The global burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as a preeminent etiology of cancer‐related mortalities sheds light on the imperative necessity for a more profound comprehension of its fundamental biological mechanisms. In this context, the precise function of the 26S proteasome non‐ATPase regulatory subunit 11 (PSMD11) in HCC remains equivocal. To address this vital knowledge gap, we interrogated the cancer genome atlas, genotype‐tissue expression, International cancer genome consortium, gene expression omnibus, the cancer cell line encyclopedia, and tumor immune single‐cell hub databases to evaluate the expression pattern of PSMD11, further confirmed by reverse‐transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) in LO2, MHCC‐97H, HepG2, and SMMC7721 cell lines. Additionally, we meticulously assessed the clinical significance and prognostic value of PSMD11, while also exploring its potential molecular mechanisms in HCC. Our findings demonstrated that PSMD11 was highly expressed in HCC tissues, correlating with pathologic stage and histologic grade, thereby conferring a poor prognosis. Mechanistically, PSMD11 appears to exert its tumorigenic effects through the modulation of tumor metabolism‐related pathways. Impressively, low PSMD11 expression was associated with increased immune effector cell infiltration, heightened responsiveness to molecular targeted drugs such as dasatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and imatinib, as well as reduced somatic mutation rate. Additionally, we demonstrated that PSMD11 might modulate HCC development through intricate interactions with cuproptosis‐related genes ATP7A, DLAT, and PDHA1. Our comprehensive analyses collectively suggest that PSMD11 represents a promising therapeutic target in HCC.

Background Liver metastases are a major contributor to the poor immunotherapy response in colorectal cancer patients. However, the distinctions in the immune microenvironment between primary tumors and liver metastases are poorly characterized. The goal of this study was to compare the expression profile of multiple immune cells to further analyze the similarities and differences between the microenvironments of liver metastases and the primary tumor. Methods Tissues from 17 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent resection of primary and liver metastases was analyzed using multispectral immunofluorescence. The expression of multiple immune cells (CD8, Foxp3, CD68, CD163, CD20, CD11c, CD66b, CD56, PD-L1, INF-γ, Ki67 and VEGFR-2) in the tumor center (TC), tumor invasive front (< 150 µm from the tumor center, TF) and peritumoral region (≥ 150 µm from the tumor center, PT) was evaluated via comparison. The expression of CD68 and CD163 in different regions was further analyzed based on the cell colocalization method. In addition, different immune phenotypes were studied and compared according to the degree of CD8 infiltration. Results The expression trends of 12 markers in the TF and TC regions were basically the same in the primary tumor and liver metastasis lesions. However, in comparison of the TF and PT regions, the expression trends were not identical between primary and liver metastases, especially CD163, which was more highly expressed in the PT region relative to the TF region. In the contrast of different space distribution, the expression of CD163 was higher in liver metastases than in the primary foci. Further analysis of CD68 and CD163 via colocalization revealed that the distribution of macrophages in liver metastases was significantly different from that in the primary foci, with CD68−CD163+ macrophages predominating in liver metastases. In addition, among the three immunophenotypes, CD163 expression was highest in the immune rejection phenotype. Conclusions The immune cells found in the primary tumors of colorectal cancer differed from those in liver metastases in terms of their spatial distribution. More immunosuppressive cells were present in the liver metastases, with the most pronounced differential distribution found for macrophages. CD68−CD163+ macrophages may be associated with intrahepatic immunosuppression and weak immunotherapeutic effects.

No abstract