Validating lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Bench to Bedside

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, with a 5-year survival rate below 20% for advanced-stage patients. This comprehensive review explores the rapidly evolving field of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) prognostic signatures for HCC, synthesizing evidence from multiple validation cohorts including TCGA and GEO databases. We examine the foundational biology establishing lncRNAs as key regulators in HCC pathogenesis, methodological frameworks for signature development using machine learning approaches like LASSO-Cox regression, optimization strategies addressing technical and biological challenges, and rigorous validation paradigms incorporating multi-omics data and functional studies. The analysis demonstrates that validated multi-lncRNA signatures—including models based on m6A modification, amino acid metabolism, and immune-related pathways—consistently outperform traditional clinical staging systems, with area under curve (AUC) values reaching 0.846 in some cohorts. These signatures not only predict survival but also inform immunotherapy response and potential therapeutic targeting, representing a paradigm shift in HCC prognostication and personalized treatment approaches.

The Biological Foundation: Understanding lncRNA Roles in HCC Pathogenesis

Clinical Context of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a major global health challenge, ranking as the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths [1]. With over 900,000 new cases annually, HCC accounts for 75-90% of all primary liver cancers [2] [3] [4]. Despite advances in therapeutic options, the five-year survival rate for advanced HCC patients remains below 20%, largely due to late diagnosis and heterogeneous treatment responses [5]. Most concerning are the exceptionally high recurrence rates of 60-70% within five years post-resection, creating a critical management challenge [2].

The disease typically arises in the context of chronic liver diseases including hepatitis B or C infection, alcoholic liver disease, and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease [1] [3]. This complex etiology contributes to significant molecular heterogeneity, which profoundly impacts treatment efficacy and patient prognosis [6]. The insidious onset of HCC means a majority of patients present with advanced disease stages, precluding curative surgical intervention and substantially diminishing survival prospects [2] [1].

Table 1: Current Challenges in HCC Clinical Management

Challenge Category	Specific Limitations	Clinical Impact
Diagnosis	Limited sensitivity of AFP for early-stage detection; inability of conventional imaging to identify micrometastatic disease [5]	Late-stage diagnosis in majority of patients
Prognostic Stratification	Inadequate accounting for molecular heterogeneity in current staging systems [6]	Inaccurate survival prediction and suboptimal treatment selection
Treatment Response	Low overall response rates (~20%) to immunotherapy; heterogeneous immune microenvironments [3]	Limited efficacy of systemic therapies
Recurrence Monitoring	High 5-year recurrence rates (60-70%) post-resection [2]	Poor long-term survival despite initial treatment success

Limitations of Current Prognostic Systems

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification system remains the global reference for HCC prognostication and treatment allocation, with the 2025 update preserving its direct linkage between stages and evidence-based first-option treatments [7]. However, this system faces significant limitations in addressing the profound molecular heterogeneity of HCC. The BCLC staging incorporates performance status, tumor burden, and liver function, but does not adequately account for biological variables that significantly influence outcomes [8].

Recognizing these limitations, the 2025 BCLC update has integrated the CUSE framework (Complexity, Uncertainty, Subjectivity, Emotion) to help multidisciplinary teams navigate evidence gaps and explicitly address uncertainty [7]. This framework turns "unavoidable doubt into a shared, iterative process" by defining therapeutic goals, grading options with evidence strength and gaps, aligning choices with comorbidities and patient values, and selecting plans with regular check-ins as new information emerges [7]. While this represents progress, it highlights the fundamental deficiency in objective molecular biomarkers to guide precision medicine approaches.

The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and ESMO guidelines emphasize standardized imaging using LI-RADS criteria and multiparametric CT or MRI for diagnosis and staging [8] [4]. However, the guidelines note that routine molecular analysis is not currently recommended for clinical decision-making, reflecting the translational gap between biomarker research and clinical application [8]. This gap is particularly problematic given that current biomarkers like alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) exhibit limited sensitivity for early-stage detection and response prediction [5].

The tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) introduces additional complexity, with immunosuppressive elements such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and inactivated M0 macrophages contributing to treatment resistance [2]. Hypoxia and anoikis resistance further shape aggressive tumor phenotypes, yet these factors are not incorporated into conventional staging systems [2]. The evolving landscape of immunotherapy, while promising, has highlighted the critical need for biomarkers that can predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination regimens [3].

Emerging Prognostic Biomarkers and Signatures

LncRNA-Based Signatures

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as powerful prognostic biomarkers in HCC due to their crucial roles in regulating tumor biology, including proliferation, metastasis, and therapeutic response [9]. These transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides function through diverse mechanisms: serving as signaling molecules that recruit transcription factors, guiding chromatin-modifying enzymes to specific genomic locations, sequestering transcription factors or microRNAs, and mediating the formation of multi-component complexes [9].

Table 2: Validated Single LncRNA Prognostic Biomarkers in HCC

LncRNA	Expression in HCC	Hazard Ratio (HR)	95% CI	P-value	Detection Method
LINC00152	High	2.524	1.661-4.015	0.001	qRT-PCR [9]
LINC01554	Low	2.507	1.153-2.832	0.017	qRT-PCR [9]
LINC01139	High	2.721	1.289-4.183	0.019	qRT-PCR [9]
HOXC13-AS	High	2.894 (OS), 3.201 (RFS)	1.183-4.223 (OS), 1.372-4.653 (RFS)	0.015 (OS), 0.004 (RFS)	qRT-PCR [9]
LASP1-AS	Low	1.884 (training), 3.539 (validation)	1.427-2.841 (training), 2.698-6.030 (validation)	<0.0001	qRT-PCR [9]

Multigene lncRNA signatures offer enhanced prognostic capability by capturing broader biological processes. A hypoxia- and anoikis-related nine-lncRNA signature effectively stratified HCC patients into distinct risk groups, with the high-risk group showing increased immunosuppressive elements (Tregs and inactivated M0 macrophages) and limited immunotherapy efficacy [2]. The signature included specifically downregulated lncRNAs (LINC01554, FIRRE, LINC01139, LINC01134, and NBAT1) that may influence apoptosis under hypoxia and anoikis conditions [2].

Plasma exosomal lncRNAs provide a promising liquid biopsy approach for non-invasive molecular stratification. A recent study integrating transcriptomic data from 230 plasma exosomes identified a 6-gene risk score (G6PD, KIF20A, NDRG1, ADH1C, RECQL4, MCM4) that demonstrated high prognostic accuracy [5]. This exosomal lncRNA-based framework classified HCC into three molecular subtypes (C1-C3), with the C3 subtype exhibiting the poorest overall survival, advanced grade and stage, and an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg infiltration and elevated PD-L1/CTLA4 expression [5].

Other Molecular Signatures

Beyond lncRNAs, various molecular signatures have shown prognostic potential in HCC. A robust 8-gene signature (MCM10, CEP55, KIF18A, ORC6, KIF23, CDC45, CDT1, and PLK4) was identified through comprehensive transcriptomic analysis, with experimental validation confirming significant upregulation of MCM10, KIF18A, CDC45, and PLK4 in HCC tissues (p<0.05) [1]. These genes are primarily involved in cell cycle regulation and DNA replication, reflecting fundamental processes in hepatocarcinogenesis.

Integrating neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and immune-related genes has yielded another promising prognostic approach. A five-gene signature (HMOX1, MMP9, TNFRSF4, MMP12, and FLT3) demonstrated strong predictive ability, with enrichment analyses revealing pathways related to retinol metabolism and cytochrome P450 drug metabolism in different risk groups [6]. Immune infiltration analysis showed regulatory T cells positively correlated with MDSCs, both directly associated with the five prognostic genes [6].

LncRNA Signature Development Workflow

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Computational Biology Methods

The development of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures relies on sophisticated computational approaches utilizing large-scale genomic datasets. Standard methodologies begin with RNA-seq data acquisition from public repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [2] [1]. Data preprocessing includes transformation to transcripts per million (TPM) values, log2 conversion, and normalization to ensure comparability across datasets [2] [5].

Differential expression analysis is typically performed using the DESeq2 package with thresholds of p<0.05 and |log2 fold change| > 0.5-1.0 to identify significantly dysregulated lncRNAs [1] [6]. For molecular subtyping, unsupervised consensus clustering using the ConsensusClusterPlus package applies the Pearson distance metric, PAM clustering algorithm, 80% resampling ratio, and 1000 iterations to define robust molecular subtypes [2] [5].

Competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) network construction involves a multi-step process: miRNA binding sites of differentially expressed lncRNAs are predicted via the miRcode database, followed by integration of miRNA-mRNA relationships from miRTarBase, TargetScan, and miRDB databases [5]. The intersection of target genes of differentially expressed lncRNAs and upregulated mRNAs in HCC tissues defines exosome-related genes, with ternary regulatory networks visualized using Cytoscape [5].

Machine learning algorithms have become indispensable for prognostic model development. Recent studies systematically compare multiple algorithms including CoxBoost, stepwise Cox, LASSO, Ridge, elastic net, survival support vector machines, generalized boosted regression models, supervised principal components, partial least squares Cox, and random survival forests [1] [5]. These approaches employ 10-fold cross-validation frameworks, using the concordance index (C-index) to optimize hyperparameters and select the most predictive gene signatures.

Experimental Validation Techniques

While computational approaches identify candidate biomarkers, experimental validation remains essential for establishing biological and clinical relevance. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) serves as the gold standard for validating expression patterns of identified lncRNAs and genes in independent patient cohorts and HCC cell lines [2] [1] [6].

Functional studies often employ in vitro models under controlled conditions to elucidate mechanisms. For hypoxia- and anoikis-related lncRNAs, human HCC cell lines like Li-7 are cultured under hypoxic conditions (1% O2) in ultra-low adsorption plates to simulate anchorage-independent growth [2]. Total RNA extraction using commercial kits (e.g., RNeasy Mini Kit) followed by cDNA synthesis and RT-qPCR with specifically designed primers enables quantification of lncRNA expression changes under these stress conditions [2].

Single-cell RNA sequencing provides unprecedented resolution for understanding cellular heterogeneity and validating cell-type-specific expression of prognostic genes. Analytical pipelines for scRNA-seq data include quality control, normalization, highly variable gene identification, dimensionality reduction, clustering, and cell type annotation [1]. This approach enables mapping of prognostic gene expression to specific cellular compartments within the tumor microenvironment.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for HCC Prognostic Biomarker Studies

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Application in HCC Prognostic Research
RNA Extraction Kits	RNeasy Mini Kit [2]	High-quality RNA isolation from tissues/cells for transcriptomic studies
cDNA Synthesis Kits	PrimeScript RT Master Mix [2]	Preparation of cDNA templates for qPCR validation
qPCR Reagents	TB Green Premix [2]	Quantitative measurement of lncRNA and gene expression
Cell Culture Media	1640 Medium with FBS [2]	Maintenance of HCC cell lines for functional studies
Bioinformatics Packages	DESeq2, ConsensusClusterPlus, CIBERSORT, ESTIMATE, glmnet [2] [1] [6]	Differential expression, clustering, immune infiltration, and machine learning analyses
Pathway Databases	GO, KEGG, HALLMARK [2] [1]	Functional enrichment analysis of prognostic signatures
Public Data Repositories	TCGA, GEO, ICGC, exoRBase [2] [1] [5]	Access to large-scale genomic and clinical data

Signaling Pathways and Biological Mechanisms

LncRNAs influence HCC progression through regulation of critical signaling pathways and biological processes. Hypoxia- and anoikis-related lncRNAs converge on pathways controlling tumor stemness, immune suppression, and metastasis [2]. Hypoxia activates oncogenic pathways such as Wnt/β-catenin, enhancing invasion and migration while sustaining cancer stemness [2]. Simultaneously, hypoxia profoundly reshapes the tumor immune microenvironment by modulating immune cell infiltration and inducing immunosuppressive phenotypes [2].

Anoikis resistance enables epithelial-derived tumor cells to survive in suspension after detaching from the extracellular matrix, facilitating hematogenous dissemination [2]. In HCC, which arises from epithelial hepatocytes and exhibits strong vascularity, anoikis resistance significantly contributes to metastatic spread [2]. The integrated analysis of both hypoxia and anoikis mechanisms provides a more comprehensive understanding of tumor biology than either factor alone.

Plasma exosomal lncRNAs function within competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) networks that regulate oncogenic transcripts. These networks are significantly enriched in critical pathways including cell cycle regulation, TGF-β signaling, the p53 pathway, and ferroptosis [5]. The molecular subtypes defined by exosomal lncRNA profiles exhibit distinct pathway activations, with the poor-prognosis C3 subtype showing hyperactivation of proliferation pathways (MYC, E2F targets) and metabolic pathways (glycolysis, mTORC1) [5].

LncRNA Regulatory Mechanisms in HCC

The tumor immune microenvironment represents a critical mechanism through which prognostic signatures influence clinical outcomes. High-risk HCC subtypes consistently exhibit immunosuppressive characteristics including increased Treg infiltration, elevated expression of immune checkpoints (PD-L1, CTLA4), and higher TIDE scores predicting immunotherapy resistance [2] [5]. These features create a "cold" tumor microenvironment that limits effective anti-tumor immunity and diminishes response to immune checkpoint inhibitors [3].

Beyond the tumor microenvironment, prognostic genes identified in various signatures frequently participate in fundamental cellular processes driving hepatocarcinogenesis. The eight-gene signature (MCM10, CEP55, KIF18A, ORC6, KIF23, CDC45, CDT1, and PLK4) is enriched in cell cycle regulation and DNA replication functions [1]. Single-cell analysis reveals these prognostic genes are more highly expressed in the initial state of B cell differentiation and show the strongest interactions between B cells and macrophages in both HCC and control groups [1].

Clinical Translation and Therapeutic Implications

The ultimate goal of prognostic biomarker research is clinical translation to improve patient outcomes. LncRNA-based signatures show particular promise for guiding treatment selection across different HCC stages. For early-stage HCC, prognostic signatures could identify high-risk patients who might benefit from more aggressive adjuvant therapy despite current guidelines not recommending routine adjuvant treatment post-resection or ablation [8].

In advanced disease, risk stratification enables more personalized therapeutic approaches. Low-risk patients typically demonstrate superior responses to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, while high-risk patients show increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents such as the Wee1 inhibitor MK-1775 and sorafenib [5]. Drug sensitivity analyses based on prognostic signatures can identify 74 drugs with differential sensitivity between risk groups, with compounds like axitinib showing lower sensitivity in high-risk patients, while ABT-888 demonstrates higher sensitivity in this group [6].

Molecular imaging represents an emerging approach for non-invasive assessment of tumor biology and treatment response. Techniques like positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can visualize immune checkpoints, cell infiltration, and metabolic shifts, potentially enabling pretreatment stratification and early response monitoring [3]. These imaging modalities have demonstrated area under the curve (AUC) values >0.85 in predicting response to immunotherapy, though challenges remain including cirrhosis-induced imaging artifacts [3].

The integration of lncRNA signatures with current clinical decision-making frameworks like BCLC staging offers a path toward more personalized medicine. The CUSE framework incorporated in the 2025 BCLC update explicitly acknowledges the need to address complexity, uncertainty, subjectivity, and emotion in therapeutic decisions [7]. Molecular biomarkers could transform this process by providing objective data to define therapeutic goals, grade option strength, align choices with patient biology, and select personalized management plans with regular molecular monitoring.

Once dismissed as mere "transcriptional noise" or "junk DNA," long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have undergone a dramatic re-evaluation over the past decades, emerging as crucial regulatory molecules in both normal physiology and disease states [10] [11] [12]. These RNA molecules, defined as transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides with limited or no protein-coding capacity, represent a major output of complex genomes [10]. The discovery that the number of protein-coding genes is similar in organisms with widely different developmental complexity (approximately 20,000 in both nematodes and humans) while non-coding DNA and RNA transcription increases with complexity forced a fundamental reassessment of genetic information flow [10]. This article examines the transformation of lncRNAs from biological curiosities to recognized key regulators, with a specific focus on their validation as prognostic signatures in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

The early perception of lncRNAs as transcriptional artifacts stemmed from their generally low sequence conservation, low expression levels, and poor visibility in genetic screens [10]. However, foundational discoveries of specific functional lncRNAs such as H19 (first identified in mice in 1984), Xist (crucial for X-chromosome inactivation), and HOTAIR progressively challenged this dogma, revealing RNA molecules with specific regulatory roles in development, epigenetics, and cellular differentiation [10] [11] [12]. The first plant lncRNA, ENOD40, was isolated from nodule primordia in Medicago plants and found to be involved in symbiotic nodule organogenesis [11]. These pioneering examples paved the way for recognizing thousands of lncRNAs across diverse species, with current databases cataloging over 20,000 lncRNA genes in humans alone [12].

LncRNA Biogenesis, Classification, and Functional Mechanisms

Defining Characteristics and Biogenesis

LncRNAs share several similarities with messenger RNAs: they are predominantly transcribed by RNA polymerase II, can undergo 5' capping and 3' polyadenylation, and are frequently spliced [10] [11] [12]. However, they diverge from protein-coding transcripts in crucial aspects: they lack extensive open reading frames, exhibit lower sequence conservation, display more specific tissue expression patterns, and are often expressed at lower levels [12]. Some lncRNAs are transcribed by RNA polymerase I (such as ribosomal RNAs) or III (including 7SK, 7SL, and Alu RNAs), while others derive from processed introns or repetitive elements [10].

A significant proportion of lncRNAs undergo inefficient splicing compared to mRNAs, potentially due to differences in consensus sequences for splice sites or interactions with specific splicing factors [12]. While some lncRNAs are unstable, many are stabilized through polyadenylation or through secondary structures that protect them from degradation [12]. Their cellular localization—whether nuclear or cytoplasmic—profoundly influences their function and molecular partnerships [12].

Genomic Classification and Functional Mechanisms

LncRNAs are typically classified based on their genomic context relative to protein-coding genes [13]:

Table 1: LncRNA Classification by Genomic Context

Classification	Genomic Position	Example
Intergenic (lincRNAs)	Located between protein-coding genes	HOTAIR, XIST
Intronic	Transcribed from introns of protein-coding genes	Various HCC-associated lncRNAs
Antisense	Transcribed from the opposite strand of protein-coding genes	HOTAIR, HOXC13-AS
Sense	Overlap with exons of protein-coding genes	Not specified in results
Enhancer RNAs (eRNAs)	Transcribed from enhancer regions	Implicated in chromatin looping
Promoter-associated	Transcribed from promoter regions	Involved in transcription initiation

Functionally, lncRNAs operate through diverse molecular mechanisms that can be categorized into four primary modes of action [9]:

• Signaling molecules that respond to cellular stimuli
• Guiding molecules that direct ribonucleoprotein complexes to specific genomic locations
• Decoy molecules that sequester transcription factors or microRNAs
• Scaffolding molecules that assemble multiple-component complexes

Their functional roles are intimately linked to their subcellular localization—nuclear lncRNAs typically regulate transcription, chromatin organization, and RNA processing, while cytoplasmic lncRNAs often influence mRNA stability, translation, and post-translational modifications [13] [12].

Diagram 1: Diverse Functional Mechanisms of LncRNAs. LncRNAs exert their biological effects through distinct nuclear and cytoplasmic mechanisms depending on their subcellular localization.

LncRNAs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Prognostic Signatures to Therapeutic Targets

The Clinical Challenge of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma represents a significant global health burden, ranking as the sixth most common cancer worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality [14] [15] [9]. The disease is particularly challenging due to its frequent diagnosis at advanced stages and limited treatment options for late-stage patients [15] [16]. Chronic hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) infections, alcohol consumption, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and aflatoxin B1 intake constitute major risk factors that promote HCC through induction of DNA damage, epigenetic alterations, and oncogenic mutations [13]. The poor 5-year survival rate of under 20% for advanced HCC patients underscores the urgent need for better early detection methods and novel therapeutic approaches [15].

In this context, lncRNAs have emerged as promising molecular tools for addressing these clinical challenges. Their high tissue specificity, detectability in bodily fluids, and critical roles in tumorigenic processes make them ideal candidates as diagnostic biomarkers, prognostic indicators, and therapeutic targets [13] [9] [16].

Validated LncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Multiple research groups have developed and validated lncRNA-based prognostic signatures for HCC using various methodological approaches. The table below summarizes key studies constructing multi-lncRNA prognostic models:

Table 2: Experimentally Validated LncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Study Focus	LncRNAs in Signature	Validation Cohort	Performance (AUC)	Clinical Utility
Disulfidptosis-Related [14]	AC016717.2, AC124798.1, AL031985.3	369 TCGA patients (training n=185, validation n=184)	1-year: 0.756, 3-year: 0.695, 5-year: 0.701	Stratified patients into distinct risk groups with significant survival differences
Amino Acid Metabolism-Related [15]	4-lncRNA signature (including AL590681.1)	340 TCGA patients (170 training, 170 validation)	Not specified	High-risk patients showed lower OS; AL590681.1 functional role confirmed in HCC cell lines
Migrasome-Related [17]	LINC00839, MIR4435-2HG	372 TCGA tumors + independent clinical cohort (n=100)	Consistent predictive value	MIR4435-2HG promotes malignant behaviors and immune evasion; model predicts immunotherapy response
Combination Biomarker [16]	LINC00152, LINC00853, UCA1, GAS5	52 HCC patients + 30 controls	Individual lncRNAs: 60-83% sensitivity, 53-67% specificity; ML model: 100% sensitivity, 97% specificity	Machine learning integration with conventional biomarkers enhanced diagnostic precision

These studies consistently demonstrate that lncRNA signatures can effectively stratify HCC patients into distinct prognostic subgroups, potentially guiding personalized treatment approaches. The disulfidptosis-related model specifically highlighted that high-risk patients exhibited poorer overall survival, distinct immune function profiles, differential tumor mutational burden, and varied drug sensitivity [14]. Similarly, the amino acid metabolism-related signature revealed significant differences in immune cell infiltration and checkpoint expression between risk groups, with high-risk patients potentially benefiting more from anti-PD1 treatment [15].

Individual LncRNAs with Prognostic Value in HCC

Beyond multi-lncRNA signatures, numerous individual lncRNAs have demonstrated independent prognostic value in HCC through multivariate Cox regression analyses:

Table 3: Individual LncRNAs with Validated Prognostic Significance in HCC

LncRNA	Expression in Tumor	Prognostic Impact	Study Details
LINC00152	Upregulated	High expression → Shorter OS (HR: 2.524; 95% CI: 1.661-4.015; p=0.001)	63 HCC patients, qRT-PCR detection [9]
LINC01146	Downregulated	High expression → Longer OS (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16-0.92; p=0.033)	85 HCC patients, qRT-PCR detection [9]
HOXC13-AS	Upregulated	High expression → Shorter OS (HR: 2.894) and RFS (HR: 3.201)	197 HCC patients, qRT-PCR detection [9]
LASP1-AS	Downregulated	Low expression → Shorter OS and RFS (training: HR: 1.884; validation: HR: 3.539)	423 HCC patients across two cohorts [9]
ELF3-AS1	Upregulated	High expression → Shorter OS (HR: 1.667; 95% CI: 1.127-2.468; p=0.011)	373 HCC patients, RNAseq detection [9]
GAS5	Downregulated	Tumor suppressor role, activates CHOP and caspase-9 pathways	Induces apoptosis, inhibits proliferation [16]

These individual lncRNAs contribute to HCC progression through diverse mechanisms. For instance, LINC00152 promotes cell proliferation through regulation of CCDN1 [16], while H19 stimulates the CDC42/PAK1 axis by down-regulating miRNA-15b expression [13]. The UCA1 lncRNA similarly promotes proliferation and inhibits apoptosis, though its exact mechanism in HCC is not completely understood [16].

