKCM NS NA ** NA Mutation (2.03%) NS PC * NC ** NS Not enough evidence NA NA
STAD Up NA NA NA Mutation (1.82%) OS* PC *** PC * PC * Not enough evidence NA NA
TGCT NS NA * NA NA NA NS NS NA Not enough evidence NA NA
THCA Up NA NS NA NA NA NC *** NS NS Not prognostic, related to TME NA NA
THYM Up NA NA NA NA NA NS NS NA Related to TME NA NA
UCEC Up NS NA NA Amplification (4.35%) NA NS NS NS Not prognostic NA NA
UCS NS Related to the pathological stages NA * Amplification (7.02%) NS NS NS NA Not enough evidence NA NA
UVM NA NA NA * Amplification (1.25%) NA NS PC * NA Not enough evidence NA NA
  1. NS not significance, P > 0.05, NA not available, PC positive correlation, NC negative correlation
  2. Superscript # indicates that more detailed subgroup analysis data on this index are provided in the supplementary material. In most tumors, CARM1 expression is correlated with MMRs and methyltransferases gene expression, which can be seen in Fig. 7. Considering that there are too many content about the correlation between CARM1 expression and immune cell infiltration, detailed information can be found in Table 3 and will not be summarized here. NS, P > 0.05; * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001