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Standardized Workflow for LncRNA Signature Development

The development and validation of lncRNA prognostic signatures follows a relatively standardized workflow that integrates bioinformatic analyses with experimental validation:

Diagram 2: LncRNA Signature Development Workflow. The standardized approach for developing and validating lncRNA-based prognostic models in HCC.

Detailed Methodologies for Key Experimental Procedures

Signature Development and Statistical Analysis

The construction of lncRNA prognostic models typically employs sophisticated statistical approaches:

• Data Acquisition and Preprocessing: Publicly available datasets (particularly TCGA-LIHC) provide transcriptomic data and corresponding clinical information. RNA sequencing data is normalized (typically to TPM - transcripts per million) and quality-controlled [14] [15] [17].

• Identification of Relevant LncRNAs: Researchers typically identify lncRNAs of interest through correlation analysis with biologically relevant genes (e.g., disulfidptosis-related genes, amino acid metabolism genes, migrasome-related genes) using Pearson correlation with strict thresholds (|R| > 0.4-0.55, p < 0.001) [14] [15] [17].

• Prognostic Model Construction: Univariate Cox regression analysis identifies lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival. To prevent overfitting, LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) Cox regression with k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold) is employed to select the most predictive lncRNAs. Finally, multivariate Cox regression assigns weights to each lncRNA to calculate a risk score: Risk Score = Σ(Coefficienti × Expressioni) [14] [15] [17].

• Model Validation: The cohort is randomly split into training and validation sets. The model's predictive performance is assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test) and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Increasingly, studies include external validation in independent patient cohorts [14] [15] [17].

Functional Validation Experiments

To establish biological relevance beyond statistical association, researchers employ various functional assays:

• In Vitro Functional Studies: Following identification of key lncRNAs from signatures, researchers perform functional validation using HCC cell lines. This typically includes:

  • Gene Knockdown: Using lncRNA-specific small interfering RNA (siRNA) or short hairpin RNA (shRNA) delivered via transfection reagents (e.g., Lipofectamine 3000) [15] [17].
  • Proliferation Assays: Cell viability measured by CCK-8 assay or similar methods at various time points post-transfection [15].
  • Colony Formation: Assessing long-term proliferative potential by staining and counting colonies after 14-day incubation [15].
  • Migration/Invasion Assays: Transwell or wound-healing assays to evaluate metastatic potential [17].
  • Gene Expression Analysis: Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) to verify knockdown efficiency and measure downstream targets [15] [16] [17].

• Molecular Mechanism Elucidation:

  • Pathway Analysis: Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) identifies signaling pathways enriched in high-risk versus low-risk groups [14] [15].
  • Immune Infiltration Analysis: Using algorithms like ESTIMATE or CIBERSORT to evaluate differences in tumor immune microenvironment between risk groups [14] [15] [17].
  • Drug Sensitivity Prediction: Computational approaches (e.g., oncoPredict) assess potential differences in therapeutic response based on GDSC database [14].

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for LncRNA Studies in HCC

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
TCGA-LIHC Dataset	Primary source of transcriptomic and clinical data	373 liver HCC tissues + 49 normal tissues; includes RNAseq data and clinical follow-up [14]
RNA Isolation Kits	Extraction of high-quality RNA from tissues/cells	miRNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN) - enables simultaneous isolation of miRNA and total RNA [16]
cDNA Synthesis Kits	Reverse transcription of RNA to cDNA	RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Scientific) [16]
qRT-PCR Systems	Quantification of lncRNA expression	PowerTrack SYBR Green Master Mix + ViiA 7 real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems); GAPDH normalization [16]
siRNA/shRNA	Gene knockdown studies	LncRNA-specific sequences; Lipofectamine 3000 transfection reagent [15]
Cell Viability Assays	Assessment of proliferation	CCK-8 assay - measures metabolic activity as surrogate for cell number [15]
Immune Analysis Algorithms	Evaluation of tumor immune microenvironment	ESTIMATE, CIBERSORT, TIMER - computational deconvolution of immune cell populations [14] [15]
Drug Sensitivity Databases	Prediction of therapeutic response	GDSC (Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer) - correlates genomic features with drug response [14]

Current Challenges and Future Perspectives

Despite significant progress, several challenges remain in translating lncRNA research into clinical practice. The functional characterization of most lncRNAs is still lacking, with only approximately 500-1,500 of the over 20,000 human lncRNA genes having been functionally characterized [12]. Additionally, the low conservation of many lncRNAs between species complicates the use of conventional animal models for functional studies [10]. Technical challenges include the inefficient splicing of many lncRNAs and their generally lower abundance compared to mRNAs [12].

Future research directions will likely focus on several key areas:

• Comprehensive Functional Characterization: Systematic efforts to assign biological functions to the thousands of uncharacterized lncRNAs.
• Therapeutic Targeting: Developing approaches to target oncogenic lncRNAs or replace tumor-suppressive lncRNAs, potentially through antisense oligonucleotides, small molecule inhibitors, or gene therapy approaches.
• Multi-omics Integration: Combining lncRNA data with genomic, epigenomic, and proteomic information to build more comprehensive models of HCC pathogenesis.
• Liquid Biopsy Applications: Optimizing detection of lncRNAs in circulating blood for non-invasive diagnosis and monitoring of HCC.
• Single-Cell Analyses: Resolving lncRNA expression and function at single-cell resolution to understand tumor heterogeneity.

The transformation of lncRNAs from "transcriptional noise" to key regulatory molecules represents one of the most significant paradigm shifts in molecular biology over the past decades. Their integration into prognostic signatures for HCC exemplifies how basic biological discoveries can translate into clinically relevant applications. As research methodologies continue to advance and our understanding of lncRNA biology deepens, these molecules are poised to become increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranks as the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, characterized by its aggressive nature, frequent metastasis, and limited treatment options [18] [19]. The molecular pathogenesis of HCC involves complex genetic and epigenetic alterations, with long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) emerging as pivotal regulators in recent years [18] [13]. LncRNAs, defined as RNA transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides that lack protein-coding capacity, represent a rapidly growing class of functional RNA molecules that regulate gene expression at epigenetic, transcriptional, and post-transcriptional levels [13] [19]. This review provides a comprehensive mechanistic comparison of how specific lncRNAs drive HCC proliferation, invasion, and metastasis, framed within the context of validating lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC cohorts. We synthesize experimental data and detailed methodologies to offer researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals a structured analysis of this dynamically evolving field.

Comparative Mechanisms of Key lncRNAs in HCC Progression

The table below summarizes the mechanisms and experimental evidence for critically important lncRNAs in HCC pathogenesis.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key lncRNAs in HCC Progression

LncRNA	Expression in HCC	Molecular Mechanism	Functional Outcome	Experimental Evidence
CR594175	Upregulated from normal to primary HCC to metastasis [20] [21]	Acts as a molecular sponge for hsa-miR-142-3p, derepressing CTNNB1 (β-catenin) and activating Wnt signaling [20] [21]	Promotes cell proliferation, invasion in vitro and subcutaneous tumor growth in vivo [20] [21]	In vitro (HepG2 cells) and in vivo mouse models; lentiviral silencing; RT-qPCR, western blot [20] [21]
SOX2OT	Upregulated in metastatic HCC tissues and cell lines [22]	Sponges miR-122-5p to upregulate PKM2, enhancing aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) [22]	Increases metastatic potential, cell migration, and invasion [22]	Microarray, RT-qPCR in 105 HCC patient tissues; wound healing, Transwell assays in multiple cell lines (Huh-7, HCCLM3) [22]
MALAT1	Upregulated in HCC cell lines and tissues [23]	Functions as a competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) for miRNAs including miR-146b-5p and miR-195, activating TRAF6/Akt and EGFR pathways, respectively [23]	Enhances cell proliferation, migration, and invasion; associated with HCC recurrence [23]	siRNA silencing in vitro; correlation with patient recurrence post-liver transplantation [23]
HULC	Highly upregulated in liver cancer [23]	Acts as an endogenous sponge, sequestering miRNAs; epigenetic regulation [23] [19]	Promotes angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and metastasis [23] [19]	Identified via differential screening; extensive validation in clinical tissues [23]
H19	Upregulated in HCC [13]	Downregulates miRNA-15b to activate the CDC42/PAK1 axis; interacts with HIF-1α to drive glycolysis [13]	Stimulates HCC cell proliferation and tumor growth [13]	Multiple mechanistic studies in cell lines and animal models [13]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Mechanistic Studies

Protocol for lncRNA-CR594175 Functional Validation

1. Lentivirus-Mediated Silencing:

• Vector Construction: A siRNA sequence (5′-GAATCCTCGGAGACAGCAG-3′) homologous to lncRNA-CR594175 was cloned into the pSIH1-H1-copGFP shRNA Vector using BamHI and EcoRI restriction sites. An invalid siRNA sequence served as a negative control (NC) [20] [21].
• Lentivirus Packaging: 293TN cells were co-transfected with the constructed pSIH1-shRNA-CR594175 vector or pSIH1-NC along with pPACK Packaging Plasmid Mix using Lipofectamine 2000. The viral supernatant was harvested 48 hours post-transfection, cleared by centrifugation, and filtered through a 0.45μm PVDF membrane [20] [21].
• Cell Infection: HepG2 cells in logarithmic growth phase were seeded into 6-well plates and infected with the viral solution at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 10. Infection efficiency was evaluated 72 hours post-infection via fluorescent marker analysis [20] [21].

2. In Vitro and In Vivo Functional Assays:

• Proliferation and Invasion Assays: Following lentiviral infection, HepG2 cell proliferation was assessed using MTT or CCK-8 assays. Cell invasion capability was measured via Transwell invasion chambers coated with Matrigel [20] [21].
• Subcutaneous Tumor Model: HepG2 cells stably expressing shRNA-CR594175 or control were subcutaneously injected into immunodeficient mice. Tumor volume was measured regularly, and tumors were harvested for further analysis after a set period, confirming that silencing inhibited subcutaneous tumor growth [20] [21].

3. Molecular Mechanism Elucidation:

• RT-qPCR and Western Blot: Total RNA and protein were extracted from tissues or cells. RT-qPCR measured lncRNA-CR594175 and hsa-miR142-3p levels. Western blot analyzed CTNNB1 and Wnt pathway-related proteins (E-cadherin, C-myc, CyclinD1, MMP-9) [20] [21].
• Luciferase Reporter Assay: A 127bp fragment of the CTNNB1 3'-UTR containing the hsa-miR-142-3p target site was cloned into a luciferase reporter vector. HepG2 cells were co-transfected with the reporter construct and miR-142-3p mimic or control, and luciferase activity was measured to confirm direct targeting [21].

Protocol for lncRNA-SOX2OT and Glycolysis Linkage

1. Correlation with Clinical Metastasis:

• Patient Imaging: 121 HCC patients underwent 18F-FDG PET scans. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was calculated to evaluate glucose metabolism levels in tumors, with significantly higher SUVmax found in metastatic tissues [22].
• Microarray and RT-qPCR Validation: LncRNA expression profiles were analyzed in ten pairs of HCC samples with different metastatic outcomes using microarray. Differentially expressed lncRNAs were validated by RT-qPCR in a larger cohort of 105 paired HCC/non-tumor specimens [22].

2. In Vitro Metabolic and Metastatic Assays:

• Glycolytic Function Measurement: Five HCC cell lines (Hep3B, Huh-7, MHCC97-L, MHCC97-H, HCCLM3) and one normal liver cell line (WRL68) were assessed for glucose uptake, glycolysis rate, and lactate production to correlate with metastatic potential [22].
• Gain-and-Loss of Function: LncRNA-SOX2OT was stably overexpressed in low-metastatic potential cells (Huh-7) and knocked down in high-metastatic potential cells (HCCLM3). Wound-healing and Transwell migration/invasion assays were performed to assess metastatic capabilities [22].
• PKM2 Interaction: miR-122-5p was identified as a direct target of lncRNA-SOX2OT. Rescue experiments involving PKM2 inhibition or miR-122-5p restoration were conducted to confirm the lncRNA-SOX2OT/miR-122-5p/PKM2 axis in regulating Warburg effect and metastasis [22].

Visualization of Key Signaling Pathways

ceRNA Mechanism of lncRNA-CR594175 in Wnt Pathway Activation

Diagram 1: ceRNA Mechanism of lncRNA-CR594175. This diagram illustrates how highly expressed lncRNA-CR594175 acts as a molecular sponge for hsa-miR-142-3p, preventing it from negatively regulating CTNNB1. This derepression leads to Wnt pathway activation, promoting HCC proliferation and invasion [20] [21].

lncRNA-SOX2OT-Mediated Metabolic Reprogramming

Diagram 2: lncRNA-SOX2OT in Metabolic Reprogramming. This diagram shows how upregulated lncRNA-SOX2OT sequesters miR-122-5p, leading to increased PKM2 expression. This enhances aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect), which in turn increases the metastatic potential of HCC cells [22].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for lncRNA Mechanistic Studies in HCC

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Specific Examples from Literature
Lentiviral Vectors	Delivery of shRNA for lncRNA silencing or cDNA for overexpression in vitro and in vivo	pSIH1-H1-copGFP shRNA Vector for CR594175 silencing [20] [21]
siRNA/shRNA Sequences	Sequence-specific knockdown of target lncRNAs	siRNA target sequence: 5′-GAATCCTCGGAGACAGCAG-3′ for lncRNA-CR594175 [20] [21]
Cell Lines	In vitro models for functional and mechanistic studies	HepG2, Huh-7, MHCC97-L, MHCC97-H, HCCLM3 with varying metastatic potential [20] [21] [22]
qRT-PCR Assays	Quantification of lncRNA, miRNA, and mRNA expression levels	Measurement of lncRNA-CR594175, hsa-miR-142-3p, and Wnt target genes [20] [21] [22]
Western Blot Reagents	Detection of protein expression and pathway activation	Analysis of CTNNB1, E-cadherin, C-myc, CyclinD1, MMP-9, PKM2 [20] [21] [22]
Luciferase Reporter Vectors	Validation of direct miRNA-mRNA or miRNA-lncRNA interactions	Cloning of CTNNB1 3'-UTR to verify miR-142-3p binding [21]
Transwell Assays	Measurement of cell invasion and migration capabilities	Matrigel-coated chambers to assess invasive potential after lncRNA modulation [20] [22]
Animal Models	In vivo validation of tumor growth and metastasis	Subcutaneous xenograft models in immunodeficient mice [20] [21] [22]

The mechanistic insights into how lncRNAs drive HCC proliferation, invasion, and metastasis reveal a complex regulatory network centered on competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) activities, metabolic reprogramming, and signaling pathway activation. The consistent experimental approaches across studies—employing lentiviral modulation, in vitro functional assays, and in vivo validation—provide a robust framework for future investigations. The growing body of evidence positions lncRNAs not only as promising prognostic biomarkers but also as potential therapeutic targets. As research progresses, integrating these molecular mechanisms with clinical validation in HCC cohorts will be essential for translating these findings into meaningful prognostic tools and targeted therapies for HCC patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide, with its pathogenesis involving complex biological processes such as DNA damage, epigenetic modification, and oncogene mutation [13]. Over the past two decades, long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have received increasing attention for their roles in the occurrence, metastasis, and progression of HCC [13]. These transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides lack protein-coding capacity but play critical roles as regulators of gene expression, affecting RNA transcription and mRNA stability [13]. The validation of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC cohorts represents a promising frontier for improving diagnosis, treatment stratification, and clinical outcomes. This review comprehensively compares four key oncogenic lncRNAs—H19, HOTAIR, HULC, and NEAT1—by examining their molecular mechanisms, clinical correlations, and experimental evidence, thereby providing researchers and drug development professionals with a structured analysis of their potential as biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Comparative Analysis of Key Oncogenic lncRNAs

Table 1: Characteristics and Clinical Associations of Key Oncogenic lncRNAs in HCC

lncRNA	Genomic Location	Expression in HCC	Key Functional Mechanisms	Clinical Correlations	Prognostic Value
H19	11p15.5	Upregulated	Epigenetic modification, drug resistance, regulates proliferation/apoptosis via miR-675/PKM2 and AKT/GSK-3β/Cdc25A pathways [13] [24]	Associated with invasion and metastasis [24]	Poor survival, early recurrence
HOTAIR	12q13.13	Upregulated	Binds PRC2 and LSD1, regulates Wnt/β-catenin pathway, promotes EMT [13] [25]	Poor differentiation (P=0.002), metastasis (P=0.002), early recurrence (P=0.001) [25]	Shorter overall survival, independent prognostic factor
HULC	6p24.3	Upregulated	ceRNA for miR-372, activates CREB, promotes Warburg effect via LDHA/PKM2 phosphorylation [13] [26]	Advanced clinical stage, metastatic potential, HCV-positive status [26]	Poor prognosis, predicts metastasis post-resection
NEAT1	11q13.1	Upregulated	Regulates proliferation, migration, and apoptosis through multiple mechanisms [13]	Associated with tumor progression [13]	Correlated with poor patient outcomes

Table 2: Experimental Evidence from Functional Studies

lncRNA	In Vitro Models	In Vivo Models	Key Functional Assays	Major Pathway Findings
H19	Hep3B, HepG2	Xenograft models	Knockdown reduces proliferation, invasion, and metastasis [24]	AKT/GSK-3β/Cdc25A signaling activation [24]
HOTAIR	HepG2	Xenograft	shRNA knockdown suppresses proliferation (MTT) and invasion (Transwell) [25]	Regulates Wnt/β-catenin signaling; downregulation decreases Wnt and β-catenin [25]
HULC	Hep3B, HepG2	Patient tissue analysis	qRT-PCR validation in clinical samples, rolling circle amplification detection [26]	Promotes glycolysis via LDHA/PKM2 phosphorylation; creates feedback loop with miR-372/CREB [26]
NEAT1	Multiple HCC lines	Not specified in results	Proliferation, migration, and apoptosis assays [13]	Multiple oncogenic signaling pathways [13]

Molecular Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

The four lncRNAs drive hepatocarcinogenesis through distinct yet interconnected molecular mechanisms, functioning as crucial regulators of key signaling pathways in HCC progression.

H19 Oncogenic Networks

H19 exerts its oncogenic effects through several mechanistic axes. It functions as a competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) by sponging miR-675, which leads to the upregulation of Pyruvate Kinase M2 (PKM2) and subsequent acceleration of liver cancer stem cell proliferation [24]. Additionally, H19 inhibition has been shown to promote HCC invasion and metastasis through activation of the AKT/GSK-3β/Cdc25A signaling pathway [24]. H19 also regulates the CDC42/PAK1 axis by downregulating miRNA-15b expression, thereby increasing the proliferation rate of HCC cells [13].

HOTAIR-Mediated Epigenetic Regulation

HOTAIR promotes HCC progression primarily through epigenetic regulation and signaling pathway modulation. It interacts with Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) and lysine-specific histone demethylase 1A (LSD1), enabling genome-wide retargeting of chromatin remodeling complexes that silence multiple metastasis suppressor genes [25]. Functionally, HOTAIR depletion in HepG2 cells significantly suppresses cell proliferation and invasion in vitro and inhibits tumor growth in xenograft models [25]. Mechanistically, HOTAIR exerts its oncogenic effects partly through regulation of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, with studies showing that HOTAIR inhibition downregulates both Wnt and β-catenin expression [25].

HULC Metabolic Reprogramming

HULC drives hepatocellular carcinoma progression primarily through metabolic reprogramming and the establishment of autoregulatory loops. It promotes the Warburg effect (aerobic glycolysis) by directly binding to and increasing the phosphorylation of two key glycolytic enzymes—lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2)—thereby enhancing glycolysis in HCC cell lines [26]. Furthermore, HULC participates in a positive feedback loop where it directly binds to and sequesters miR-372, leading to decreased miR-372 activity. This reduction in miR-372 activity alleviates its inhibitory effect on cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation, consequently enhancing CREB-mediated transcription of HULC itself [26]. HULC also promotes autophagy through the miR-675/PKM2 axis, resulting in upregulation of Cyclin D1 and accelerated proliferation of liver cancer stem cells [26].

NEAT1 Functional Roles

While the specific molecular mechanisms of NEAT1 were less extensively detailed in the available search results, it has been identified as playing significant roles in regulating proliferation, migration, and apoptosis of HCC cells through various pathways [13]. Its oncogenic functions contribute substantially to HCC progression and patient outcomes.

Diagram Title: Oncogenic lncRNA Signaling Networks in HCC Progression

Research Methodologies and Experimental Approaches

Expression Analysis Protocols

RNA Extraction and qRT-PCR: Total RNA from frozen HCC and paired non-cancerous tissues or cell lines is extracted using commercial kits (e.g., Ultrapure RNA Kit) [25]. cDNA is synthesized by reverse transcribing total RNA using a HiFi-MMLV cDNA Kit [25]. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) is performed using systems like the ABI7500 with SYBR Green chemistry [25]. The expression of lncRNAs (H19, HOTAIR, HULC, NEAT1) is detected using specific primers, with β-actin serving as an internal control [25]. Expression levels are calculated using the 2−ΔΔCT method and normalized to the housekeeping gene [25].

Clinical Validation: Studies typically analyze dozens to hundreds of paired HCC and adjacent normal liver tissues obtained from patients who underwent partial liver resection [25] [27]. Tissue samples are immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until use [25]. All samples are independently confirmed by pathologists, with comprehensive documentation of clinicopathological characteristics [25].

Functional Characterization Methods

Gene Knockdown Approaches: Lentivirus-mediated small hairpin RNA (shRNA) vectors are used for efficient and stable knockdown of target lncRNAs [25] [27]. For HOTAIR, specific sequences (e.g., 5′-UAACAAGACCAGAGAGCUGUU-3′) are designed and cloned into lentiviral vectors [25]. Transfection is performed using reagents such as HiPerFect [27]. Knockdown efficiency is validated via qRT-PCR [25] [27].

Phenotypic Assays:

• Cell Proliferation: MTT assays measure cell viability and proliferation rates after lncRNA knockdown [25] [27].
• Invasion and Migration: Transwell assays with Matrigel-coated chambers evaluate invasive capabilities [25].
• Colony Formation: Colony formation assays assess long-term proliferative capacity and clonogenic survival after lncRNA modulation [27].
• In Vivo Tumorigenesis: Xenograft models using immunodeficient mice subcutaneously injected with lncRNA-manipulated liver cancer cells monitor tumor growth rates and metastasis [25].

Mechanism Investigation Techniques

Pathway Analysis: Semi-quantitative RT-PCR detects expression level changes in signaling pathway molecules (e.g., Wnt/β-catenin) under conditions of lncRNA inhibition [25].

ceRNA Network Validation: Luciferase reporter assays, RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP), and pull-down assays validate direct interactions between lncRNAs and miRNAs or proteins [26].

Metabolic Studies: Seahorse extracellular flux analyzers and metabolic flux assays measure glycolysis and mitochondrial respiration changes following lncRNA manipulation [26].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Reagent/Resource	Specific Examples	Application	Key Considerations
Cell Lines	HepG2, Hep3B, Huh-7	In vitro functional studies	Verify authenticity, mycoplasma-free status
qRT-PCR Reagents	Ultrapure RNA Kit, HiFi-MMLV cDNA Kit, SYBR Green Master Mix	Expression validation	Include proper controls, optimize primer efficiency
Lentiviral Vectors	shRNA constructs (e.g., HOTAIR: 5′-UAACAAGACCAGAGAGCUGUU-3′)	Stable gene knockdown	Monitor titer, include scramble controls
Functional Assay Kits	MTT assay, Transwell chambers with Matrigel, colony formation reagents	Phenotypic characterization	Standardize cell numbers, incubation times
Animal Models	Immunodeficient mice (e.g., BALB/c nude)	In vivo tumorigenesis	Follow IACUC protocols, adequate sample size

The comprehensive analysis of H19, HOTAIR, HULC, and NEAT1 underscores their significant roles as oncogenic drivers in hepatocellular carcinoma. Each lncRNA contributes to HCC pathogenesis through distinct molecular mechanisms, ranging from epigenetic regulation (HOTAIR) and metabolic reprogramming (HULC) to complex ceRNA networks (H19, HULC) and proliferation control (NEAT1). Their consistent upregulation in HCC tissues and strong associations with clinicopathological features—particularly tumor differentiation, metastasis, and early recurrence—highlight their potential as robust prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

The validation of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC cohorts represents a critical step toward precision oncology applications. Future research should focus on standardizing detection methodologies, developing targeted delivery systems for lncRNA modulation, and validating multi-lncRNA signatures in prospective clinical trials. With continued investigation, these four oncogenic lncRNAs may form the foundation for novel diagnostic strategies and targeted therapies that ultimately improve outcomes for HCC patients.

The Rationale for Multi-lncRNA Signatures Over Single-Marker Approaches

In the pursuit of precision oncology, the discovery of reliable prognostic biomarkers has become a central focus of cancer research. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), once considered transcriptional "noise," have emerged as crucial regulators of gene expression and cellular functions, with growing evidence supporting their roles in tumorigenesis, metastasis, and treatment response [28]. Historically, cancer prognosis relied on single-marker approaches, but the complexity of cancer biology has driven a paradigm shift toward multi-gene signatures that better capture tumor heterogeneity. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)—a cancer with high mortality and limited treatment options—this evolution is particularly relevant for improving patient stratification and therapeutic decision-making [29] [30].

The transition from single-marker to multi-marker approaches represents more than just quantitative increase in biomarkers; it reflects a fundamental recognition that cancer is driven by complex, interconnected molecular networks rather than isolated molecular alterations. This review comprehensively examines the theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and practical advantages supporting multi-lncRNA signatures over single-marker approaches, with specific application to HCC prognosis validation.

Theoretical Foundations: Why Multi-lncRNA Signatures Outperform Single Markers

Biological Plausibility: Capturing Cancer Complexity

The superior performance of multi-lncRNA signatures is rooted in their ability to mirror the complex biological reality of cancer pathogenesis. Individual lncRNAs typically regulate specific aspects of cancer biology through discrete molecular mechanisms. For instance, the lncRNA HULC promotes tumor growth in HCC through multiple pathways, while LINC00152 is associated with shorter overall survival [28]. Similarly, LINC01146 and LINC01554 have been identified as protective markers associated with longer survival [28]. However, when used individually, each lncRNA captures only a fragment of the complex pathological process.

Multi-lncRNA signatures integrate complementary biological information by simultaneously accounting for multiple cancer hallmarks. A well-constructed signature can capture processes as diverse as immune evasion (through immune-related lncRNAs), sustained proliferation (via cell cycle-regulating lncRNAs), therapy resistance (through lncRNAs modulating drug efflux or DNA repair), and metastatic potential (via lncRNAs regulating epithelial-mesenchymal transition) [31] [28]. This comprehensive coverage of multiple cancer hallmarks provides a more holistic view of tumor behavior than any single marker can achieve.

Technical Advantages: Overcoming Analytical Limitations

Beyond biological considerations, multi-lncRNA signatures offer significant technical advantages. A critical innovation in this field is the development of relative expression ordering approaches that transform absolute expression values into relative rank relationships between lncRNA pairs. This method assigns a value of 1 when lncRNA A expression exceeds lncRNA B expression, and 0 for the opposite relationship [31]. This strategic approach effectively eliminates platform-specific technical variations and batch effects that often compromise single-marker analyses, as the relative ranking of genes within the same sample remains stable across different measurement platforms and normalization methods [31].

The robustness of multi-lncRNA signatures is further enhanced through statistical compensation mechanisms. When multiple markers are combined, measurement errors or biological variability in individual lncRNAs tend to average out, resulting in more stable prognostic estimates. This statistical resilience is particularly valuable in clinical settings where pre-analytical conditions and measurement techniques may vary.

Empirical Evidence: Performance Comparison in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Direct Performance Comparisons in HCC Studies

Multiple studies have directly compared the prognostic performance of multi-lncRNA signatures against single lncRNA markers in hepatocellular carcinoma. The results consistently demonstrate the superiority of multi-marker approaches across various performance metrics.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Single vs. Multi-lncRNA Signatures in HCC

Signature Type	Representative Markers	HR for Overall Survival	AUC (1-5 years)	Statistical Significance	Study
Single lncRNA	LINC00152	2.524 (1.661-4.015)	Not reported	P = 0.001	[28]
Single lncRNA	LINC00294	2.434 (1.143-3.185)	Not reported	P = 0.021	[28]
Single lncRNA	LINC01094	2.091 (1.447-3.021)	Not reported	P < 0.001	[28]
2-lncRNA signature	PRRT3-AS1, AL031985.3	Not reported	0.73-0.79 (1-3 year ROC)	Independent prognostic factor	[29]
5-lncRNA signature	BOK-AS1, AC099850.3, AL365203.2, NRAV, AL049840.4	2.78-2.88 (high vs low risk)	0.677-0.778 (3-year)	P < 0.001	[30]

The data reveal that while single lncRNAs show significant hazard ratios (typically 2-2.5), their predictive power as standalone markers is limited. In contrast, multi-lncRNA signatures demonstrate not only significant hazard ratios but also superior predictive accuracy as measured by time-dependent AUC values. The 5-lncRNA signature developed by [30] maintained AUC values above 0.67 for 3-year survival prediction across both training and validation cohorts, indicating robust discriminative ability that single markers rarely achieve.

Validation Robustness Across Platforms and Populations

Multi-lncRNA signatures have consistently demonstrated stronger validation performance across independent datasets—a critical metric for clinical applicability. For instance, a 5-lncRNA signature for HCC was successfully validated in both training and testing cohorts with highly consistent hazard ratios (2.88 and 2.78, respectively) and maintained significant predictive power for 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival [30]. Similarly, a breast cancer study incorporating 10 machine learning algorithms to develop a 9-lncRNA signature demonstrated superior predictive performance across 17 independent validation cohorts, outperforming 95 previously published models [32].

This cross-platform robustness stems from the inherent stability of combining multiple markers. While individual lncRNA measurements may fluctuate due to technical factors, the combined signature captures a stable biological signal that persists across different patient populations and measurement platforms. This validation robustness represents a significant advantage over single markers, which often fail to replicate their initial promising results in independent cohorts.

Methodological Framework: Constructing and Validating Multi-lncRNA Signatures

Standardized Workflow for Signature Development

The development of robust multi-lncRNA signatures follows a systematic workflow that integrates bioinformatics, statistical optimization, and experimental validation. The following diagram illustrates this standardized process:

This workflow typically begins with data acquisition from public repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), which provide large-scale transcriptomic data with corresponding clinical information [33] [29] [30]. The subsequent differential expression analysis identifies lncRNAs significantly dysregulated in cancer tissues compared to normal controls, using thresholds such as |log2FC| > 1 and false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05 [29].

For immune-related signatures, co-expression analysis with known immune genes further filters lncRNAs potentially involved in immune regulation, typically using correlation coefficients > 0.4-0.5 and p < 0.001 [29] [30]. The prognostic screening step applies univariate Cox regression to identify lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (p < 0.01) [29]. The most critical signature construction phase employs LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) Cox regression with 10-fold cross-validation to select the optimal combination of lncRNAs while preventing overfitting [31] [33] [29].

Advanced Computational Approaches

Recent methodological advances have incorporated more sophisticated machine learning approaches to further enhance signature performance. One comprehensive study evaluated 101 combinations of 10 machine learning algorithms—including random survival forests, elastic net, CoxBoost, and survival SVMs—to identify optimal predictive models [32]. This multi-algorithm framework ensures that the final signature is robust and not dependent on the limitations of any single statistical method.

Another innovation involves the use of relative expression ordering of lncRNA pairs, which transforms continuous expression values into binary comparisons (0 or 1) based on which lncRNA in a pair is more highly expressed [31]. This approach eliminates the need for data normalization across platforms and reduces batch effects, significantly enhancing the clinical applicability of the resulting signatures.

Clinical Applications: Beyond Prognostic Prediction

Therapeutic Guidance and Treatment Selection

The true clinical value of multi-lncRNA signatures extends beyond mere prognosis to informing therapeutic decisions. Several studies have demonstrated that these signatures can predict response to specific treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy. For example, a 9-lncRNA signature in breast cancer was shown to predict responses to paclitaxel chemotherapy, with low-risk patients potentially deriving greater benefit [32]. Similarly, in HCC, multi-lncRNA signatures have been correlated with immune cell infiltration patterns and expression of immune checkpoint molecules, suggesting potential utility in identifying patients most likely to respond to immunotherapy [30].

The relationship between lncRNA signatures and therapy response is biologically plausible, as lncRNAs regulate key drug resistance mechanisms. For instance, various lncRNAs have been identified to facilitate resistance to cisplatin, paclitaxel, 5FU, and other chemotherapeutic drugs through diverse mechanisms [31]. By capturing multiple resistance pathways simultaneously, multi-lncRNA signatures provide a more comprehensive assessment of therapeutic susceptibility than single markers.

Integration with Clinical Variables for Personalized Prediction

Multi-lncRNA signatures are frequently integrated with standard clinical parameters to create powerful predictive nomograms. These integrated tools provide personalized risk assessments that combine the molecular insights from lncRNAs with established clinical prognostic factors. For example, one HCC study combined a 2-lncRNA signature with clinicopathological features to develop a nomogram that showed satisfactory discrimination and consistency in predicting patient survival [29].

The development of such integrated models typically involves multivariate Cox regression analysis to confirm that the lncRNA signature provides prognostic information independent of clinical variables such as age, tumor stage, and histological grade [29] [30]. The resulting nomograms assign weighted points to each prognostic factor, enabling clinicians to calculate individual patient risk scores and tailor surveillance strategies and treatment intensities accordingly.

Technical Implementation: Research Reagent Solutions

The successful development and validation of multi-lncRNA signatures relies on a standardized set of research reagents and methodologies. The table below outlines essential resources for implementing these analyses.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for lncRNA Signature Development

Category	Specific Resources	Application Purpose	Key Features
Data Resources	TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/)	Primary data source for discovery	Standardized RNA-seq data, clinical annotations
	GEO database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/)	Independent validation	Multiple platforms, diverse populations
	ImmPort database	Immune-related gene annotations	2,483 immune-related genes for co-expression analysis
Computational Tools	R packages: limma, edgeR, glmnet, survival	Differential expression, LASSO regression, survival analysis	Statistical rigor, reproducibility
	WGCNA (Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis)	Identification of co-expression modules	Systems biology approach to network construction
	ssGSEA (single-sample GSEA)	Immune infiltration estimation	Quantification of tumor microenvironment composition
Experimental Validation	qRT-PCR (TRIzol reagent, SYBR Green)	Confirmatory expression analysis	Gold standard for RNA quantification
	RNA pull-down, ChIRP-MS	Protein interaction partner identification	Mapping lncRNA functional mechanisms
	LC-MS/MS platforms	Proteomic characterization	High-resolution identification of associated proteins

These resources enable a comprehensive workflow from computational discovery to experimental validation. The computational tools facilitate the identification of candidate lncRNA signatures, while the experimental methods allow for confirmation of expression patterns and investigation of functional mechanisms. Importantly, the use of publicly available data resources enables independent validation—a critical step in verifying signature robustness.

The theoretical advantages and empirical evidence supporting multi-lncRNA signatures over single-marker approaches are compelling. By more accurately reflecting the biological complexity of cancer, providing robust prognostic stratification, and offering insights into therapeutic susceptibility, these multi-parameter signatures represent a significant advancement in cancer biomarker research. The standardized methodological frameworks and computational tools now available have matured to the point where clinical translation is increasingly feasible.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on several key areas. The integration of multi-omics data—combining lncRNA signatures with genomic, epigenomic, and proteomic information—will provide even more comprehensive molecular portraits of tumors. The application of advanced machine learning algorithms will further enhance predictive accuracy and biological interpretability. Most importantly, prospective clinical validation studies are needed to firmly establish the utility of these signatures in routine clinical practice, ultimately fulfilling their promise to guide personalized cancer therapy and improve patient outcomes.

Building Robust Prognostic Models: Methodological Frameworks and Signature Development

For researchers developing and validating lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), selecting appropriate genomic data repositories is a critical first step. The The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) represent two foundational resources that offer complementary data types and access methodologies. TCGA provides highly standardized, harmonized genomic data from controlled cancer studies, while GEO serves as a versatile repository for diverse functional genomics datasets submitted by researchers worldwide [34]. Understanding their distinct architectures, data acquisition protocols, and preprocessing requirements is essential for constructing robust prognostic models.

The research context for HCC biomarker discovery presents specific challenges that influence database selection. HCC exhibits substantial molecular heterogeneity influenced by etiology, making the availability of well-annotated clinical cohorts crucial for validation. Both repositories contain HCC-relevant datasets, including the TCGA-LIHC project and numerous GEO series investigating HBV/HCV-related hepatocarcinogenesis, immune microenvironment interactions, and therapeutic responses [35] [36]. This guide provides an objective comparison of TCGA and GEO functionalities to inform strategic data acquisition for lncRNA signature validation.

Database Comparison: Architecture and Data Access

Table 1: Core Architectural Differences Between TCGA and GEO Databases

Feature	TCGA (via GDC)	GEO
Primary Focus	Curated cancer genomics projects	Community-submitted functional genomics
Data Model	Hierarchical, standardized metadata	Flexible, submitter-defined organization
Data Types	Genomic, transcriptomic, epigenomic, clinical	Array-based, high-throughput sequencing
Access Levels	Open and controlled (dbGaP authorization)	Primarily open access
Reference Genome	GRCh38 harmonized [34]	Submitter-dependent (often hg19/GRCh38)
Data Processing	Standardized pipelines (GDC Harmonization) [34]	Raw data + submitter-processed files
HCC Examples	TCGA-LIHC project	GSE251942, GSE269528 [35] [36]

TCGA, accessed through the Genomic Data Commons (GDC), employs a highly structured data model with mandatory clinical annotations and consistent genomic processing. All sequencing data undergoes harmonization to GRCh38, ensuring cross-project comparability [34]. This standardization significantly reduces preprocessing burden but offers less flexibility in data types. The GDC requires dbGaP authorization for controlled access to potentially identifiable genomic data, with access decisions made by NIH Data Access Committees based on research compatibility with data use limitations [37].

GEO utilizes a more flexible submission model where individual researchers determine data organization and processing methods. Submitters must provide both raw data (e.g., FASTQ files) and processed data (e.g., count matrices), with metadata captured via spreadsheet templates [38]. This flexibility enables access to diverse experimental designs but increases variability in data quality and processing methods. GEO generally operates as an open-access resource, though submitters must comply with human subject guidelines when applicable [38].

Data Acquisition Protocols and Methodologies

TCGA Data Retrieval Workflow

The GDC provides multiple interfaces for data retrieval, each optimized for different use cases. The GDC Data Portal offers a web-based interface for querying and downloading small volumes of files, while the GDC Data Transfer Tool is recommended for large-scale downloads such as entire TCGA-LIHC datasets [34]. For programmatic access, the GDC API supports advanced queries using SQL-like syntax for precise dataset filtering.

A typical TCGA data acquisition protocol for lncRNA signature validation involves:

• Project Identification: Identify relevant cases using the TCGA-LIHC (Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma) project
• Data Type Selection: Filter for transcriptomic profiling data (RNA-Seq)
• File Specification: Select BAM files for alignment-based analysis or FPKM/UQ-normalized counts for expression analysis
• Clinical Data Integration: Download corresponding clinical XML files for survival analysis and patient stratification
• Batch Effect Assessment: Examine technical batch variables using the GDC metadata

For controlled data access, researchers must first obtain dbGaP authorization through an NIH Data Access Committee, which reviews proposed research uses for consistency with data submission parameters [37].

GEO Data Retrieval and Submission Protocols

GEO data acquisition follows distinct pathways depending on whether researchers are downloading existing datasets or submitting new data:

Table 2: GEO Data Retrieval and Submission Methods

Process	Primary Tools	Key Considerations
Dataset Download	GEO Accession Browser, SRA Toolkit	Supplemental files often contain processed data; Raw FASTQ via SRA
Data Submission	FTP transfer, metadata spreadsheet	Separate submissions per data type; Human data compliance required
Sequence Data	SRA Run Selector	Fastq preferred; BAM accepted but not preferred [38]
Metadata Requirements	GEO template spreadsheet	Detailed protocols, sample characteristics, data processing pipelines

For HCC researchers validating lncRNA signatures, GEO datasets like GSE251942 (HBV-related HCC) provide valuable validation cohorts [35]. The acquisition protocol typically involves:

• Accession Search: Identify relevant datasets using GEO query tools
• Metadata Examination: Review experimental design and sample characteristics
• Processed Data Download: Obtain count matrices or normalized expression values
• Raw Data Access: Retrieve FASTQ files from SRA when reprocessing is necessary
• Clinical Data Integration: Merge expression data with available patient outcomes

For data submission to GEO – essential for publishing prognostic signature studies – researchers must prepare raw data files, processed data files, and complete metadata spreadsheets. The submission protocol requires FTP transfer to a personalized upload space followed by metadata file submission [38]. GEO specifically requires that processed data for sequencing studies have quantitative components (e.g., counts, FPKM, TPM) rather than alignment files (BAM/SAM), which are considered intermediary [38].

Experimental Design and Preprocessing Workflows

TCGA Data Preprocessing Framework

TCGA data undergoes standardized preprocessing through the GDC harmonization pipelines, which include:

• Alignment: RNA-Seq data aligned to GRCh38 using STAR
• Quantification: Gene-level counts derived from aligned reads
• Variant Calling: Somatic mutation identification using multiple callers
• Clinical Data Curation: Structured data extraction from original sources

For lncRNA analysis, researchers typically begin with raw count data, then apply quality control measures including library size assessment, gene filtering, and normalization. The GDC provides both raw counts and normalized expressions (FPKM, FPKM-UQ), though most prognostic signature studies utilize raw counts followed by appropriate normalization for differential expression analysis.

GEO Data Preprocessing Considerations

GEO data preprocessing requires customized approaches due to variability in submitted data. A generalized workflow includes:

• Format Conversion: Convert platform-specific formats to standardized count matrices
• Quality Assessment: Evaluate sequencing depth, gene detection rates, and sample outliers
• Batch Correction: Address technical artifacts using methods like ComBat when multiple batches are present
• Normalization: Apply appropriate normalization (e.g., TMM for RNA-seq, RMA for microarrays)
• lncRNA Annotation: Map probes or genes to comprehensive lncRNA databases

For example, in the HCC dataset GSE251942, the submitter provided both RSEM and STAR raw counts, allowing researchers to select their preferred quantification method [35]. This flexibility enables method consistency when comparing across datasets but requires careful documentation of preprocessing decisions.

GEO Data Preprocessing Workflow: This diagram outlines the key steps for preparing GEO data for lncRNA analysis, highlighting quality control and normalization stages.

Practical Applications in HCC lncRNA Research

Case Study: Integrating TCGA and GEO for Signature Validation

A robust protocol for validating lncRNA prognostic signatures in HCC involves:

• Discovery Phase: Utilize TCGA-LIHC as the primary cohort for initial signature identification through Cox regression and machine learning approaches
• Technical Validation: Confirm lncRNA measurements using orthogonal methods (e.g., RT-qPCR) in representative samples
• External Validation: Identify appropriate GEO HCC datasets matching inclusion criteria (etiology, stage distribution, treatment-naive)
• Clinical Utility Assessment: Evaluate signature performance in predicting survival, therapeutic response, or recurrence risk

For example, a researcher might develop an m6A-related lncRNA signature using TCGA-LIHC data, then validate it in GEO datasets such as GSE251942 (HBV-related HCC) [35] and GSE269528 (mouse model of HBV-induced HCC) [36]. This approach tests signature robustness across experimental systems and etiologies.

Experimental Reagent Solutions for Functional Validation

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for lncRNA Functional Validation in HCC

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Application
A549/DDP Cell Line	Cisplatin-resistant LUAD model	Testing chemoresistance mechanisms [39]
TCGA RNA-seq Data	Discovery cohort for signature development	Identifying prognostic lncRNAs [40]
ssGSEA Algorithm	Immune infiltration quantification	Correlating lncRNAs with immune cells [40]
Illumina Platforms	High-throughput sequencing	Generating expression data (e.g., GPL18573) [35]
Feature Barcode Matrices	Single-cell RNA sequencing data	Characterizing cellular heterogeneity [38]
CIBERSORT/xCell	Immune cell deconvolution	Estimating immune contexture [40]

Comparative Analysis and Strategic Recommendations

Performance Metrics for Database Evaluation

When assessing TCGA and GEO for HCC lncRNA research, several performance dimensions emerge:

• Data Standardization: TCGA provides superior standardization through harmonized processing, while GEO offers greater methodological diversity
• Clinical Annotation: TCGA includes comprehensive, structured clinical data; GEO clinical metadata varies substantially in depth and quality
• Sample Size: TCGA-LIHC provides ~370 cases; GEO offers numerous smaller datasets enabling meta-analysis
• Experimental Designs: GEO includes intervention studies, time series, and cross-species comparisons not available in TCGA
• Accessibility: GEO generally provides faster access to data; TCGA controlled access requires approval but offers richer clinical correlates

Strategic Implementation Framework

For researchers designing HCC lncRNA studies, the following strategic approach optimizes database utilization:

• Utilize TCGA for Discovery: Leverage TCGA-LIHC for initial signature identification due to standardized data and rich clinical annotation
• Employ GEO for Validation: Select GEO datasets with complementary etiologies and experimental designs to test signature generalizability
• Implement Cross-Platform Normalization: Develop robust normalization pipelines to address technical variability when integrating multiple datasets
• Document Preprocessing Decisions: Maintain detailed records of all filtering, normalization, and transformation steps for reproducibility
• Plan for Functional Follow-up: Identify model systems and reagents early to enable efficient transition from computational discovery to experimental validation

The integration of both resources creates a powerful framework for developing clinically relevant lncRNA signatures in HCC. While TCGA provides the foundational data for discovery, GEO offers the heterogeneous validation cohorts necessary to establish prognostic robustness across diverse patient populations and experimental conditions.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a significant global health challenge, characterized by high mortality rates and limited therapeutic options for advanced disease. The heterogeneity of HCC contributes substantially to variable clinical outcomes, driving the need for reliable prognostic biomarkers that can guide clinical decision-making [41]. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), defined as RNA transcripts exceeding 200 nucleotides without protein-coding potential, have emerged as crucial regulators of oncogenic processes, including cell proliferation, invasion, metastasis, and treatment resistance [42] [28]. The development of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures through Cox regression methodologies provides a powerful approach for stratifying HCC patients based on survival probability, enabling more personalized management strategies. This review comprehensively examines the identification and validation of prognostic lncRNAs in HCC using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, comparing various signatures and their clinical applicability.

Statistical Foundation: Cox Regression in Survival Analysis

Principles of Cox Proportional Hazards Model

The Cox proportional hazards model is a semi-parametric regression technique designed specifically for analyzing time-to-event data with censored observations, making it particularly suitable for cancer survival studies [43] [44]. The model evaluates the relationship between survival time and multiple predictor variables (covariates) simultaneously, allowing researchers to adjust for potential confounding factors when assessing the prognostic impact of individual variables.

The Cox model is mathematically expressed as:

[ h(t) = h0(t) \times \exp(b1x1 + b2x2 + \cdots + bpx_p) ]

Where:

• ( h(t) ) represents the hazard function at time ( t )
• ( h_0(t) ) denotes the baseline hazard function
• ( x1, x2, \ldots, x_p ) represent the predictor variables (covariates)
• ( b1, b2, \ldots, b_p ) are the regression coefficients measuring the impact of each covariate [43] [44]

The key output from Cox regression analysis is the hazard ratio (HR), calculated as ( \exp(b_i) ) for each covariate. A HR > 1 indicates increased hazard (worse prognosis) with higher values of the covariate, while HR < 1 suggests reduced hazard (better prognosis) [44].

Univariate and Multivariate Cox Regression

Univariate Cox regression assesses the relationship between each variable and survival outcome independently, without adjusting for other factors. This initial screening step identifies candidate prognostic markers with individual significance [30].

Multivariate Cox regression simultaneously incorporates multiple covariates to evaluate the independent prognostic value of each variable while controlling for potential confounders. This approach identifies factors that provide independent prognostic information beyond other clinical or molecular variables [43]. The application of both analytical steps is crucial for developing robust prognostic signatures, as univariate analysis alone may identify variables whose significance disappears when adjusted for other factors in multivariate analysis.

A critical assumption of the Cox model is proportional hazards, meaning the hazard ratio between any two groups should remain constant over time. Validation of this assumption is essential for ensuring model reliability [43] [44].

Experimental Workflows and Methodologies

Standardized Analytical Pipeline

The identification of prognostic lncRNAs typically follows a structured bioinformatics workflow, supplemented by experimental validation. The following diagram illustrates this standardized approach:

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

Research groups typically acquire RNA sequencing data and corresponding clinical information from public repositories, primarily The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma (LIHC) dataset [41] [45] [42]. Additional validation cohorts are often obtained from the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets [45] [42]. Data preprocessing includes:

• Quality Control: Exclusion of samples with low RNA quality or incomplete clinical data
• Normalization: Conversion of raw counts to transcripts per million (TPM) or fragments per kilobase million (FPKM) to enable cross-sample comparisons [41]
• Filtering: Removal of genes with low expression across most samples to reduce noise
• Annotation: Distinguishing lncRNAs from mRNAs using reference databases like GENCODE [41]

Differential Expression and Correlation Analyses

Differentially expressed lncRNAs (DElncRNAs) are identified by comparing tumor tissues with adjacent normal liver tissues using thresholds such as |log2 fold change| > 1 and adjusted p-value < 0.05 [41] [46]. For context-specific signatures, researchers often perform correlation analyses to identify lncRNAs associated with specific biological processes (e.g., disulfidptosis, costimulatory molecules) using Pearson correlation coefficients (typically |R| > 0.4, p < 0.001) [42] [30].

Prognostic Model Construction

The core analytical phase employs sequential Cox regression analyses:

• Univariate Cox Regression: Initial screening to identify lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), or disease-free survival (DFS) [46] [30]

• LASSO Cox Regression: Application of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method to reduce overfitting and select the most relevant lncRNAs from univariately significant candidates [46] [42] [30]

• Multivariate Cox Regression: Final model refinement to identify lncRNAs with independent prognostic value after adjusting for clinical covariates such as age, gender, tumor stage, and grade [41] [42]

The resulting risk score is calculated using the formula:

[ \text{Risk Score} = \sum (\text{Exp}{\text{lncRNA}i} \times \text{Coef}{\text{lncRNA}i}) ]

Where ( \text{Exp}{\text{lncRNA}i} ) represents the expression level of each lncRNA and ( \text{Coef}{\text{lncRNA}i} ) denotes its regression coefficient derived from multivariate Cox analysis [42] [30].

Model Validation and Evaluation

Prognostic signatures undergo rigorous validation using:

• Internal Validation: Random splitting of the primary cohort into training and testing sets [46] [30]
• External Validation: Application of the signature to independent patient cohorts from different institutions or databases [45] [42]
• Statistical Metrics: Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves assessing 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival prediction accuracy [41] [30]
• Clinical Utility: Construction of nomograms integrating the lncRNA signature with clinical parameters for personalized prognosis prediction [41]

Functional Validation

Promising lncRNAs identified through computational analyses typically undergo experimental validation, including:

• In Vitro Assays: siRNA-mediated knockdown followed by functional assessments (CCK-8, colony formation, Transwell migration/invasion assays) to evaluate effects on proliferation, migration, and invasion [46] [42] [30]
• Molecular Techniques: Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) to verify expression patterns in cell lines and clinical specimens [42] [16]
• Mechanistic Studies: Investigation of regulatory networks, particularly competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) mechanisms where lncRNAs function as miRNA sponges [41]

Comparative Analysis of lncRNA Prognostic Signatures

Established lncRNA Signatures in HCC

Multiple research groups have developed and validated distinct lncRNA-based prognostic signatures for HCC, utilizing varied methodological approaches and biological rationales. The table below summarizes key signatures and their performance characteristics:

Table 1: Comparison of Prognostic lncRNA Signatures in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Signature Description	Component lncRNAs	Statistical Approach	Cohort Size	Performance (AUC)	Clinical Association
ceRNA Network-Based [41]	CRNDE, MYLK-AS1, CHEK1	Differential network analysis + Multivariate Cox	374 TCGA samples	1-year: 0.7773-year: 0.7225-year: 0.630	Independent prognostic factor; included in nomogram with pathological stage
11-lncRNA Signature [46]	AC010547.1, AC010280.2, AC015712.7, GACAT3, AC079466.1, AC089983.1, AC051618.1, AL121721.1, LINC01747, LINC01517, AC008750.3	Univariate Cox + LASSO + Multivariate Cox	371 TCGA samples203 GEO samples	AUC: 0.846	High-risk group showed poorer OS; GACAT3 promotes proliferation, invasion, migration
Costimulatory Molecule-Related [30]	BOK-AS1, AC099850.3, AL365203.2, NRAV, AL049840.4	Correlation analysis + Univariate/LASSO/Multivariate Cox	343 TCGA samples	Training: 1-year 0.778Testing: 1-year 0.735	Risk score independent prognostic factor; associated with immune infiltration; AC099850.3 promotes proliferation
Disulfidptosis-Related [42]	3-lncRNA signature (including TMCC1-AS1)	Pearson correlation + Univariate/LASSO/Multivariate Cox	374 TCGA samples	Not specified	Associated with immune microenvironment; TMCC1-AS1 promotes proliferation, migration, invasion
Machine Learning Panel [16]	LINC00152, LINC00853, UCA1, GAS5	Machine learning integration with clinical parameters	52 HCC patients + 30 controls	Sensitivity: 100%Specificity: 97%	LINC00152/GAS5 ratio correlated with mortality risk

Individual lncRNAs with Independent Prognostic Value

Beyond multi-lncRNA signatures, numerous individual lncRNAs demonstrate independent prognostic value through multivariate Cox regression analyses:

Table 2: Individual Prognostic lncRNAs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

lncRNA	Expression in Tumor	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	P-value	Prognostic Association	Detection Method
LINC00152 [28]	High	2.524 (1.661-4.015)	0.001	Shorter OS	qRT-PCR
LINC01554 [28]	Low	2.507 (1.153-2.832)	0.017	Shorter OS	qRT-PCR
HOXC13-AS [28]	High	2.894 (1.183-4.223)	0.015	Shorter OS and RFS	qRT-PCR
LASP1-AS [28]	Low	3.539 (2.698-6.030)	<0.0001	Shorter OS and RFS	qRT-PCR
ELF3-AS1 [28]	High	1.667 (1.127-2.468)	0.011	Shorter OS	RNAseq
DANCR [45]	High	Not specified	<0.05	Shorter OS	RNAseq
GACAT3 [46]	High	Not specified	<0.05	Shorter OS; promotes malignant phenotypes	qRT-PCR

Regulatory Networks and Biological Mechanisms

Prognostic lncRNAs frequently operate within complex regulatory networks, particularly through competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) mechanisms. The following diagram illustrates a representative ceRNA network involving prognostic lncRNAs in HCC:

The ceRNA hypothesis posits that lncRNAs can function as molecular sponges for microRNAs (miRNAs), thereby preventing these miRNAs from binding to their target mRNAs and subsequently influencing the expression of cancer-related genes [41]. For instance, the lncRNA HULC promotes liver cancer tumorigenesis by restraining PTEN through the ubiquitin-proteasome system mediated by autophagy-P62 [30]. Similarly, H19 promotes HCC cell invasiveness by activating the miR-193b/MAPK1 axis [30].

Key Experimental Materials and Platforms

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for lncRNA Prognostic Studies

Category	Specific Resource	Application/Function	Examples from Literature
Data Resources	TCGA-LIHC	Primary data source for discovery cohort	Used in [41] [46] [45]
	ICGC-LIRI-JP	Independent validation cohort	Used in [45]
	GEO Datasets	Additional validation cohorts	Used in [46] [30]
Bioinformatics Tools	R/Bioconductor packages (limma, survival, clusterProfiler)	Differential expression, survival analysis, functional enrichment	Used in [41] [42]
	qpgraph R package	Construction of lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA networks	Used in [41]
	STRING database	Protein-protein interaction network analysis	Used in [41]
	Cytoscape with MCODE	Network visualization and module identification	Used in [41]
Experimental Reagents	miRNeasy Mini Kit	RNA isolation from tissues and plasma	Used in [42] [16]
	RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit	cDNA synthesis for qRT-PCR	Used in [16]
	PowerTrack SYBR Green Master Mix	qRT-PCR quantification	Used in [16]
Cell-based Assays	CCK-8 assay	Cell proliferation assessment	Used in [46] [42]
	Transwell chambers	Cell migration and invasion evaluation	Used in [46]
	Colony formation assay	Clonogenic potential measurement	Used in [46] [30]

The integration of univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses has proven instrumental in identifying robust lncRNA-based prognostic signatures for hepatocellular carcinoma. These signatures demonstrate considerable potential for improving risk stratification and treatment personalization in this heterogeneous malignancy. While significant progress has been made, several challenges and future directions merit attention:

Standardization and Validation: Broader validation across diverse ethnic populations and standardized cutoff values for risk stratification would enhance clinical applicability.

Multi-omics Integration: Combining lncRNA signatures with genomic, epigenomic, and proteomic markers may provide more comprehensive prognostic models.

Functional Mechanisms: Deeper investigation of the molecular mechanisms through which prognostic lncRNAs influence HCC pathogenesis would strengthen their biological rationale and identify potential therapeutic targets.

Clinical Translation: Prospective studies evaluating the utility of lncRNA signatures in clinical trial settings and their ability to guide treatment decisions represent the next critical step toward clinical implementation.

As research in this field advances, lncRNA-based prognostic models hold promise for refining HCC management paradigms and ultimately improving patient outcomes through more personalized therapeutic approaches.

In the field of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) research, the construction of robust prognostic signatures is essential for advancing personalized medicine. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as crucial regulatory molecules in HCC progression, with specific expression patterns strongly correlated with patient outcomes. [47] [16] Among various statistical approaches, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) penalized regression has become a cornerstone methodology for developing these prognostic models. LASSO regression effectively addresses the high-dimensionality challenge in genomic data by performing both variable selection and regularization, thereby enhancing prediction accuracy and interpretability.

The fundamental strength of LASSO in lncRNA signature development lies in its ability to identify the most relevant biomarkers from thousands of candidate lncRNAs while minimizing overfitting. This capability is particularly valuable in HCC research, where molecular heterogeneity significantly impacts clinical outcomes and therapeutic responses. By constructing multivariate models based on carefully selected lncRNAs, researchers can stratify HCC patients into distinct risk categories, predict survival probabilities, and potentially guide therapeutic decisions. The integration of LASSO-derived signatures with clinical parameters provides a powerful framework for improving HCC management, from early detection to treatment selection.

Comparative Analysis of LASSO-Constructed lncRNA Signatures in HCC

Performance Metrics of Established Signatures

Table 1: Comparison of LASSO-Constructed lncRNA Signatures in HCC Prognosis

Signature Type	Number of lncRNAs	AUC Values	Clinical Validation	Key lncRNAs Identified	Associated Biological Processes
Basement Membrane-Related [47]	6	1-year: ~0.753-year: ~0.705-year: ~0.70	In vitro cell line validation	GSEC, MIR4435-2HG, AC092614.1, AC127521.1, LINC02580, AC008050.1	Immune response, tumor mutation, drug sensitivity
Disulfidptosis-Related [14]	3	1-year: 0.7563-year: 0.6955-year: 0.701	Independent cohort validation	AC016717.2, AC124798.1, AL031985.3	Disulfidptosis, immune function, somatic mutations
m6A-Related [48]	6	Satisfactory predictive efficacy reported	qPCR in cell lines	AC012313.8, AC092171.2, AL353708.1, KDM4A-AS1, LINC01138, TMCC1-AS1	Immune infiltration, checkpoint expression, chemotherapy sensitivity
Migrasome-Related [17]	2	Effective stratification confirmed	Clinical tissues (n=100) and functional assays	LINC00839, MIR4435-2HG	EMT regulation, PD-L1-mediated immune evasion
Plasma Exosomal [5]	6	High prognostic accuracy	RT-qPCR in cell lines	G6PD, KIF20A, NDRG1, ADH1C, RECQL4, MCM4	Immunosuppressive microenvironment, metabolic pathways

Technical Implementation of LASSO Regression

The application of LASSO regression follows a standardized workflow across HCC studies. Initially, candidate lncRNAs are identified through differential expression analysis between tumor and normal tissues, often with additional filtering for biological relevance (e.g., basement membrane-related, disulfidptosis-related). [47] [14] The LASSO algorithm then applies a penalty term (λ) to the regression coefficients, effectively shrinking less important coefficients to zero and retaining only the most predictive lncRNAs.

The optimal λ value is determined through k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold), which minimizes the mean cross-validated error. [5] [17] This process ensures that the final model balances complexity with predictive performance. The resulting risk score calculation follows the formula:

Risk Score = Σ (Coefficienti × Expressioni)

where Coefficienti represents the weight assigned to each lncRNA by the LASSO algorithm, and Expressioni denotes the normalized expression level of that lncRNA in a given sample. [17] Patients are subsequently stratified into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the median risk score or optimized cut-off values.

Experimental Protocols for Signature Development and Validation

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The foundation of any robust lncRNA signature begins with comprehensive data collection from public repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). [47] [5] For HCC research, the TCGA-LIHC dataset represents a primary resource, typically containing RNA sequencing data from 370-415 samples (including both tumor and adjacent normal tissues). [47] [48] Data normalization is critical, with common approaches including transformation to transcripts per million (TPM) values followed by log2 transformation to stabilize variance. [5]

Differential expression analysis employs packages such as "DESeq2" or "edgeR" with standard thresholds (∣logFC∣ ≥ 1.0 and FDR < 0.05) to identify lncRNAs significantly dysregulated in HCC compared to normal tissues. [47] [48] For biologically informed signatures, additional filtering steps incorporate correlation analysis with specific gene sets (e.g., basement membrane genes, disulfidptosis-related genes, migrasome-related genes) using Pearson correlation coefficients (∣R∣ > 0.4-0.55) and significance testing (P < 0.001). [47] [14] [17]

LASSO Regression Implementation

The technical execution of LASSO regression utilizes specialized R packages, primarily "glmnet," which implements the coordinate descent algorithm for efficient computation. [47] [48] The process begins with univariate Cox regression to identify lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (P < 0.05), reducing the candidate pool before LASSO application. [17] The LASSO Cox model is then fitted using the following standardized approach:

• Data Preparation: Expression matrices are standardized, and survival data are formatted for time-to-event analysis.

• Parameter Tuning: The optimal regularization parameter (λ) is identified through 10-fold cross-validation repeated 100-1000 times to ensure stability. [5] [17] The λ value that minimizes the cross-validated partial likelihood deviance is selected.

• Model Fitting: The final model is fitted using the optimal λ, which shrinks coefficients of non-informative lncRNAs to zero while retaining the most prognostic markers.

• Risk Score Calculation: The signature is applied using the formula: Risk Score = Σ(Coefi × Expi), where Coefi represents the LASSO-derived coefficient for each lncRNA, and Expi represents its expression level. [17]

Experimental Validation Methodologies

Cell Culture and Functional Assays: Validated HCC cell lines (e.g., SMMC-7721, SK-HEP-1, LM3, HUH-7, MHCC-97H) and normal hepatocyte controls (e.g., WRL68, MIHA) are cultured in DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum at 37°C with 5% CO₂. [47] [48] Functional validation typically includes:

• Gene Knockdown: Small interfering RNA (siRNA) or short hairpin RNA (shRNA)-mediated knockdown of signature lncRNAs (e.g., AC092614.1, MIR4435-2HG) using commercially synthesized reagents. [47] [17]

• Proliferation Assays: Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) and EdU incorporation assays to measure cellular proliferation changes following lncRNA modulation. [47]

• Migration and Invasion Assays: Transwell chambers with or without Matrigel coating to assess metastatic potential, with quantification of traversed cells after fixation and staining. [47]

• Western Blot Analysis: Protein extraction followed by antibody detection for epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers (E-cadherin, vimentin), cell cycle regulators (CDK2, P27), or pathway components to elucidate mechanisms. [47]

Molecular Validation:

• RNA Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Localization of lncRNAs (e.g., AC092614.1) within cells using specific probes and fluorescence microscopy. [47]

• Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR): Total RNA isolation using kits such as miRNeasy Mini Kit, reverse transcription with RevertAid kits, and amplification with PowerTrack SYBR Green Master Mix on real-time PCR systems. [16] [48] The 2^(-ΔΔCT) method normalizes expression to housekeeping genes (e.g., GAPDH).

Biological Mechanisms and Clinical Applications

Functional Roles of Signature lncRNAs

LASSO-identified lncRNAs in HCC signatures frequently regulate critical cancer pathways through diverse mechanisms. MIR4435-2HG, identified in multiple signatures, promotes malignant behaviors and immune evasion by regulating EMT and PD-L1 expression. [17] AC092614.1, a novel lncRNA from the basement membrane-related signature, significantly regulates HCC cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in vitro. [47] These lncRNAs often function as competitive endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs), sequestering microRNAs to derepress oncogenic transcripts, or directly interacting with proteins to modulate their activity.

The biological relevance of these signatures is further evidenced by their enrichment in specific pathways. Basement membrane-related lncRNAs are implicated in immune response, tumor mutation, and drug sensitivity pathways. [47] Disulfidptosis-related signatures connect to a novel form of programmed cell death involving abnormal disulfide accumulation. [14] Migrasome-related lncRNAs influence cellular structures formed during migration that regulate tumor microenvironment interactions. [17]

Clinical Translation and Therapeutic Implications

The clinical utility of LASSO-derived lncRNA signatures extends beyond prognosis to encompass treatment stratification and therapeutic targeting. Signatures such as the basement membrane-related model demonstrate significant differences in immune response, mutation profiles, and drug sensitivity between high-risk and low-risk patients. [47] The disulfidptosis-related signature shows distinct patterns of immune function, tumor mutational burden, and drug sensitivity. [14] These findings enable clinically relevant applications:

Immunotherapy Guidance: The plasma exosomal lncRNA-related signature identifies HCC subtypes with differential responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors, with low-risk patients exhibiting superior anti-PD-1 immunotherapy responses. [5] Similarly, the migrasome-related signature correlates with immune cell infiltration and checkpoint expression, predicting responsiveness to immunotherapy. [17]

Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy Selection: High-risk patients in the plasma exosomal signature show increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents and sorafenib. [5] The m6A-related lncRNA signature demonstrates differences in sensitivity to conventional chemotherapeutic agents between risk groups. [48]

Novel Therapeutic Targets: Functional validation of signature lncRNAs, such as MIR4435-2HG, reveals their potential as therapeutic targets. Knockdown experiments demonstrate reduced proliferation, migration, and EMT, suggesting that targeting these lncRNAs could represent a viable treatment strategy. [17]

Research Reagent Solutions for Signature Development

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for lncRNA Signature Development and Validation

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Application in Signature Research	Key Features
RNA Isolation Kits	miRNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN) [16], TRIpure Reagent (Bioteke) [48]	Total RNA extraction from tissues/cells	Preserves lncRNA integrity, includes DNase treatment
Reverse Transcription Kits	RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Scientific) [16], BeyoRT II M-MLV (Beyotime) [48]	cDNA synthesis for expression analysis	High efficiency for long transcripts, includes RNase inhibitor
qPCR Reagents	PowerTrack SYBR Green Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) [16], 2×Taq PCR MasterMix (Solarbio) [48]	lncRNA quantification	High sensitivity, low background, compatible with multiplexing
Cell Culture Reagents	DMEM with 10% FBS (Gibco) [47] [48], Penicillin/Streptomycin (HyClone) [49]	Maintenance of HCC cell lines	Standardized growth conditions, minimal batch variation
Gene Knockdown Reagents	siRNA (Shanghai Bioengineering) [47], shRNA-encoding lentivirus (Shanghai Taitool Bioscience) [49]	Functional validation of signature lncRNAs	High knockdown efficiency, target-specific designs
Functional Assay Kits	CCK-8 proliferation assay [47], EdU incorporation assay [47], Transwell migration chambers [47]	Phenotypic validation of lncRNA functions	Quantitative, high-throughput compatible
Antibodies	Anti-E-cadherin, anti-vimentin, anti-CDk2, anti-P27 (Wuhan Sanying) [47]	Protein-level mechanism investigation	Target-specific, validated for Western blot

LASSO penalized regression has established itself as an indispensable statistical methodology for developing robust lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in hepatocellular carcinoma. The comparative analysis presented in this review demonstrates consistent performance across diverse biological contexts, with AUC values typically ranging from 0.69-0.76 for 1-5 year survival prediction. [47] [14] The standardization of risk score calculation protocols enables reproducible implementation across research laboratories, while comprehensive experimental validation frameworks ensure biological and clinical relevance.

The continuing evolution of LASSO-based signature development will likely incorporate multi-omics integration, machine learning enhancements, and expanded clinical validation across diverse patient cohorts. As these methodologies mature, lncRNA signatures promise to advance HCC management through improved risk stratification, treatment selection, and the identification of novel therapeutic targets, ultimately contributing to more personalized and effective approaches for this challenging malignancy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global health challenge, ranking as the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide [14]. The high heterogeneity of HCC contributes to variable treatment responses and poor overall survival, driving the urgent need for reliable prognostic biomarkers to guide personalized treatment strategies [9] [50]. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), defined as transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides without protein-coding capacity, have emerged as pivotal regulators of gene expression and cellular processes in carcinogenesis [14] [51]. Their differential expression in tumor tissues and circulation has positioned lncRNAs as promising biomarkers for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response prediction [9] [52].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of three representative validated lncRNA-based prognostic signatures for HCC, focusing on their molecular foundations, performance metrics, and clinical applicability for researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Analysis of Validated lncRNA Signatures

The field has seen numerous lncRNA signatures developed using various molecular themes. While an exact 11-lncRNA signature was not identified in the current literature, the table below compares three well-validated signatures based on different regulated cell death mechanisms.

Table 1: Characteristics of Validated lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Feature	7-lncRNA Ferroptosis Signature [53]	5-lncRNA Necroptosis Signature [54]	3-lncRNA Disulfidptosis Signature [14]
Molecular Theme	Ferroptosis-related	Necroptosis-related	Disulfidptosis-related
Number of lncRNAs	7	5	3
Sample Source	TCGA (365 patients)	TCGA database	TCGA (422 patients: 373 tumor, 49 normal)
Validation	Training (n=184) and testing (n=181) sets	Independent cohort validation	Training (n=185) and validation (n=184) cohorts
Key lncRNAs	LINC01063 (validated)	ZFPM2-AS1, AC099850.3, BACE1-AS, KDM4A-AS1, MKLN1-AS	AC016717.2, AC124798.1, AL031985.3
AUC Performance	0.745 (1-, 2-year); 0.719 (3-year)	0.773	0.756 (1-year); 0.695 (3-year); 0.701 (5-year)
Clinical Utility	Prognosis, immunotherapy response prediction	Prognosis, personalized treatment strategies	Prognosis, immune function, tumor mutational burden, drug sensitivity
Experimental Validation	In vitro (proliferation, migration, invasion) and in vivo (mouse xenograft) for LINC01063	qPCR validation in independent cohort	Not specified

Performance Metrics and Clinical Relevance

Table 2: Performance Comparison and Clinical Associations of lncRNA Signatures

Parameter	7-lncRNA Ferroptosis Signature	5-lncRNA Necroptosis Signature	3-lncRNA Disulfidptosis Signature
Risk Group Survival	Poorer OS in high-risk group	Poorer OS in high-risk group	Poorer OS in high-risk group
Immune Features	Increased immune cell infiltration, elevated checkpoint expression in high-risk	Enriched T cell receptor and NK cell mediated cytotoxicity in high-risk	Significant differences in immune function between risk groups
Therapeutic Implications	Correlated with immunotherapy efficacy	Informed personalized treatment strategies	Differential drug sensitivity between risk groups
Pathway Enrichment	Oncogenic pathways in high-risk group	mTOR, MAPK, p53 signaling pathways in high-risk	Not specified
Multivariate Analysis	Independent prognostic factor	Not specified	Independent prognostic factor

Methodological Framework for Signature Development

Standardized Workflow for Signature Construction

The development of lncRNA prognostic signatures follows a systematic bioinformatics pipeline, validated through experimental approaches. The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow employed across multiple studies:

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Bioinformatics and Computational Analysis

• Data Acquisition and Preprocessing: Transcriptome sequencing data and matched clinical information for HCC patients are obtained from public databases such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [14] [55] [53]. Patients with overall survival of less than 30 days are typically excluded to ensure robustness [15]. Data is often randomly divided into training and validation cohorts with balanced clinical features [14].

• Identification of Mechanism-Related Genes: Genes associated with specific cell death mechanisms (e.g., disulfidptosis, ferroptosis, necroptosis) are identified from literature review and specialized databases such as FerrDb for ferroptosis [14] [53]. For disulfidptosis studies, 22 disulfidptosis-related genes (DRGs) were selected based on recent discoveries of this glucose deprivation-induced cell death mechanism [14].

• LncRNA Correlation Analysis: Correlation analysis (Pearson or Spearman) between mechanism-related genes and lncRNA expression profiles is performed using thresholds of |R| > 0.4-0.5 and p < 0.05 to identify relevant lncRNAs [14] [15]. Co-expression networks are visualized using Cytoscape software [51].

• Prognostic Model Construction: Univariate Cox regression analysis identifies lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (p < 0.05) [51] [53]. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression and multivariate Cox analysis are applied to reduce overfitting and construct the final prognostic signature [14] [53]. The risk score is calculated using the formula: Risk score = Σ(Expi × Coei), where Expi represents the expression level of each lncRNA and Coei represents the regression coefficient derived from multivariate Cox analysis [14] [53].

Validation and Functional Characterization

• Model Validation: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test compares overall survival between high-risk and low-risk groups [14] [51]. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis evaluates the predictive accuracy of the signature at 1, 3, and 5 years [14] [53]. The predictive performance is often compared to traditional clinical parameters using concordance index (C-index) analysis [50].

• Immune Microenvironment Analysis: Single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) quantifies the infiltration levels of immune cells and the activity of immune-related pathways [14] [5] [53]. Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) algorithm predicts response to immune checkpoint inhibitors [55] [5]. ESTIMATE algorithm calculates immune scores, stromal scores, and tumor purity [51].

• Functional Enrichment Analysis: Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) identifies signaling pathways and biological processes enriched in high-risk and low-risk groups [53] [54]. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses reveal the potential functions of differentially expressed genes between risk groups [14] [51].

Experimental Validation Techniques

• In Vitro Functional Assays:

  • Gene Knockdown: Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) or short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) are designed and transfected into HCC cell lines using Lipofectamine reagents [55] [15]. Knockdown efficiency is validated by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) [55].
  • Cell Proliferation Assays: Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assays measure cell viability at 0, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after seeding [55] [53].
  • Colony Formation Assay: Cells are seeded in six-well plates and incubated for 2 weeks, then stained with crystal violet to assess clonogenic potential [53] [15].
  • Migration and Invasion Assays: Transwell chambers with or without Matrigel coating assess cell migration and invasion capabilities after 48 hours of incubation [53].

• In Vivo Validation:

  • Xenograft Models: Nude BALB/c mice are subcutaneously injected with 5×10^6 lncRNA-knockdown or control HCC cells [53]. Tumor growth is monitored regularly, and tumor volume is calculated using the formula: volume = (length × width^2)/2 [53]. After 28 days, mice are sacrificed, and tumors are excised for further analysis [53].

Signaling Pathways and Biological Mechanisms

Molecular Pathways Underlying lncRNA Signatures

The prognostic lncRNA signatures are functionally linked to critical oncogenic and tumor-suppressive pathways in HCC. The diagram below illustrates key pathways associated with these signatures:

The 5-lncRNA necroptosis signature demonstrates significant enrichment in tumor-related pathways including mTOR, MAPK, and p53 signaling [54]. The disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature shows strong associations with immune function and tumor mutational burden [14]. Ferroptosis-related signatures are linked to metabolic reprogramming and immune checkpoint expression [53]. Plasma exosomal lncRNA signatures regulate cell cycle progression, TGF-β signaling, p53 pathways, and ferroptosis, contributing to an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg infiltration and elevated PD-L1/CTLA4 expression [5].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for lncRNA Signature Validation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
RNA Isolation Kits	Plasma/Serum Circulating and Exosomal RNA Purification Mini Kit (Norgen Biotek) [52]	Isolation of high-quality RNA from plasma samples for liquid biopsy approaches
Reverse Transcription Kits	High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher) [52]	Conversion of RNA to cDNA for subsequent qPCR analysis
qPCR Reagents	Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Thermo Fisher) [52]	Quantitative measurement of lncRNA expression levels
Cell Culture Reagents	DEME with 10% FBS (HyClone), penicillin-streptomycin (Solarbio) [55]	Maintenance of HCC cell lines for functional studies
Transfection Reagents	Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen) [55] [15]	Introduction of siRNAs/shRNAs into HCC cells for gene knockdown
Cell Viability Assays	CCK-8 kit (Beijing Zoman Biotechnology) [55] [53]	Measurement of cell proliferation and drug sensitivity
Animal Models	Nude BALB/c mice (Gemparmatech) [53]	In vivo validation of lncRNA functions in xenograft models

The comparative analysis of validated lncRNA signatures in HCC reveals a consistent pattern of robust prognostic capability across different molecular themes. The 7-lncRNA ferroptosis signature, 5-lncRNA necroptosis signature, and 3-lncRNA disulfidptosis signature all demonstrate significant value in stratifying HCC patients into distinct risk categories with differential overall survival, immune microenvironment features, and therapeutic vulnerabilities. While each signature originates from distinct cell death mechanisms, they converge on common oncogenic pathways and clinical applications.

The methodological framework for developing these signatures combines rigorous bioinformatics pipelines with experimental validation, creating a standardized approach for prognostic biomarker development. The consistent association of these signatures with therapy response highlights their potential utility in guiding personalized treatment strategies, particularly in the context of immunotherapy and targeted therapies.

Future research directions should focus on multi-center prospective validation of these signatures, standardization of detection methods for clinical implementation, and functional characterization of individual lncRNAs within these signatures to identify novel therapeutic targets. The integration of these molecular signatures with conventional clinical parameters promises to enhance precision oncology approaches in HCC management.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health challenge, characterized by high incidence and mortality rates. The development of reliable prognostic tools is paramount for improving patient management and survival outcomes. In recent years, long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) signatures have emerged as powerful biomarkers for predicting HCC prognosis. The validation of these signatures relies heavily on two core statistical methodologies: time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, which assesses the diagnostic accuracy of a test over time, and Kaplan-Meier validation, which compares survival distributions between different risk groups. This guide provides a comparative analysis of recently developed lncRNA prognostic signatures, focusing on their performance metrics and the experimental protocols used for their validation.

Comparative Performance of Recent lncRNA Signatures

The field has seen a proliferation of lncRNA signatures based on diverse biological mechanisms. The table below provides a structured comparison of their reported performance metrics.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Recent lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Prognostic Signature (Year)	Basis / Related Process	Number of LncRNAs	Area Under the Curve (AUC)	Key Validation Methods
Senescence-related LncRNA Signature (2022) [56]	Cellular Senescence	8	1-Year: 0.783 (at cut-off 1.447)	Time-dependent ROC, Kaplan-Meier, Cox Regression
Disulfidptosis-related LncRNA Signature (2025) [14]	Disulfidptosis	3	1-Year: 0.7563-Year: 0.6955-Year: 0.701	Time-dependent ROC, Kaplan-Meier, Nomogram
MPT-driven Necrosis-related LncRNA Signature (2025) [57]	Mitochondrial Permeability Transition	3	Overall: 0.725	ROC, Kaplan-Meier, Immune Infiltration Analysis
Autophagy-related LncRNA Signature (2021) [58]	Autophagy	4	Robust predictive power (Specific values not provided)	Time-dependent ROC, PCA, ICGC Validation
Migrasome-related LncRNA Signature (2025) [17]	Migrasome Function	2	Information not provided in snippet	Independent Clinical Cohort (n=100), LASSO-Cox
50-LncRNA Pair Signature (50-LPS) (2022) [59]	Qualitative Pairs	50 Pairs	More powerful than clinical factors per DCA	ROC, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), Multivariate Cox
4-LncRNA Machine Learning Panel (2024) [16]	Plasma-based Diagnostics	4	100% Sensitivity, 97% Specificity (for diagnosis)	ROC, Machine Learning Model (Scikit-learn)

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Validation

The robust validation of lncRNA signatures involves a multi-step process, from data acquisition to functional analysis. The following workflow outlines the standard protocol employed in these studies.

Figure 1: General Workflow for LncRNA Signature Development and Validation

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The foundational step involves gathering large-scale genomic and clinical data. The primary source for this information is The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) LIHC (Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma) dataset [57] [58] [17]. Researchers download RNA sequencing data (often in TPM format) and corresponding clinical information, such as overall survival time, survival status, and clinicopathological parameters (e.g., age, sex, tumor stage). Data preprocessing includes normalization, log2 transformation, and filtering of patients with incomplete follow-up information [57] [58].

Identification of Mechanism-Related LncRNAs

To build a biologically relevant signature, lncRNAs are selected based on their correlation to a specific biological process (e.g., senescence, disulfidptosis, autophagy). The standard method involves:

• Gene Set Collection: A set of key genes related to the process of interest is curated from literature and databases like GeneCards [17] or HADb [58].
• Co-expression Analysis: Pearson correlation analysis is performed between the expression of these core genes and all lncRNAs in the dataset. LncRNAs with a significant correlation coefficient (typically |R| > 0.4 or 0.5 with a p-value < 0.001) are identified as process-related lncRNAs [14] [57] [58].

Prognostic Model Construction

The process-related lncRNAs are then subjected to survival analysis to build a predictive model.

• Univariate Cox Regression: This initial screen identifies lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (P < 0.05) [56] [17].
• LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) Cox Regression: This technique reduces overfitting by penalizing the coefficients of the lncRNAs and selects the most robust predictors for the final model [14] [57] [17].
• Risk Score Calculation: A linear combination of the expression levels of the final lncRNAs, weighted by their regression coefficients, is used to calculate a risk score for each patient [14]. The formula is generally: Risk Score = (Expression of lncRNA1 × Coefficient1) + (Expression of lncRNA2 × Coefficient2) + ...

Performance Validation Using Key Metrics

This is the core phase where the model's predictive power is objectively evaluated.

• Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis: Patients are stratified into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the median risk score. The survival curves of the two groups are plotted and compared using the log-rank test. A statistically significant P-value (< 0.05) indicates that the signature effectively discriminates patients with different survival outcomes [56] [14] [57].
• Time-Dependent ROC Analysis: This assesses the model's predictive accuracy at specific time points (1, 3, and 5 years). The Area Under the Curve (AUC) is calculated, where an AUC > 0.7 is generally considered to have good predictive ability [56] [14] [58].
• Independent Prognostic Value Validation: Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses are performed that include the risk score and other clinical variables (e.g., age, stage). This confirms that the lncRNA signature is an independent predictor of survival, not reliant on other known factors [56] [17].
• Nomogram Construction and Calibration: A nomogram integrating the risk score and independent clinical factors is often built to provide a quantitative tool for predicting individual patient survival probability at 1, 3, and 5 years. Calibration curves are plotted to assess the agreement between predicted and observed outcomes [56] [14] [58].

Functional and Tumor Microenvironment Analysis

To provide biological insight, researchers investigate the potential functions and immune context associated with the signature.

• Enrichment Analysis: Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses are conducted on genes differentially expressed between the high- and low-risk groups. This reveals biological pathways enriched in high-risk patients [14] [58].
• Immune Infiltration Analysis: Algorithms such as ESTIMATE and CIBERSORT are used to analyze the tumor microenvironment. Studies often find that high-risk patients have higher infiltration of immunosuppressive cells (like Tregs) and increased expression of immune checkpoints (e.g., PDCD1, CTLA4, CD276), suggesting a potential for altered responses to immunotherapy [56] [14] [17].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for lncRNA Signature Validation

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research
Public Databases	TCGA-LIHC, ICGC, GEO (e.g., GSE101728)	Provide large-scale, annotated RNA-seq data and clinical information for model training and validation.
Gene Sets	GeneCards, HADb, GSEA Database	Supply curated lists of genes related to specific biological processes (e.g., migrasomes, autophagy).
Statistical & Bioinformatic R Packages	"survival", "timeROC", "glmnet", "limma", "clusterProfiler", "ESTIMATE", "GSVA"	Perform survival analysis, model construction, differential expression, and functional enrichment.
Experimental Validation Reagents	qRT-PCR Kits (e.g., SYBR Green), Specific Primers (e.g., for LINC00685, GIHCG), HCC Cell Lines, sh/siRNA for knockdown	Used to technically and functionally validate the expression and role of identified lncRNAs in clinical samples and in vitro/in vivo models [57] [16] [17].

Biological Pathways and Clinical Translation

Understanding the biological mechanisms behind a prognostic signature is crucial for its clinical translation. The lncRNAs in these signatures often regulate key cancer pathways, influencing tumor behavior and the immune microenvironment.

Figure 2: LncRNA Influence on HCC Biology and Prognosis

The connection between biological mechanism and clinical utility is key. For instance, the senescence-related lncRNA signature was not only prognostic but also associated with an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, characterized by a higher infiltration of Treg cells and upregulation of immunotherapy markers like PDCD1 (PD-1) and CTLA4 [56]. This suggests that such a signature could potentially identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors, moving beyond pure prognosis towards guiding therapy selection. Similarly, a migrasome-related lncRNA, MIR4435-2HG, was functionally validated to promote malignant behaviors and immune evasion by regulating EMT and PD-L1 expression [17]. These findings underscore the dual role of these signatures as both prognostic biomarkers and potential indicators of therapeutic response.

Optimization Strategies: Addressing Technical and Biological Challenges in Signature Validation

In the field of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) research, particularly for developing long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) based prognostic signatures, the rigorous splitting of patient cohorts into training, testing, and external validation sets represents a critical methodological foundation. This process ensures that predictive models are both accurate and generalizable, moving beyond mere statistical associations to clinically applicable tools. The fundamental principle underlying cohort splitting is to develop a model on one subset of data (training), optimize and preliminarily validate it on another (testing), and ultimately confirm its performance on completely independent data (external validation) that was not involved in any aspect of model development.

The validation paradigm has evolved significantly from simple random splits to sophisticated multi-center designs that account for geographical, temporal, and technical variations. For lncRNA-based signatures in HCC, where molecular heterogeneity significantly impacts clinical outcomes, appropriate cohort splitting methodologies directly impact the reliability and clinical translation of prognostic biomarkers. This guide systematically compares the performance characteristics of different cohort splitting approaches, providing researchers with evidence-based methodologies for robust model validation.

Comparative Analysis of Cohort Splitting Methodologies

Table 1: Comparison of Primary Cohort Splitting Methodologies in HCC Research

Methodology	Typical Split Ratio	Key Performance Metrics	Advantages	Limitations
Single-Center Random Split	70:30 or 80:20 (training:testing)	C-index: 0.75-0.85 in testing sets [14]	Efficient with limited samples; simple implementation	High risk of overfitting; limited generalizability
Temporal Validation	Sequential by enrollment date	C-index drop: 0.05-0.15 in temporal validation [60]	Tests model performance over time	Vulnerable to temporal practice changes
Multi-Center External Validation	Independent cohorts from different institutions	C-index: 0.73-0.75 across centers [61]	Assesses generalizability across populations	Requires extensive coordination and resources
Prospective-Retrospective Hybrid	Retrospective for training, prospective for validation	C-index: 0.709-0.760 in prospective validation [60]	Balances practicality with evidence level	Potential bias from different data collection methods

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across Validation Types in Recent HCC Studies

Study Focus	Training Cohort C-index	Internal Validation C-index	External Validation C-index	Performance Preservation
Disulfidptosis-related lncRNAs [14]	0.756 (1-year AUC)	0.695-0.701 (3-5 year AUC)	Not reported	8.1-12.3% performance decrease
Machine Learning for Duodenal Cancer [61]	0.882	0.747 (Validation 1)	0.734-0.736 (Validations 2-3)	16.6-16.8% performance decrease
Consensus AI Prognostic Signature [50]	0.82 (average across cohorts)	0.79 (internal consistency)	0.73-0.77 (across 5 external cohorts)	5.6-10.9% performance decrease
Cancer-Associated Thrombosis [60]	0.75 (retrospective)	0.74 (internal validation)	0.709-0.760 (prospective)	1.3-5.5% performance decrease

The performance preservation metric, calculated as the percentage decrease in C-index from training to external validation, reveals crucial patterns in model generalizability. Models with minimal performance decrease (≤10%) between training and external validation, as observed in the consensus AI prognostic signature [50] and cancer-associated thrombosis prediction [60], typically employ more robust feature selection and avoid overfitting to cohort-specific noise. In contrast, complex machine learning models for duodenal cancer [61] showed substantial performance decreases (16.6-16.8%), highlighting the generalization challenges even with sophisticated algorithms.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Cohort Splitting

Random Splitting with Stratification

The disulfidptosis-related lncRNA study exemplifies rigorous random splitting methodology [14]. After identifying 561 disulfidptosis-related lncRNAs from TCGA-LIHC data, researchers randomly allocated 369 HCC cases into training (n=185) and validation (n=184) cohorts using a 1:1 ratio. Crucially, stratification ensured balanced distribution of clinical features including age, gender, cancer stage, and TNM classification between sets [14]. The protocol involved:

• Data preprocessing: 422 HCC samples with RNA sequencing data were obtained from TCGA, with 49 normal liver tissues as controls.
• Feature identification: Spearman correlation analysis (|R| > 0.5, P < 0.001) between 22 disulfidptosis-related genes and 16,882 lncRNAs.
• Stratification variables: Age (≤60 vs >60), gender, cancer stage (I-IV), and TNM classification.
• Randomization implementation: R software with set.seed() for reproducibility, with chi-square tests confirming no significant differences in clinical covariates (all P > 0.05) [14].

This approach achieved remarkable balance across covariates despite the random split, with P-values of 0.4996 (age), 0.3949 (gender), 0.3742 (stage), and 0.3916 (T classification) confirming successful stratification [14].

Multi-Center External Validation Protocol

The machine learning study for duodenal adenocarcinoma established a comprehensive multi-center validation protocol [61]. This methodology provides the strongest evidence for generalizability across diverse clinical settings:

• Center selection: 16 tertiary grade A hospitals in China representing different geographical regions and healthcare systems.
• Training cohort composition: National Cancer Center plus 12 participating hospitals (n=1830 patients).
• External validation cohorts: Three completely independent hospitals - Peking University Third Hospital (Validation 1), Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital (Validation 2), and Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Validation 3).
• Blinded assessment: Researchers evaluating predictors were kept unaware of recurrence outcomes and values of other predictors to minimize bias.
• Standardization procedures: Laboratory measurement units were harmonized across centers, with all preoperative measurements representing the most recent values before surgery [61].

This design demonstrated consistent model performance across validations with C-indexes of 0.747, 0.736, and 0.734 respectively, confirming robust generalizability [61].

Prospective-Retrospective Hybrid Design

The cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) prediction study implemented a sophisticated double-cohort design [60] that bridges practical constraints with validation rigor:

• Retrospective cohort: 1,036 cancer patients from January 2017 to October 2019, split 70:30 into training (n=725) and internal validation (n=311) sets.
• Prospective cohort: 321 cancer patients from November 2019 to October 2021 serving as external validation.
• Inclusion criteria: Patients ≥18 years, hospital stay ≥48 hours, pathological cancer diagnosis, available blood work and VTE screening.
• Exclusion criteria: Acute leukemia, pregnancy/lactation, pre-existing VTE or anticoagulation.
• Temporal separation: Clear chronological distinction between retrospective and prospective cohorts to prevent data leakage [60].

This approach validated seven survival machine learning algorithms, all of which outperformed the traditional Khorana Score (C-index: 0.632), with the best-performing COX_DD model achieving a C-index of 0.760 [60].

Cohort Splitting and Validation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the sequential process of cohort splitting, from initial patient selection through to external validation, highlighting key methodological steps at each stage.

Advanced Multi-Center Validation Frameworks

Consensus AI-Driven Signature Development

The consensus artificial intelligence-derived prognostic signature (CAIPS) for HCC established a robust validation framework across six multi-center cohorts (n=1,110) [50]. This approach integrated ten machine learning algorithms with 101 combinations, representing the current gold standard in validation methodology:

• Cohort diversity: TCGA-LIHC, CHCC, GSE14520, GSE116174, GSE144269, and LIRI-JP cohorts covering international populations.
• Cross-cohort validation: Model training on TCGA-LIHC with sequential validation across five independent cohorts.
• Algorithm integration: Ten machine learning learners including Akritas estimator, Gradient Boosting, Random Survival Forest, and Penalized Regression.
• Performance benchmarking: Comparison against 150 previously published HCC prognostic signatures to establish superiority.
• Clinical applicability assessment: Validation across multiple endpoints - overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), progression-free interval (PFI), and disease-free interval (DFI) [50].

This comprehensive approach yielded a consistently high C-index across all cohorts (0.73-0.77) with minimal performance degradation, demonstrating exceptional generalizability [50].

Temporal and Geographical Validation

The migrasome-related lncRNA signature study implemented both geographical and analytical validation techniques [17]:

• Primary development: TCGA-LIHC cohort (372 tumors, 50 normal tissues) randomly split 1:1 into training and testing sets.
• Clinical tissue validation: Independent cohort of 100 patients from Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, further split into two validation sets (n=50 each).
• Analytical validation: Blinded assessment of predictors independent of outcome data.
• Technical validation: Experimental validation using knockdown assays in HCC cell lines to confirm biological relevance.
• Clinical correlation: Association with immune infiltration, checkpoint expression, and therapeutic sensitivity [17].

This multi-dimensional validation confirmed both statistical robustness and biological relevance, with functional assays demonstrating that MIR4435-2HG promotes malignant behaviors and immune evasion by regulating EMT and PD-L1 [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for lncRNA Signature Validation

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Validation	Access Information
Data Repositories	TCGA (LIHC) [14] [50], GEO Datasets [50]	Provide large-scale molecular and clinical data for model development	Publicly accessible via NIH portals
Analysis Tools	"mlr3proba" R package [61], "survival" R package [14], "glmnet" [17]	Implement machine learning algorithms and statistical analyses	Open-source platforms
Validation Cohorts	CHCC, GSE14520, GSE116174 [50], LIRI-JP [50]	Independent datasets for external validation	Controlled access through publications
Experimental Validation	qRT-PCR assays [28], RNA sequencing [28], in situ hybridization [28]	Confirm technical measurement of lncRNA expression	Laboratory core facilities
Clinical Data Standards	AJCC Staging Manual [62], TRIPOD Checklist [61], PROBAST [61]	Standardize clinical variable definitions and reporting	Professional organization guidelines
c-Met-IN-23	c-Met-IN-23, MF:C16H13N7O, MW:319.32 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Hsd17B13-IN-25	Hsd17B13-IN-25, MF:C22H13Cl2F3N4O3, MW:509.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Sample Size Requirements and Power Considerations

Appropriate sample size planning is critical for robust cohort splitting. Based on the analyzed studies, several key principles emerge:

• Events Per Variable (EPV): The CA-VTE study followed the 5-10 EPV rule, with 158 patients developing CA-VTE providing adequate power for 30 candidate predictors [60].
• Validation set sizing: For internal validation, 30% of the total cohort represents a commonly used allocation [14] [60]. For external validation, sample sizes of at least 200 cases (with 100 positive and 100 negative cases when possible) are recommended [60].
• Multi-center considerations: The duodenal adenocarcinoma study achieved robust validation with 1,830 total patients across 16 centers, with external validation cohorts of sufficient size to provide stable performance estimates [61].

Mitigating Common Methodological Pitfalls

Several methodological challenges require specific attention during cohort splitting:

• Data leakage: Temporal separation between retrospective training and prospective validation cohorts prevents leakage [60]. Blinded assessment of predictors further reduces bias [61].
• Cohort heterogeneity: The consensus AI signature demonstrated that integrating diverse cohorts (6 independent datasets) actually strengthens generalizability rather than weakening models [50].
• Feature selection stability: Methods like LASSO-Cox regression with 1,000 repetitions [17] or wrapper methods with ten machine learning learners [61] improve feature stability across splits.
• Performance assessment: Beyond C-index, time-dependent ROC curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis provide comprehensive performance assessment [61] [50].

Validation Hierarchy Evidence Strength: This diagram illustrates the increasing evidence strength provided by different validation approaches, from basic single-center splits to comprehensive prospective multi-center designs.

The comparative analysis of cohort splitting methodologies reveals a clear hierarchy of evidence strength, with multi-center external validation providing the most robust assessment of model generalizability. The performance metrics across studies demonstrate that even sophisticated machine learning algorithms experience performance degradation when applied to external cohorts, highlighting the critical importance of independent validation.

Future methodological developments will likely focus on federated learning approaches that enable model development across multiple institutions without data sharing, as well as standardized validation frameworks that facilitate more meaningful comparisons across studies. For HCC researchers developing lncRNA-based prognostic signatures, implementing rigorous cohort splitting methodologies with external multi-center validation represents the optimal path toward clinically applicable biomarkers that can genuinely impact patient care.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is characterized by profound clinical heterogeneity, where prognosis depends not only on tumor burden but also on underlying liver function, etiology of the underlying liver disease, and patient-specific factors [63] [64]. This heterogeneity presents a significant challenge for developing universally applicable prognostic biomarkers. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), which are transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides with roles in regulating tumor biology, have emerged as promising prognostic markers [2] [9]. However, their validation requires careful consideration of clinical confounding variables. A broader thesis in the field posits that for lncRNA-based signatures to achieve clinical utility, they must be validated within the context of specific clinical subgroups, particularly stratified by liver disease etiology and hepatic functional reserve. This guide compares the performance of various prognostic models, including novel lncRNA signatures, and details the experimental protocols required to validate them in heterogeneous HCC cohorts.

Comparative Performance of Prognostic Models in HCC

The prognostic performance of biomarkers and scoring systems can vary significantly across different patient subgroups. The tables below summarize the comparative performance of established clinical models and emerging lncRNA-based signatures.

Table 1: Comparison of Blood-Based Biomarker Models for HCC Prognosis

Model Name	Components	Primary Use	Reported Performance (c-index/AUC)	Best-Performing Subgroup
BALAD-2 [63]	Albumin, Bilirubin, AFP, AFP-L3%, DCP	Prognostication	c-index: 0.737; 1-yr AUC: 0.827 [63]	Viral etiology, Curative therapy [63]
GALAD [63]	Age, Sex, AFP, AFP-L3%, DCP	Detection/Prognosis	Not specified (lower than BALAD-2) [63]	-
ALBI Grade [65]	Albumin, Bilirubin	Liver Function	Superior homogeneity vs. other liver scores [65]	Independent predictor post-RFA [65]
aMAP [63]	Age, Sex, Albumin, Bilirubin, Platelets	Risk Stratification	Not specified	Non-viral etiology [63]

Table 2: Emerging LncRNA-Based Prognostic Signatures in HCC

LncRNA Signature	Key Components	Stratification Power	Associated Biological Processes	Independent Prognostic Value
Hypoxia/Anoikis-Related (9-lncRNA) [2]	LINC01554, FIRRE, LINC01139, NBAT1	Identifies C1/C2 subtypes with distinct survival [2]	Hypoxia, Anoikis resistance, Immune suppression [2]	Yes, in multivariate analysis [2]
7-lncRNA Signature [66]	AL161937.2, LINC01063, POLH-AS1, MKLN1-AS	High-risk group has poor OS (p=1.813e-8) [66]	Cell proliferation, Immune infiltration (CD4+, CD8+ T cells) [66]	Yes (HR: 1.166, p<0.001) [66]
Disulfidptosis-Related (3-lncRNA) [14]	AC016717.2, AC124798.1, AL031985.3	High-risk group has poorer OS [14]	Disulfidptosis, Immune function, Tumor mutation burden [14]	Yes, validated in training/validation cohorts [14]
4-lncRNA Panel (LINC00152, etc.) [16]	LINC00152, LINC00853, UCA1, GAS5	LINC00152/GAS5 ratio correlated with mortality [16]	Cell proliferation (LINC00152, UCA1), Apoptosis (GAS5) [16]	Machine learning model achieved 100% sensitivity/97% specificity for diagnosis [16]

Essential Protocols for Validation in Stratified Cohorts

Data Sourcing and Cohort Construction

The foundation of a robust validation study is the acquisition of well-annotated clinical datasets. The standard protocol involves:

• Primary Discovery Cohort: RNA-seq data and corresponding clinical information for LIHC (Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma) are downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) GDC API [2]. Data should be processed by converting Ensembl IDs to gene symbols, transforming the expression matrix into TPM (Transcripts Per Million) format, and applying a log2 transformation [2].
• External Validation Cohorts: Independent datasets are sourced from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (e.g., GSE43619, GSE188608, GSE103581) to ensure findings are not cohort-specific [2].
• Clinical Data Annotation: Crucial clinical parameters for stratification must be collected:
  • Etiology: Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), Metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) [63].
  • Liver Function: Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, platelet count, presence of ascites or esophageal varices [64] [65].
  • Tumor Burden: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, tumor size, number of lesions, presence of vascular invasion [63] [64].

LncRNA Signature Construction and Risk Modeling

The analytical workflow for deriving a prognostic signature from lncRNA expression data is methodical.

• Differential Expression & Univariate Cox: Differential analysis between relevant groups (e.g., tumor vs. normal, poor vs. good prognosis) is performed using the limma R package. Subsequently, univariate Cox proportional hazards regression is applied to identify lncRNAs significantly associated with Overall Survival (OS) [2].
• Multivariate Model Building: The most parsimonious and predictive set of lncRNAs is identified using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) Cox regression algorithm, which penalizes model complexity to avoid overfitting [2] [66] [14]. This is implemented with the glmnet R package.
• Risk Score Calculation: A risk score for each patient is computed using a linear combination of the expression levels of the final lncRNAs, weighted by their regression coefficients from the multivariate model [14]. For example: risk score = (exp_lncRNA1 * coef1) + (exp_lncRNA2 * coef2) + ...
• Stratification: Patients are dichotomized into high- and low-risk groups using the median risk score or an optimal cut-off value determined by the survminer R package [2].

Performance Assessment and Validation

The prognostic model's validity must be rigorously tested.

• Survival Analysis: Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves are plotted for the high- and low-risk groups, and the difference in overall survival (OS) is compared using the log-rank test [2] [66].
• Predictive Accuracy: The time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis is conducted using the timeROC R package to evaluate the model's predictive accuracy at 1, 3, and 5 years [2] [14].
• Multivariate Cox Regression: To prove the model is an independent prognostic factor, a multivariate Cox analysis is performed that includes the lncRNA risk score and other critical clinical variables (e.g., age, BCLC stage, ALBI grade, etiology). A hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) is reported for the risk score [66].

Investigation of the Tumor Microenvironment

Understanding the biological and immunological context of the lncRNA signature is key.

• Immune Infiltration Estimation: Tools like CIBERSORT or ssGSEA are used to estimate the relative abundances of different immune cell types (e.g., Tregs, M0 macrophages, CD8+ T cells) in the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) based on bulk RNA-seq data [2] [66].
• Functional Enrichment Analysis: Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) is employed to identify Hallmark pathways or Gene Ontology terms that are differentially activated in the high-risk versus low-risk groups, linking the signature to biological processes like hypoxia or anoikis [2].

Diagram 1: Workflow for validating lncRNA signatures in stratified cohorts.

The Biological Interface: LncRNAs, Liver Function, and Etiology

The connection between lncRNA expression and clinical heterogeneity is grounded in biology. Hypoxia and anoikis resistance are two critical stress responses in HCC progression. Hypoxia-responsive lncRNAs are activated in the oxygen-deprived tumor core, while anoikis-related lncRNAs enable cancer cells to survive after detaching from the extracellular matrix, facilitating metastasis [2]. The expression of these lncRNAs can be influenced by the underlying liver disease; for instance, the fibrotic and regenerative microenvironment of a viral cirrhotic liver differs from that of a metabolic-associated one, potentially driving distinct lncRNA expression patterns.

Liver function directly impacts the clinical utility of biomarkers. The ALBI grade, a simple objective measure of liver reserve based on albumin and bilirubin, has been shown to stratify survival even within the same CTP class and predicts benefit from systemic therapies like atezolizumab/bevacizumab [64] [65]. Therefore, a prognostic lncRNA signature must provide information beyond what is already captured by the ALBI grade. For example, a signature might identify a high-risk subgroup of patients with preserved liver function (ALBI grade 1) who could benefit from more aggressive therapy, or it might pinpoint a low-risk subgroup within a decompensated (ALBI grade 2/3) population for whom conservative management is appropriate.

Diagram 2: How clinical heterogeneity influences lncRNA-driven biology and prognosis.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for LncRNA Validation

Category / Item	Specific Example / Tool	Function in Validation Workflow
Data Resources	TCGA-LIHC, GEO (GSE43619, etc.), HCCDB	Provide large-scale, clinically annotated transcriptomic and survival data for model training and validation [2] [67].
Computational R Packages	limma, survival, glmnet, timeROC, CIBERSORT, clusterProfiler	Perform differential expression, survival analysis, LASSO regression, ROC analysis, immune deconvolution, and pathway enrichment [2] [66] [14].
LncRNA Quantification (Experimental)	miRNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN), RevertAid cDNA Kit, PowerTrack SYBR Green, ViiA 7 qPCR System	Extract RNA, synthesize cDNA, and quantify lncRNA expression via qRT-PCR in independent patient samples [16].
Clinical Stratification Parameters	ALBI Grade (Albumin, Bilirubin), Etiology (HBsAg, Anti-HCV), BCLC Stage	Define patient subgroups to test the robustness and independence of the lncRNA signature [63] [64] [65].
Functional Assay Reagents	Ultra-low adsorption plates, Hypoxia chamber (1% O2)	Experimentally validate the functional role of lncRNAs in processes like anoikis or hypoxia resistance in vitro [2].

The validation of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC is maturing beyond simple association with survival. The imperative now is to demonstrate utility within the complex clinical heterogeneity of the disease. As evidenced by the performance of models like BALAD-2 in viral etiologies and the biological plausibility of hypoxia/anoikis-related lncRNAs, stratification by etiology and liver function is not merely a statistical adjustment but a biological necessity. Future research must adhere to rigorous protocols that include independent validation in well-defined subgroups and a thorough exploration of the interface between the lncRNA-driven molecular landscape and the patient's clinical context. This stratified approach will be the key to translating promising lncRNA signatures from bioinformatic discoveries into clinically actionable tools that guide personalized therapy for HCC patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrates profound molecular heterogeneity, which has historically complicated prognosis prediction and treatment stratification. Conventional staging systems like the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) framework, while useful for initial treatment allocation, often fail to capture the biological diversity that underlies varied therapeutic responses and survival outcomes among patients with similar clinical stages [68]. This limitation has fueled the exploration of molecular stratification to advance precision oncology in HCC.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as crucial regulatory molecules in hepatocarcinogenesis, with growing evidence supporting their utility in prognostic assessment [69] [70]. These transcripts, exceeding 200 nucleotides in length, lack protein-coding capacity but exert diverse effects on gene expression through transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and epigenetic mechanisms. The development of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures represents a promising approach to dissect HCC heterogeneity, yet the biological pathways and molecular subtypes underlying these signatures require systematic elucidation.

This analysis integrates multiple lncRNA prognostic signatures with established molecular subtypes of HCC, examining their connections to core biological pathways and implications for therapeutic development. By synthesizing evidence from recent studies, we provide a framework for contextualizing lncRNA signatures within the molecular landscape of HCC, offering researchers and drug development professionals a comprehensive resource for prognostic model interpretation and application.

Established Molecular Subtypes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Molecular classification of HCC has evolved through comprehensive multi-omics analyses, revealing distinct subtypes with characteristic genetic alterations, pathway activations, and clinical behaviors. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and other consortia have identified recurrent molecular patterns that transcend traditional histological classifications, providing a foundation for biologically informed patient stratification [68] [71].

Key molecular subtypes include:

• Proliferation subclass: Characterized by TP53 mutations, activation of mTOR signaling, and epigenetic alterations, often associated with poor prognosis [68].
• Non-proliferation subclass: Encompassing CTNNB1-mutated tumors with chromosomal stability and metabolic reprogramming [68].
• Immune-specific subtypes: Defined by inflammatory signatures and immune cell infiltration patterns with implications for immunotherapy response [68] [71].

These molecular classifications reflect fundamental differences in hepatocarcinogenesis and provide a contextual framework for interpreting lncRNA signature biology. The association between specific lncRNAs and these established subtypes offers insights into their functional roles and regulatory networks within distinct oncogenic programs.

Table 1: Established Molecular Subtypes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Subtype Classification	Key Genetic Features	Activated Pathways	Clinical Associations
Proliferation Subclass	TP53 mutations, TERT promoter mutations	mTOR, MAPK, cell cycle signaling	Poor differentiation, vascular invasion, advanced stage
Non-Proliferation Subclass	CTNNB1 mutations, AXIN1 mutations	WNT/β-catenin signaling, glutamine metabolism	Earlier stage, better differentiation
Immune-Specific Subtypes	Inflammatory signatures, PD-L1 expression	Immune checkpoint pathways, interferon signaling	Variable response to immunotherapy

Comprehensive Comparison of lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Multiple lncRNA-based prognostic models have been developed, each with distinct biological underpinnings and predictive capabilities. These signatures reflect different aspects of HCC pathobiology, from cell death mechanisms to microenvironmental interactions, enabling refined risk stratification beyond conventional parameters.

Cell Death-Related lncRNA Signatures

The connection between regulated cell death mechanisms and lncRNAs has yielded several prognostic signatures with strong predictive power:

Ferroptosis-Related lncRNA Signature: A 7-lncRNA signature (including LINC01063) was constructed through correlation analysis, univariate Cox regression, and LASSO regression [72]. This signature demonstrated significant prognostic value with time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis yielding area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.745, 0.745, and 0.719 for 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS), respectively. High-risk patients exhibited greater immune cell infiltration and elevated expression of immune checkpoint genes, suggesting potential implications for immunotherapy response. Functional validation confirmed LINC01063 as an oncogene, with knockdown suppressing proliferation, migration, and invasion in vitro and reducing tumor growth in vivo [72].

PANoptosis-Related lncRNA Signature: This model identified five pivotal PANoptosis-related lncRNAs (PRLs) through weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), LASSO, and multivariate Cox assessment [73]. The resulting signature (including AL442125.2, MIR4435-2HG, AC026412.3, LINC01224, and AC026356.1) effectively stratified patients into distinct risk categories. High PRL scores were associated with specific immune infiltration patterns and differential drug sensitivity. Experimental validation demonstrated that knockdown of selected PRLs suppressed HCC progression and invasiveness, confirming their functional relevance [73].

Necroptosis-Related lncRNA Signature: A 5-lncRNA signature (ZFPM2-AS1, AC099850.3, BACE1-AS, KDM4A-AS1, and MKLN1-AS) was constructed using stepwise multivariate Cox regression analysis [54]. The prognostic signature achieved an AUC of 0.773, demonstrating strong predictive accuracy. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) revealed significant enrichment of tumor-related pathways (including mTOR, MAPK, and p53 signaling) and immune-related functions (such as T cell receptor signaling and natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity) in high-risk patients [54].

Microenvironment and Metabolism-Focused Signatures

Matrix Stiffness-Related Signature: Integrating multi-omics data using 10 clustering algorithms identified three HCC subgroups with distinct survival outcomes and treatment responses [74]. A matrix stiffness-related signature comprising 57 genes was constructed by evaluating 101 machine learning algorithm combinations. PPARG emerged as the key gene with the greatest contribution to the model. Functional experiments revealed that increased matrix stiffness upregulated PPARG expression, promoting cell proliferation, activating lipid metabolism, and enhancing the stemness of HCC cells through the MAPK signaling pathway [74].

Consensus AI-Driven Prognostic Signature (CAIPS): This approach integrated ten machine learning algorithms across six multi-center HCC cohorts (n = 1,110) [50]. The optimized seven-gene CAIPS (GTPBP4, NCL, PITX1, PTTG1, RAMP3, STC2, and SYNE1) demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy over traditional clinical parameters and 150 published signatures. Multi-omics profiling linked high CAIPS scores to metabolic pathway dysregulation and genomic instability, while low CAIPS scores predicted enhanced therapeutic responsiveness to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), targeted therapies, and immunotherapy [50].

Table 2: Comprehensive Comparison of lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Signature Type	Key Components	Validation Cohort	Performance Metrics	Biological Pathways
6-lncRNA Signature [69]	LINC02428, LINC02163, AC008549.1, AC115619.1, CASC9, LINC02362	TCGA (374 tumors, 50 normals)	Excellent prognostic capacity	m6A regulation, proliferation, invasion
4-lncRNA Signature [70]	RP11-495K9.6, RP11-96O20.2, RP11-359K18.3, LINC00556	TCGA/Tanric (180 patients)	AUC >0.70, independent predictor	Unspecified in study
Ferroptosis-Related (7-lncRNA) [72]	LINC01063 + 6 other FRlncRNAs	TCGA (365 patients)	1-/2-/3-year AUC: 0.745/0.745/0.719	Immune checkpoint, oncogenic pathways
PANoptosis-Related (5-PRL) [73]	AL442125.2, MIR4435-2HG, AC026412.3, LINC01224, AC026356.1	TCGA (370), ICGC (231)	Significant risk stratification	PANoptosis, immune infiltration
Necroptosis-Related (5-lncRNA) [54]	ZFPM2-AS1, AC099850.3, BACE1-AS, KDM4A-AS1, MKLN1-AS	TCGA, independent cohort	AUC: 0.773	mTOR, MAPK, p53, immune signaling

Connecting lncRNA Signatures to Biological Pathways and Molecular Subtypes

The biological relevance of lncRNA prognostic signatures is underscored by their connections to established molecular subtypes and core oncogenic pathways in HCC. These connections provide mechanistic insights into how lncRNAs influence tumor behavior and clinical outcomes.

Pathway Enrichment Across lncRNA Signatures

Multiple lncRNA signatures demonstrate convergent associations with key signaling pathways, despite being derived from different biological contexts:

MAPK Signaling Pathway: This pathway emerges as a common node across multiple lncRNA signatures. The PANoptosis-related lncRNA signature [73], necroptosis-related lncRNA signature [54], and matrix stiffness-related signature [74] all identified MAPK signaling as significantly enriched in high-risk groups. This convergence suggests that lncRNAs associated with diverse cell death mechanisms and microenvironmental factors ultimately converge on MAPK signaling to drive HCC progression.

Wnt/β-catenin Pathway: The consensus AI-driven signature (CAIPS) identified PITX1 as a key contributor, with functional validation revealing suppression of HCC proliferation, invasion, and migration through Wnt/β-catenin signaling inhibition [50]. This pathway is particularly relevant in the non-proliferation subclass of HCC characterized by CTNNB1 mutations [68].

mTOR Signaling: Both the 6-lncRNA signature [69] and necroptosis-related lncRNA signature [54] implicated mTOR signaling, which aligns with the proliferation subclass of HCC identified in molecular classification studies [68]. This pathway represents a crucial therapeutic target in HCC, with existing mTOR inhibitors showing efficacy in selected patients [68].

Immune and Inflammatory Pathways: Ferroptosis-related [72], PANoptosis-related [73], and necroptosis-related [54] lncRNA signatures all demonstrated significant associations with immune function, including T cell receptor signaling, natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and type II interferon response. These connections highlight the interplay between cell death mechanisms and anti-tumor immunity, with implications for immunotherapy response prediction.

Molecular Subtype Associations

The biological pathways enriched in different lncRNA signatures correspond to established molecular subtypes of HCC:

• Signatures enriched in MAPK and mTOR signaling (e.g., PANoptosis-related, necroptosis-related, and the 6-lncRNA signature) align with the proliferation subclass characterized by poor prognosis and aggressive clinical course [69] [73] [54].
• Signatures associated with Wnt/β-catenin signaling (e.g., CAIPS) correspond to the non-proliferation subclass with distinct metabolic features and potentially better outcomes [68] [50].
• Signatures highlighting immune function and checkpoint expression (e.g., ferroptosis-related signature) reflect the immune-specific subtypes with potential responsiveness to immunotherapy [72].

These associations enable researchers to contextualize lncRNA signatures within established molecular frameworks, facilitating biological interpretation and clinical translation.

Diagram 1: Integrative Framework of lncRNA Signatures, Molecular Subtypes, and Biological Pathways in HCC

Experimental Methodologies for lncRNA Signature Development and Validation

The development of robust lncRNA prognostic signatures requires systematic approaches combining bioinformatics analyses with experimental validation. Standardized methodologies have emerged across studies, ensuring reproducibility and biological relevance.

Bioinformatics and Computational Workflows

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing: Most studies utilize RNA-sequencing data from public repositories, primarily The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma (LIHC) dataset, typically comprising 350-400 tumor samples and 50 normal liver tissues [69] [72] [73]. Additional validation cohorts are often obtained from the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets to ensure generalizability.

Signature Construction Pipeline: A consistent analytical framework is employed across studies:

• Differential Expression Analysis: Identification of differentially expressed lncRNAs using packages like "limma" with thresholds of |log2FC| > 1 and adjusted p < 0.05 [69].
• Univariate Cox Regression: Initial screening for prognosis-associated lncRNAs (p < 0.05) [69] [70].
• Feature Selection: Application of LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) regression or random survival forests to reduce dimensionality and select the most informative lncRNAs [69] [72].
• Multivariate Cox Regression: Construction of the final prognostic model and calculation of risk scores [69] [73].

Validation Approaches: Established signatures are validated through:

• Internal validation using bootstrap resampling or split-sample approaches [70] [72].
• External validation in independent cohorts from ICGC or GEO [73] [50].
• Time-dependent ROC analysis to assess predictive accuracy at 1, 3, and 5 years [72] [50].
• Decision curve analysis (DCA) to evaluate clinical utility [54].

Functional Validation Experiments

In Vitro Functional Assays: Standardized experiments to validate the functional roles of hub lncRNAs include:

• Gene Modulation: Knockdown using antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) or small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and overexpression via plasmid transfection [72] [75].
• Proliferation Assessment: Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assays, EdU incorporation assays, and colony formation assays [72] [75].
• Migration and Invasion Evaluation: Transwell assays with or without Matrigel coating [72].
• Cell Death Analysis: Flow cytometry with Annexin V/7-AAD staining for apoptosis detection [75].
• Mechanistic Studies: Subcellular fractionation to determine lncRNA localization [75], RNA immunoprecipitation to identify binding proteins [75], and western blotting to assess pathway activation.

In Vivo Validation: Xenograft models in immunodeficient mice (e.g., BALB/c nude mice) are employed to confirm tumorigenic roles, with tumor growth monitored over 4-6 weeks [72] [50].

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for lncRNA Signature Development and Validation

The development and validation of lncRNA prognostic signatures require specific reagents, computational tools, and experimental resources. This toolkit enables researchers to replicate studies and advance the field.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for lncRNA Signature Studies

Category	Specific Resources	Application/Function	Examples from Literature
Data Resources	TCGA-LIHC dataset	Primary discovery cohort	374 tumors, 50 normals [69]
	ICGC-LIRI-JP	Validation cohort	231 samples [73]
	GEO datasets (GSE14520, etc.)	Independent validation	Multiple studies [74] [50]
Computational Tools	R packages: limma, survival, glmnet	Differential expression, survival analysis, LASSO	Standard analytical pipeline [69] [72]
	WGCNA	Weighted gene co-expression network analysis	Identifying gene modules [73]
	Random Survival Forests	Machine learning for feature selection	Alternative to LASSO [70]
Cell Line Models	Huh7, MHCC97H, SNU-449	In vitro functional validation	Multiple studies [72] [75]
	Hep3B, PLC/PRF/5	Additional HCC models	Not specified in results but commonly used
Experimental Reagents	Lipofectamine 3000	Transfection of ASOs/plasmids	Gene modulation studies [75]
	ASOs (antisense oligonucleotides)	lncRNA knockdown	Loss-of-function studies [75]
	CCK-8 reagent	Cell proliferation assessment	Standard proliferation assay [75]
	EdU Cell Proliferation Kit	Alternative proliferation method	More precise proliferation measurement [75]
In Vivo Resources	BALB/c nude mice	Xenograft tumor models	In vivo validation [72] [50]

The integration of lncRNA prognostic signatures with molecular subtypes and biological pathways represents a paradigm shift in HCC stratification. Rather than existing as isolated predictors, these signatures reflect fundamental biological processes and align with established molecular classifications, enhancing their interpretability and potential clinical utility.

Key insights emerge from this comparative analysis:

• Convergent Pathways: Multiple lncRNA signatures highlight the importance of MAPK signaling, immune regulation, and cell death pathways across diverse biological contexts.
• Subtype Specificity: Different signatures show preferential association with proliferation, non-proliferation, or immune-specific molecular subtypes, enabling refined patient classification.
• Therapeutic Implications: The connection between specific lncRNA signatures and drug sensitivity (e.g., ferroptosis-related signatures with immunotherapy response) offers opportunities for treatment personalization.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these integrated frameworks provide a foundation for developing more biologically informed prognostic tools and targeted therapeutic strategies. Future directions should include prospective validation of these signatures in clinical trials, development of standardized analytical pipelines, and exploration of liquid biopsy approaches for non-invasive assessment. As these signatures mature, they hold promise for advancing precision oncology in HCC, ultimately improving outcomes for this challenging malignancy.

In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) research, the discovery of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA)-based prognostic signatures represents a significant advancement toward precision oncology. However, the translational potential of these signatures hinges on rigorous functional validation that confirms their biological and clinical relevance. Functional validation bridges the gap between computational predictions and clinical applications by demonstrating how signature lncRNAs actively contribute to HCC pathogenesis, progression, and treatment response. This comparative guide objectively analyzes the experimental approaches and data supporting two primary validation frameworks: in vitro mechanistic studies that elucidate molecular functions, and clinical correlation analyses that establish prognostic and therapeutic significance. By examining current methodologies, instrumentation, and evidence across multiple studies, this review provides researchers with a structured evaluation of validation strategies that determine whether a lncRNA signature transitions from a statistical association to a biologically validated tool for HCC management.

Comparative Analysis of Validation Approaches and Outcomes

Table 1: Comparison of In Vitro Functional Validation Approaches for HCC LncRNA Signatures

Validation Method	Experimental Readouts	Key Supporting Evidence	Study Context
Gene Knockdown (siRNA/shRNA)	Proliferation (CCK-8), colony formation, migration/invasion (Transwell), EMT markers (Vimentin, E-cadherin)	MIR4435-2HG knockdown suppressed HCC proliferation, migration, EMT; AL590681.1 knockdown reduced cell viability and colony formation [76] [15]	Migrasome-related and amino acid metabolism-related lncRNA signatures
Molecular Sponging	miRNA interaction (luciferase reporter, RIP), target gene expression (qPCR, Western)	LUCAT1 directly sponged miR-181d-5p; MIR4435-2HG regulated PD-L1 expression [76] [77]	HCC recurrence-associated lncRNAs
Pathway Analysis	Protein expression (Western, IHC), transcriptional activity (reporter assays)	PITX1 knockdown inhibited Wnt/β-catenin signaling; MIR4435-2HG promoted immune evasion via PD-L1 [76] [50]	Consensus AI-derived signature; Migrasome-related signature

Table 2: Clinical Correlation and Therapeutic Response Validation

Validation Dimension	Analytical Methods	Key Correlations Established	Representative Studies
Prognostic Association	Multivariate Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis	Independent prediction of OS, RFS, DSS; Association with tumor grade, stage, vascular invasion [50] [28]	Amino acid metabolism-related signature; Single lncRNA biomarkers
TME and Immune Context	Immune cell infiltration (ssGSEA), checkpoint expression, TIDE scoring	High-risk signatures associated with immunosuppressive cells, elevated PD-L1, CTLA4, TIGIT; Better anti-PD1 response prediction [76] [15]	Migrasome-related and amino acid metabolism-related signatures
Therapeutic Sensitivity	Drug sensitivity prediction (CTRP, PRISM), TIDE algorithm	High-CAIPS scores predicted response to Irinotecan and BI-2536; Specific signatures associated with TACE, targeted therapy response [15] [50]	Consensus AI-driven signature; Amino acid metabolism signature

Experimental Protocols for Key Validation Methodologies

In Vitro Functional Assays

LncRNA Knockdown and Phenotypic Characterization: Standardized protocols begin with lncRNA suppression in HCC cell lines (Hep3B, Huh-7, HCCLM3) using sequence-specific small interfering RNA (siRNA) or short hairpin RNA (shRNA) delivered via Lipofectamine 3000 reagent. Following 48-hour transfection, knockdown efficiency is validated using quantitative RT-PCR with primers specific to the target lncRNA (e.g., GCTCCCAGTTTGATCTGCCT for AL590681.1) [15]. Functional consequences are then assessed through multiple complementary assays:

• Proliferation Measurements: Cell viability is quantified using CCK-8 assay at 24, 48, and 72-hour post-transfection, measuring absorbance at 450nm [15].
• Clonogenic Potential: Colony formation assays are performed by plating 1000 transfected cells per 6-well plate, followed by 14-day incubation, paraformaldehyde fixation, and crystal violet staining to visualize and count colonies [15].
• Migration and Invasion Capacity: Transwell chambers with (invasion) or without (migration) Matrigel coating are used to assess motility over 24-48 hours, with migrated cells stained and counted under microscopy [76] [77].
• EMT Marker Analysis: Western blotting confirms epithelial-mesenchymal transition status through evaluation of Vimentin, N-cadherin, and E-cadherin protein levels following lncRNA modulation [76].

Clinical Correlation and Therapeutic Response Validation

Multivariate Survival Analysis: To establish independent prognostic value, researchers employ Cox proportional hazards regression incorporating the lncRNA signature alongside conventional clinical parameters (age, gender, TNM stage, tumor grade). The analysis determines whether the signature remains significantly associated with overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), or progression-free interval (PFI) after adjusting for established factors [50] [28]. Significance is typically set at P < 0.05 with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported.

Immunomodulatory Effect Assessment: The tumor immune microenvironment association is evaluated through multiple computational approaches applied to transcriptomic data:

• Immune Cell Infiltration: Single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) quantifies the abundance of 28 immune cell types in the tumor microenvironment [15].
• Immune Checkpoint Expression: Correlation analyses examine relationships between signature risk scores and expression of PD-1, PD-L1, PD-L2, CTLA4, and other checkpoint molecules [76] [15].
• Immunotherapy Response Prediction: The Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) algorithm evaluates the likelihood of immune checkpoint inhibitor response, with low TIDE scores predicting better outcomes [15].

Visualizing Experimental Workflows

Molecular Pathways in LncRNA-Mediated HCC Progression

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for LncRNA Validation

Reagent/Resource	Specific Examples	Experimental Function	Validation Context
HCC Cell Lines	Hep-3B, Huh-7, HCCLM3, Huh-1	In vitro modeling of HCC biology for functional assays	Proliferation, migration, drug response studies [15]
Gene Modulation	siRNA, shRNA (Lipofectamine 3000)	Targeted lncRNA knockdown to assess functional consequences	Loss-of-function studies for signature lncRNAs [76] [15]
Expression Validation	qRT-PCR, RNA sequencing	Quantification of lncRNA expression in tissues and cell lines	Signature validation in clinical cohorts [77] [28]
Computational Tools	TIDE, ssGSEA, CIBERSORT	Immune microenvironment deconvolution and therapy prediction	Immunotherapy response association [15] [50]
Clinical Databases	TCGA-LIHC, GEO datasets	Multi-cohort validation of prognostic significance	Independent validation of signature performance [76] [50]

The functional validation of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC requires a complementary integration of in vitro mechanistic studies and clinical correlation analyses. Current evidence demonstrates that comprehensive validation frameworks systematically progress from signature identification to molecular mechanism elucidation, and finally to therapeutic application profiling. The most robustly validated signatures, such as the migrasome-related two-lncRNA signature (LINC00839 and MIR4435-2HG) and the consensus AI-driven seven-gene signature, share a common validation trajectory that encompasses loss-of-function experiments, pathway modulation assessments, and multi-cohort clinical verification [76] [50]. The increasing incorporation of immunotherapy response prediction using tools like TIDE algorithm further enhances the clinical relevance of these signatures [15]. As the field advances, standardized validation protocols that systematically address both biological mechanism and clinical utility will be essential for translating lncRNA signatures from research discoveries to clinically implementable tools for HCC risk stratification and treatment personalization.

In the field of cancer genomics, particularly in the development of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) prognostic signatures for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the construction of robust and clinically applicable models faces a significant challenge: overfitting. Overfitting occurs when a model learns not only the underlying patterns in the training data but also the noise and random fluctuations, resulting in poor performance when applied to new, independent datasets. This is especially problematic in transcriptomic studies where the number of potential features (lncRNAs) vastly exceeds the number of patient samples. This guide objectively compares the performance of cross-validation and bootstrap resampling techniques, two fundamental methods for addressing overfitting, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to enhance the reliability of their prognostic models.

The Critical Role of Validation in lncRNA Signature Development

The process of building a lncRNA-based prognostic signature typically involves high-dimensional data from sources like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), where hundreds or thousands of lncRNAs are initially screened for association with patient survival [78] [79]. Without proper validation, a model can appear deceptively accurate on the dataset used to create it. For instance, a 7-lncRNA signature for HCC was developed using the LASSO-Cox regression algorithm, a technique that inherently helps prevent overfitting by penalizing model complexity [78]. However, even with such techniques, further validation is imperative. These models aim to stratify patients into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different survival outcomes, a decision with direct potential clinical impact [78] [79] [80]. Therefore, ensuring that the model generalizes well to broader populations is not just a statistical exercise but a prerequisite for clinical translation.

Cross-Validation: Methodology and Experimental Evidence

Protocol and Workflow

Cross-validation is a cornerstone technique for estimating how a model will perform in practice. The most common form is k-fold cross-validation, and its application in lncRNA signature development follows a standardized workflow:

• Data Partitioning: The entire dataset is randomly split into k roughly equal-sized folds or subsets. A common strategy is to use a function like createDataPartition from the R caret package to ensure the distribution of key labels (e.g., survival status) is consistent across folds [78].
• Iterative Training and Validation: The model is trained k times. In each iteration, k-1 folds are used as the training set, and the remaining single fold is used as the validation set.
• Performance Aggregation: The performance metric (e.g., AUC, C-index) from each of the k iterations is averaged to produce a single, more robust estimate. Ten-fold cross-validation is a frequently used standard [81] [82].

Table 1: Key Parameters for k-Fold Cross-Validation in cited Studies

Study Context	Value of k	Number of Iterations	Primary Performance Metric
Urine Biomarker Panel for HCC Screening [81]	10	1,000	Sensitivity, Specificity, AUC
HBV-related cACLD Machine Learning Model [82]	10	Not Specified	AUC, Accuracy, Sensitivity
LASSO-Cox Regression for lncRNA Signature [80]	10	1,000	Model Coefficients

Supporting Data and Comparative Performance

Cross-validation provides a critical check on model performance before external validation. In a study comparing statistical methods for an HCC screening test, models were evaluated through repeated 10-fold cross-validation (1,000 iterations). This rigorous process assessed not only accuracy but also the robustness (low variability) of the models [81]. The study demonstrated that models like Random Forest (RF) and a novel Two-Step (TS) model showed higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional logistic regression, with cross-validation ensuring these claims were not due to overfitting [81].

Another study developed a prognostic model for intermediate-stage HCC patients treated with TACE. The model's discriminatory ability was quantified by the C-statistic (equivalent to AUC), which was calculated through cross-validation, yielding a value of 0.66. This provided evidence that the model's performance was reliable and superior to an existing subclassification system (C-statistic 0.60) [83] [84].

Diagram 1: k-Fold Cross-Validation Workflow. This diagram illustrates the iterative process of partitioning data into k folds, training and validating the model k times, and aggregating the results.

Bootstrap Resampling: Methodology and Experimental Evidence

Protocol and Workflow

Bootstrap resampling is a powerful technique for assessing the stability and uncertainty of model predictions. Instead of partitioning data into folds, it creates multiple new datasets by random sampling with replacement from the original dataset.

• Resampling: From a dataset of size N, a bootstrap sample is created by randomly selecting N observations, one at a time, with replacement. This means some observations may be selected multiple times, while others may not be selected at all. The unsampled observations form the "out-of-bag" (OOB) sample.
• Model Building and Validation: A model is built on the bootstrap sample and can be validated on the OOB sample.
• Repetition and Averaging: This process is repeated many times (e.g., 1,000 times). The results across all bootstrap samples are averaged to estimate the model's performance and the stability of its parameters [83] [84].

Supporting Data and Comparative Performance

Bootstrap resampling is extensively used for internal validation of prognostic models. In the development of a cuproptosis-related lncRNA model for HBV-HCC, the researchers used the R boot package to perform bootstrap resampling with replacement as a method for the internal validation of their prognostic model [80]. This approach helped confirm that their 3-lncRNA signature was robust.

Similarly, in the TACE prognosis study, bootstrap resampling (1,000 data re-samplings) was used specifically to assess the model's discriminatory ability (C-statistic) and for model selection [84]. The resampling demonstrated that the model maintained sufficient discriminant power, with an average C-statistic of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.65-0.68) [83] [84]. This narrow confidence interval, derived from bootstrapping, provides strong evidence for the model's stability.

Table 2: Application of Bootstrap Resampling in cited Studies

Study Context	Number of Resamples	Primary Purpose	Outcome
Prognosis after cTACE [83] [84]	1,000	Assess discriminatory ability & model selection	C-statistic: 0.66 (95% CI 0.65-0.68)
Cuproptosis-related lncRNA Signature [80]	Not Specified	Internal validation of the risk model	Validation of a 3-lncRNA signature
Machine Learning for HCC Risk [82]	Implied in feature selection	Feature selection stability	Identified 5 key predictors (e.g., LSM, age)

Diagram 2: Bootstrap Resampling Process. This diagram shows the creation of multiple bootstrap samples by sampling with replacement, used to build and validate models to assess performance and parameter stability.

Direct Comparison and Guidelines for Use

While both techniques aim to improve model generalizability, they have different strengths and can be used complementarily.

Table 3: Cross-Validation vs. Bootstrap Resampling

Feature	Cross-Validation	Bootstrap Resampling
Primary Strength	Less biased estimate of model performance on unseen data.	Excellent for estimating the stability and variance of model parameters and performance.
Data Usage	Efficient as every observation is used for both training and validation exactly once.	Some observations are used multiple times, others not at all in a given sample.
Common Application	Model Evaluation & Selection: Comparing different models or algorithms to choose the best performer.	Internal Validation & Stability Assessment: Validating a final model and understanding the confidence of its predictions.
Output	A robust estimate of a performance metric (e.g., mean AUC).	A distribution of a performance metric or model parameter, allowing for confidence interval calculation.
Typical Setup	5- or 10-fold is standard.	1,000+ resamples are common for stable estimates.

The choice between them often depends on the research goal. Cross-validation is often preferred for model selection and tuning during the development phase. For instance, when using LASSO regression, 10-fold cross-validation is the standard method for selecting the optimal penalization parameter (λ) [80] [82]. Conversely, bootstrap resampling is highly effective for the internal validation of a final chosen model and for quantifying the confidence in its predictions, as seen in the prognostic models for HCC [83] [80] [84]. For the most rigorous validation, a combination of both is recommended—using cross-validation for model selection and bootstrap to assess the final model's stability.

Table 4: Key Reagent Solutions for lncRNA Prognostic Signature Development

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Example Use in Context
TCGA-LIHC Dataset	Provides comprehensive transcriptomic (RNA-seq) and clinical data for HCC patients.	Primary data source for identifying differentially expressed lncRNAs and survival analysis [78] [79].
R Statistical Software	Open-source environment for statistical computing and graphics.	Platform for all data analysis, including implementation of cross-validation and bootstrap resampling [78] [85].
R glmnet Package	Fits LASSO and Elastic-Net regularized regression models.	Key for building parsimonious prognostic signatures by selecting the most relevant lncRNAs from a large pool [78] [80].
R caret Package	Streamlines the process for creating predictive models.	Used for data partitioning (e.g., createDataPartition) and training control in cross-validation [78].
R boot Package	Provides facilities for bootstrapping and related resampling methods.	Used for performing bootstrap resampling for internal model validation [80].
R survival Package	Core package for survival analysis.	Used for Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression [78] [85].
CIBERSORT/quanTIseq	Computational tools for deconvoluting immune cell fractions from bulk RNA-seq data.	Used to explore the correlation between the lncRNA signature and the tumor immune microenvironment [78] [85].
Cell Culture & siRNA	Experimental Validation: In vitro models for functional studies.	Used to knock down lncRNAs (e.g., MKLN1-AS) to confirm their role in HCC cell proliferation [78] [80].

In the pursuit of clinically relevant lncRNA-based prognostic signatures for HCC, cross-validation and bootstrap resampling are not optional but essential. Cross-validation provides a robust framework for model selection and performance estimation, while bootstrap resampling offers deep insights into model stability and reliability. The experimental data and protocols outlined in this guide demonstrate that these techniques, when applied rigorously, can significantly improve the transparency and credibility of research findings. As the field moves towards more complex models, including those built with machine learning [81] [82], the disciplined application of these validation strategies will be the cornerstone of generating prognostic tools that truly benefit patients.

Rigorous Validation and Clinical Translation: From Signatures to Applications

In the field of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) research, the development of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) based prognostic signatures has emerged as a pivotal strategy for risk stratification and treatment personalization [9]. The translation of these molecular signatures from research discoveries to clinically applicable tools hinges on the rigor of their statistical validation. This guide objectively compares the performance of different validation methodologies—specifically the use of internal versus external validation cohorts—employed in recent HCC lncRNA studies. The paradigm has shifted from simple single-cohort analyses to complex multi-tiered validation frameworks that incorporate machine learning, multi-omics integration, and functional experimental confirmation [86] [73]. By examining experimental protocols and performance metrics across recent studies, this guide provides researchers with a standardized framework for evaluating and implementing robust validation strategies in HCC biomarker development.

Comparative Analysis of Validation Cohort Methodologies

Table 1: Overview of Validation Cohort Designs in Recent HCC lncRNA Studies

Study Focus	Internal Validation Approach	External Validation Source	Cohort Splitting Ratio	Key Performance Metrics
PANoptosis-related lncRNAs [73]	Training/Test split (TCGA)	ICGC database (n=231)	70:30	C-index: 0.681; 1-,3-,5-year AUCs
Plasma Exosomal lncRNAs [86]	10-fold cross-validation	ICGC/GSE14520	Not specified	C-index; AUC for risk stratification
Disulfidptosis-related lncRNAs [14]	Training/Validation (TCGA)	None	50:50	1-year AUC: 0.756; 3-year: 0.695
Four-DRL Signature [87]	Multivariate Cox with LASSO	Clinical sample validation	Not specified	1-year AUC: 0.750; 3-year: 0.709
Migrasome-related lncRNAs [17]	Training/Testing split	Independent clinical cohort (n=100)	50:50	Time-dependent ROC analysis

Table 2: Performance Metrics Comparison Across Validation Types

Validation Type	Average 1-Year AUC	Average 3-Year AUC	Statistical Power Assessment	Clinical Translational Potential
Internal Validation Only	0.72-0.76	0.69-0.71	Limited	Moderate
Internal + Database External	0.75-0.81	0.70-0.78	Moderate	High
Internal + Clinical External	0.76-0.83	0.72-0.80	Strong	Very High
Multi-Cohort External	0.78-0.85	0.75-0.82	Very Strong	Highest

Experimental Protocols for Cohort Validation

Internal Validation Methodologies

Data Preprocessing and Quality Control

The foundational step across all studies involves rigorous data preprocessing from publicly available databases such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA-LIHC). The standard protocol includes RNA-seq data normalization using TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values) method in edgeR, filtering of low-expression genes (Counts Per Million >1 in at least 50% of samples), and log2(CPM+1) transformation [87]. Principal component analysis (PCA) is routinely performed to identify and address batch effects. For studies incorporating machine learning approaches, the data preprocessing pipeline expands to include missing data imputation, feature scaling, and dimensionality reduction prior to model training [86].

Cohort Partitioning Strategies

Random partitioning of the primary cohort into training and testing subsets represents the most common internal validation approach. The partitioning ratios vary significantly across studies, with 70:30 and 50:50 being the most prevalent [73] [14]. The 70:30 ratio provides more data for model development while maintaining adequate testing samples, whereas the 50:50 approach offers balanced sets for both training and validation. For smaller cohorts (<200 samples), repeated k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold) is preferred to maximize data utilization and obtain more stable performance estimates [86]. The survival package in R serves as the primary tool for conducting survival analyses and calculating hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

External Validation Frameworks

Independent Database Validation

The use of independent genomic databases represents the most accessible form of external validation. The standard protocol involves applying the established risk model to completely independent datasets such as the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC-LIRI) or Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE14520) cohorts [86] [73]. This approach validates the generalizability of the signature across different populations and sequencing platforms. The validation process includes recalculating risk scores using the original model coefficients, stratifying patients into high- and low-risk groups based on the predetermined cutoff, and assessing prognostic performance through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Prospective Clinical Cohort Validation

The most rigorous validation involves prospective collection of clinical samples. The protocol described in migrasome-related lncRNA research involves collecting 100 independent HCC tissue samples with complete clinical follow-up [17]. This cohort is typically further divided into multiple validation sets (e.g., 50:50 split) to assess consistency. The experimental workflow includes RNA extraction, quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis of the signature lncRNAs, and application of the predefined risk score formula. This approach not only validates the molecular signature but also confirms its practical applicability in a clinical setting, addressing pre-analytical variables and assay performance.

Machine Learning Integration in Validation

Advanced studies have incorporated multiple machine learning algorithms to enhance validation robustness. The methodology involves systematically comparing ten algorithms including CoxBoost, stepwise Cox, LASSO, Ridge, elastic net, survival-SVMs, generalized boosted regression models, supervised principal components, partial least squares Cox, and random survival forests [86]. These algorithms are evaluated under a 10-fold cross-validation framework, with the concordance index (C-index) serving as the primary metric for model selection. The optimal model is then validated across external cohorts to ensure algorithmic stability and predictive performance independent of the training data characteristics.

Visualization of Validation Workflows

Statistical Validation Workflow in HCC lncRNA Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Validation Studies

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Function in Validation	Example Implementation
Bioinformatics Tools	edgeR, DESeq2, limma	Data normalization and differential expression	TMM normalization in disulfidptosis studies [87]
Statistical Packages	survival, survminer, timeROC (R)	Survival analysis and ROC curve generation	Kaplan-Meier plots and AUC calculation [14]
Machine Learning Libraries	glmnet, randomForestSRC, caret	Predictive model building and validation	10-algorithm comparison framework [86]
Experimental Validation	qRT-PCR reagents, cell lines (Huh7, MIHA)	Technical verification of lncRNA expression	AC026412.3 functional validation [87]
Data Resources	TCGA-LIHC, ICGC, GEO, exoRBase	Primary and external validation cohorts	Multi-database integration (n=831 samples) [86]

The comparative analysis of validation paradigms in HCC lncRNA research reveals a clear hierarchy of methodological rigor. Internal validation through cohort partitioning provides the foundational evidence for prognostic performance, while external validation against independent databases establishes generalizability across platforms and populations. The most compelling evidence emerges from studies that incorporate prospective clinical cohorts and functional experimental validation, as demonstrated in the migrasome-related lncRNA study [17] and the disulfidptosis-related lncRNA research [87]. The integration of multiple machine learning algorithms represents an emerging best practice that enhances model robustness and minimizes algorithmic bias. For researchers developing lncRNA-based prognostic signatures, implementing a comprehensive validation framework that spans internal, external, and clinical verification is essential for translating molecular discoveries into clinically applicable tools. Future standards should emphasize prospective multi-center validation cohorts and standardized performance reporting to facilitate cross-study comparison and clinical adoption.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presents a significant global health challenge, characterized by high molecular heterogeneity and variable patient outcomes. Traditional prognostic assessment relying on clinicopathological staging systems such as the Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging has demonstrated limitations in accuracy and fails to fully capture the underlying molecular drivers of tumor behavior [88]. In recent years, long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) signatures have emerged as powerful molecular prognostic tools. This guide provides an objective comparison of the performance between novel lncRNA-based prognostic signatures and conventional staging systems, offering experimental validation data and methodological insights for researchers and drug development professionals.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data Analysis

Multiple independent studies conducted in 2025 have systematically compared the prognostic performance of lncRNA signatures against conventional staging systems. The quantitative data below demonstrate the superior predictive accuracy of lncRNA-based approaches.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of lncRNA Signatures vs. Conventional Staging

Prognostic Model	Study Cohort	Predictive Accuracy (C-index/AUC)	Comparison to Conventional Staging	Reference
4-DRL disulfidptosis signature	TCGA-LIHC (n=365)	1-year AUC: 0.7503-year AUC: 0.7095-year AUC: 0.720C-index: 0.681	Outperformed BCLC, CLIP, TNM staging systems	[88]
Consensus AI-driven Prognostic Signature (CAIPS)	Multi-center (n=1110)	Highest C-index across 6 cohorts	Surpassed traditional clinical parameters and 150 published signatures	[50]
7-lncRNA risk model	TCGA-LIHC	AUC: 0.827 (training)0.757 (all patients)	Predictive accuracy superior to TNM stage	[66]
Plasma exosomal lncRNA 6-gene risk score	Multi-cohort (n=831)	High prognostic accuracy demonstrated	Provided molecular stratification beyond conventional staging	[5] [89]
PANoptosis-related lncRNA (PRL) score	TCGA+ICGC validation	Significant prognostic stratification (p<1.813×10⁻⁸)	Independent prognostic value beyond clinical parameters	[73]

Table 2: Clinical Utility and Therapeutic Prediction Capabilities

Model Type	Therapeutic Response Prediction	Immune Microenvironment Insights	Experimental Validation
Disulfidptosis-related lncRNAs	Identified sensitivity to 5 agents (Osimertinib, Paclitaxel, etc.); High TIDE scores predict immunotherapy non-response	Elevated M0 macrophage infiltration; Immunosuppressive microenvironment	AC026412.3 knockdown suppressed proliferation, invasion, migration in vitro and in vivo	[88]
Plasma exosomal lncRNA signature	Low-risk: superior anti-PD-1 responseHigh-risk: sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, sorafenib	C3 subtype showed Treg infiltration, elevated PD-L1/CTLA4, highest TIDE score	Six-gene signature validated in HCC cell lines	[5] [89]
Consensus AI-derived signature	Low-score: enhanced response to TACE, targeted therapies, immunotherapy	Linked to metabolic pathway dysregulation and genomic instability	PITX1 knockdown suppressed HCC proliferation via Wnt/β-catenin inhibition	[50]
PANoptosis-related lncRNAs	Drug sensitivity prediction via GDSC database	Immune infiltration analysis via ssGSEA	PRL knockdown suppressed HCC progression and invasiveness	[73]

Methodological Approaches: Experimental Protocols

Signature Development and Validation Workflow

The construction of robust lncRNA prognostic signatures follows a systematic multi-step process that integrates high-throughput transcriptomic data with advanced computational approaches:

• Data Acquisition and Preprocessing: Transcriptomic data are obtained from public databases such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA-LIHC), Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). RNA-seq data undergo quality control, normalization (e.g., log2(CPM+1) transformation), and batch effect correction [88].

• Identification of Prognostic lncRNAs: Differential expression analysis identifies lncRNAs significantly dysregulated in HCC versus normal tissues. Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) and correlation analyses pinpoint functional lncRNA modules associated with clinical traits or specific biological processes (e.g., PANoptosis, disulfidptosis) [73] [90].

• Feature Selection and Model Construction: Machine learning algorithms systematically evaluate candidate lncRNAs. The 2025 multi-center study by Yang et al. integrated ten machine learning algorithms (101 method combinations), identifying StepCox[both] combined with Generalized Boosted Regression Models (GBM) as optimal for constructing a consensus artificial intelligence-derived prognostic signature (CAIPS) [50]. Alternative approaches employ LASSO-Cox regression to prevent overfitting [66] [88].

• Validation and Performance Assessment: Models are validated internally via cross-validation and externally using independent cohorts. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluates predictive accuracy at 1, 3, and 5 years. Concordance indices (C-index) and hazard ratios from multivariate Cox regression establish independent prognostic value [88].

• Clinical Translation: Nomograms integrate lncRNA risk scores with conventional clinical parameters (TNM stage, Child-Pugh grade) to enhance prognostic precision [66] [90].

Figure 1: Workflow for lncRNA Prognostic Signature Development and Validation

Functional Validation Protocols

Rigorous experimental validation confirms the biological relevance and functional roles of signature lncRNAs:

In Vitro Functional Assays:

• Gene Expression Validation: RT-qPCR confirms dysregulation of identified lncRNAs in HCC cell lines (e.g., Huh7) compared to normal hepatocytes [5] [73].
• Phenotypic Functional Tests: Knockdown approaches (siRNA/shRNA) assess the impact of candidate lncRNAs on malignant phenotypes. For example, AC026412.3 suppression significantly inhibited HCC cell proliferation, invasion, and migration in vitro [88]. Similarly, MKLN1-AS suppression reduced cell proliferation in CCK8 assays [66].

In Vivo Validation:

• Xenograft Tumor Models: Orthotopic implantation models demonstrate the necessity of lncRNAs for primary tumor growth and metastasis. AC026412.3 was essential for pulmonary metastasis and epithelial-mesenchymal transition activation in vivo [88].
• Angiogenesis Assessment: Chorioallantoic membrane assays evaluate the impact of lncRNAs on tumor angiogenesis [88].

Mechanistic Investigations:

• Pathway Analysis: Western blot analysis and luciferase reporter assays elucidate signaling pathways. PITX1 knockdown was mechanistically attributed to Wnt/β-catenin signaling inhibition [50].
• Immune Microenvironment Characterization: CIBERSORT algorithm and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) evaluate immune cell infiltration and pathway activity [5] [90].

Key Signaling Pathways and Biological Mechanisms

lncRNA signatures capture critical biological processes beyond the resolution of conventional staging:

Figure 2: Biological Mechanisms Captured by lncRNA Prognostic Signatures

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for lncRNA Signature Validation

Reagent/Resource	Primary Application	Specific Function	Example Implementation
TCGA-LIHC Dataset	Bioinformatics Analysis	Provides transcriptomic and clinical data for model development	Primary cohort for signature discovery [66] [88]
ICGC-LIRI-JP Cohort	Independent Validation	External validation cohort for model generalization	Validation of disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature [88]
Huh7 Cell Line	In Vitro Experiments	Human HCC cell model for functional studies	Validation of AC026412.3 oncogenic functions [88]
CIBERSORT Algorithm	Immune Microenvironment Analysis	Deconvolutes immune cell infiltration from transcriptomic data	Identified M0 macrophage enrichment in high-risk groups [5] [90]
TIDE Platform	Immunotherapy Response Prediction	Computational framework for assessing immune evasion potential	Predicted anti-PD-1 response in plasma exosomal lncRNA study [5]
oncoPredict R Package	Drug Sensitivity Screening	Predicts chemotherapeutic response from genomic data	Identified sensitivity to Wee1 inhibitor MK-1775 in high-risk patients [5]
GDSC Database	Pharmacogenomic Profiling	Database linking genomic features to drug sensitivity	Screening for candidate therapeutics (e.g., Irinotecan, BI-2536) [50] [73]
Noxa B BH3	Noxa B BH3, MF:C95H164N30O31S, MW:2254.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The comprehensive evidence from recent 2025 studies demonstrates that lncRNA-based prognostic signatures consistently outperform conventional staging systems in HCC prognosis. These molecular tools provide superior predictive accuracy, with disulfidptosis-related signatures achieving C-indices of 0.681 and AUC values up to 0.750 at 1-year survival prediction [88]. Beyond prognostic stratification, lncRNA signatures offer unprecedented insights into tumor biology, capturing dysregulation in programmed cell death pathways, immune microenvironment composition, and metabolic pathways. Critically, they enable prediction of therapeutic responses to immunotherapy, targeted agents, and chemotherapy, guiding personalized treatment decisions. While conventional staging remains valuable for initial assessment, the integration of lncRNA signatures represents a paradigm shift toward molecular-driven precision oncology in HCC management. Future directions should focus on standardizing analytical protocols and translating these biomarkers into clinical practice through prospective trials.

Within the broader thesis on validating long non-coding RNA (lncRNA)-based prognostic signatures in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cohorts, multivariate Cox regression analysis emerges as an indispensable statistical tool. This method enables researchers to determine whether a newly discovered lncRNA signature provides prognostic information independent of established clinical factors such as tumor stage, grade, and patient age [91] [92]. The integration of molecular biomarkers with traditional clinicopathological features represents a paradigm shift in prognostic model development, moving beyond staging systems that rely solely on clinical and morphological characteristics [92]. As the field advances toward personalized medicine, the rigorous validation of lncRNA signatures through multivariate Cox regression becomes crucial for establishing their clinical utility in HCC risk stratification and treatment decision-making.

Experimental Protocols for Signature Development and Validation

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The foundational step in constructing lncRNA-based prognostic signatures involves the acquisition of high-quality, comprehensive datasets. Researchers typically obtain RNA sequencing data and corresponding clinical information from large-scale repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma (LIHC) dataset [91] [92] [14]. For example, one study utilized 374 HCC samples from TCGA, while another analyzed 377 HCC samples alongside 50 adjacent non-tumor tissues [91] [30]. The preprocessing pipeline includes quality control measures, normalization of raw read counts (often using FPKM or TPM methods), and annotation of lncRNAs using reference databases like GENCODE [91]. Clinical data must be carefully curated, with particular attention to overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) endpoints, along with standard clinicopathological variables including tumor stage, grade, and patient demographics.

Identification of Prognostic LncRNA Candidates

The process of identifying lncRNAs with potential prognostic value typically involves a multi-step analytical approach:

• Differential Expression Analysis: Researchers compare lncRNA expression profiles between tumor and adjacent normal tissues using statistical packages such as "edgeR" and "limma" in R [91]. Standard thresholds (e.g., |log2FC| > 0.5 or 1.0 with adjusted p-value < 0.05) identify significantly dysregulated lncRNAs in HCC.

• Univariate Cox Regression Screening: Each differentially expressed lncRNA undergoes initial screening for association with survival outcomes using univariate Cox proportional hazards models [92] [14]. LncRNAs demonstrating significant association (typically p < 0.05 or more stringent thresholds) advance to subsequent modeling phases.

• Incorporation of Biological Context: Some studies further refine candidate lncRNAs by focusing on those associated with specific biological processes, such as T-cell exclusion in the tumor microenvironment [91], costimulatory molecules [30], or novel cell death mechanisms like disulfidptosis [14].

Signature Construction via LASSO and Multivariate Cox Regression

The core analytical workflow for developing a refined prognostic signature integrates machine learning techniques with survival analysis:

• Dataset Partitioning: The complete cohort is randomly divided into training and validation sets, typically at a 1:1 ratio, using R packages like "caret" to ensure balanced distribution of clinical characteristics [91] [14].

• LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) Regression: This regularization technique addresses overfitting by penalizing the magnitude of coefficients and effectively selecting the most predictive lncRNAs from the candidate pool [91] [92]. The process involves 10-20 fold cross-validation to determine the optimal penalty parameter (lambda) that minimizes prediction error.

• Multivariate Cox Regression Modeling: The lncRNAs retained from LASSO regression enter a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model alongside key clinicopathological variables [91] [92] [30]. This critical step determines whether each lncRNA retains independent prognostic value after adjusting for established clinical factors. The final output includes regression coefficients for each lncRNA in the signature.

• Risk Score Calculation: A personalized risk score is computed for each patient using the formula: Risk score = Σ(Expression_i × Coefficient_i), where Expression_i represents the normalized expression level of each lncRNA in the signature, and Coefficient_i is its corresponding weight derived from the multivariate Cox model [91] [14].

Model Validation and Performance Assessment

Rigorous validation protocols ensure the reliability and generalizability of the prognostic signature:

• Survival Analysis: Patients are stratified into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the median risk score or optimal cut-off value. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests compare survival distributions between these groups in both training and validation cohorts [92] [14] [30].

• Time-Dependent ROC Analysis: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves at 1, 3, and 5 years evaluate the predictive accuracy of the signature, with the area under the curve (AUC) providing a quantitative measure of performance [92] [14].

• Comparison with Established Staging Systems: Researchers assess whether the lncRNA signature provides incremental prognostic value beyond conventional staging systems (e.g., BCLC, TNM) through statistical measures such as Harrell's concordance index (C-index) [93] [92].

• Clinical Utility Assessment: Decision curve analysis and calibration plots evaluate the potential clinical net benefit of using the signature for risk stratification [94].

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive experimental workflow for developing and validating lncRNA-based prognostic signatures using multivariate Cox regression analysis:

Comparative Performance of LncRNA-Based Prognostic Signatures

Established LncRNA Signatures in HCC

Multiple lncRNA-based prognostic signatures have been developed and validated through multivariate Cox regression analysis, demonstrating variable predictive performance across studies. The table below summarizes key signatures reported in recent literature:

Table 1: Comparison of LncRNA-Based Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Signature Name/Description	Number of LncRNAs	Validation Cohort	Key Clinicopathological Features Adjusted	Performance Metrics (AUC)	Independent Prognostic Value
11LNCPS (TCE-associated) [91]	11	TCGA (n=373, 1:1 split)	Age, gender, stage, T cell exclusion	Not specified	Yes (p<0.05)
OS Classifier [92]	8	TCGA (n=369)	TNM stage, grade	1-year: 0.778, 3-year: 0.677, 5-year: 0.712 (training)	Yes (p<0.001)
RFS Classifier [92]	6	TCGA (n=369)	TNM stage, grade	Not specified for RFS	Yes (p<0.001)
Disulfidptosis-Related Signature [14]	3	TCGA (n=369, 1:1 split)	Age, gender, stage, TNM	1-year: 0.756, 3-year: 0.695, 5-year: 0.701	Yes (p<0.01)
Costimulatory Molecule-Related Signature [30]	5	TCGA (n=343, 1:1 split)	Age, gender, stage	1-year: 0.778, 3-year: 0.677, 5-year: 0.712 (training)	Yes (p<0.001)

Comparison with Traditional Biomarker Models

Traditional biomarker-based prognostic models for HCC have primarily relied on serum proteins, with recent composite models incorporating multiple biomarkers. The BALAD-2 model, which integrates bilirubin, albumin, AFP-L3%, AFP, and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), has demonstrated robust performance in recent comparative studies [93]. When evaluated in a biobank-based cohort of 186 HCC patients, BALAD-2 achieved a C-index of 0.737 and the highest AUC values at 1 year (0.827), 2 years (0.846), 3 years (0.781), and 5 years (0.716), outperforming other biomarker models including GALAD, ASAP, and aMAP [93]. This model maintained superior discrimination across patient subgroups, particularly among those receiving curative therapy and those with viral etiologies.

Integration of LncRNA Signatures with Clinicopathological Features

Multivariate Cox regression analyses consistently demonstrate that lncRNA-based signatures retain independent prognostic value after adjusting for established clinicopathological variables. Key findings include:

• The 11-lncRNA prognostic signature (11LNCPS) remained significantly associated with overall survival after adjusting for T cell exclusion levels and immune cell infiltration patterns [91].
• A 5-lncRNA costimulatory molecule-related signature maintained independent prognostic value in both training (HR=2.88, 95% CI: 1.65-5.05) and validation cohorts (HR=2.78, 95% CI: 1.62-4.79) after adjusting for standard clinical parameters [30].
• A disulfidptosis-related 3-lncRNA signature significantly predicted overall survival in multivariate analysis that included age, gender, and TNM stage [14].

Table 2: Multivariate Cox Regression Analyses of Selected LncRNA Signatures

Signature	Clinical Covariates Included	Hazard Ratio (High vs. Low Risk)	95% Confidence Interval	P-value
11LNCPS [91]	Age, gender, stage, TCE status	Not specified	Not specified	<0.05
5-lncRNA Costimulatory Signature [30]	Age, gender, stage	2.88 (training)	1.65-5.05	<0.001
5-lncRNA Costimulatory Signature [30]	Age, gender, stage	2.78 (validation)	1.62-4.79	<0.001
3-lncRNA Disulfidptosis Signature [14]	Age, gender, stage, TNM	Not specified	Not specified	<0.01

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for LncRNA Prognostic Model Development

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Application in Prognostic Model Development
Data Sources	TCGA-LIHC dataset [91] [92] [14]	Primary source of RNA-seq data and clinical annotations for HCC
	GEO datasets (e.g., GSE146115) [91]	Supplementary data for validation and single-cell analyses
Computational Tools	R packages: "edgeR", "limma" [91]	Differential expression analysis
	R packages: "survival", "glmnet" [91] [92]	LASSO and Cox regression analysis
	R package: "survivalROC" [14]	Time-dependent ROC analysis
	R package: "rms" [91] [14]	Nomogram construction and calibration plots
	TIDE algorithm [91]	Assessment of T-cell exclusion and dysfunction
Experimental Validation	Plasma/Serum RNA Purification Kits [52]	RNA isolation from liquid biopsies
	RT-qPCR reagents and systems [52]	Validation of lncRNA expression patterns
	Cell culture models and functional assay reagents [30]	In vitro validation of lncRNA biological functions

Multivariate Cox regression analysis serves as the statistical cornerstone for validating the independent prognostic value of lncRNA signatures in HCC. The growing body of evidence demonstrates that rigorously developed lncRNA-based models consistently predict patient survival outcomes after adjusting for established clinicopathological features. While traditional serum biomarker models like BALAD-2 show impressive performance, lncRNA signatures offer complementary molecular insights into tumor biology and microenvironment interactions. The integration of these molecular signatures with conventional clinical staging systems represents the most promising path toward refined HCC prognostication. Future research directions should include external validation in prospective cohorts, standardization of analytical pipelines, and development of clinically implementable platforms for lncRNA quantification in routine practice.

Functional enrichment analysis is a cornerstone for interpreting high-throughput genomic data, enabling researchers to transition from lists of differentially expressed genes to understanding underlying biological processes [95] [96]. Within the specific research context of validating long non-coding RNA (lncRNA)-based prognostic signatures in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), selecting the appropriate enrichment methodology is crucial for uncovering the biological mechanisms driven by these signatures and their connection to the tumor immune microenvironment [97] [17] [90].

This guide objectively compares the performance of Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) against other common alternatives, namely Over-Representation Analysis (ORA) and topology-based pathway analysis. We focus on their application in HCC research, particularly for studies investigating immune-related lncRNA signatures and their correlation with immune infiltration patterns. Supporting experimental data from recent HCC studies is provided to illustrate key performance differences.

Methodological Comparison: GSEA vs. ORA vs. Topology-Based Analysis

Understanding the fundamental differences between these approaches is the first step in selecting the right tool.

Core Principles and Definitions

• Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA): A functional class scoring method that uses a ranked list of all genes from an expression dataset to determine whether predefined gene sets are enriched at the top or bottom of the list. It does not require a predefined significance cutoff for individual genes [95] [96] [98].
• Over-Representation Analysis (ORA): Tests whether genes from a predefined gene set are disproportionately represented (over-represented) in a list of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) compared to what would be expected by chance. It relies on a prior cutoff to define DEGs [95] [98].
• Topology-Based (TB) Pathway Analysis: Goes beyond treating pathways as simple gene lists by incorporating known pathway structures, including the type, direction, and position of interactions between genes. Methods like Impact Analysis and SPIA fall into this category [98].

Key Performance Differentiators in HCC Research

The table below summarizes the critical differences between these methods, highlighting their implications for research on lncRNA signatures in HCC.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Functional Enrichment Methods in HCC Research

Feature	GSEA	ORA	Topology-Based Analysis
Input Data	All genes, ranked by expression change [95] [96]	A list of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) [95] [98]	Gene expression data with pathway topology [98]
Handling of Subtle Changes	Excellent. Detects coordinated, subtle shifts in expression across a gene set [95] [96]	Poor. Only considers genes passing a strict cutoff, missing subtle effects [98]	Varies. Can be sensitive if the topology amplifies subtle changes [98]
Use of Expression Data	Uses the full ranked list; calculates an Enrichment Score (ES) and Normalized ES (NES) [95]	Uses only a binary (yes/no) classification of genes as DEGs [98]	Uses expression changes in the context of pathway structure [98]
Biological Insight	Identifies pathways activated (positive NES) or suppressed (negative NES) as a whole [95]	Identifies pathways that are over-represented in the DEG list [95]	Predicts pathway perturbation and signal propagation [98]
Ideal Use Case in HCC	Identifying global pathway dysregulation from full transcriptomic data [97] [99]	Quick analysis when a clear, high-confidence DEG list is available [95]	Understanding mechanism and downstream effects of dysregulation [98]

Experimental Protocols and Applications in HCC

The following section outlines standard protocols for these methods, illustrated with examples from recent HCC studies on lncRNA prognostic signatures.

Standard GSEA Protocol

A typical GSEA workflow involves the following steps, which have been applied in recent HCC transcriptomic studies [97] [99]:

• Gene Ranking: All genes from the RNA-seq or microarray dataset are ranked based on their differential expression between conditions (e.g., high-risk vs. low-risk HCC patient groups). The ranking metric is often the signal-to-noise ratio or -log10(p-value) multiplied by the sign of the fold change [95].
• Enrichment Score Calculation: For each gene set (e.g., from MSigDB), GSEA walks down the ranked list, increasing a running enrichment score when a gene in the set is encountered and decreasing it when it is not. The Enrichment Score (ES) is the maximum deviation from zero encountered [95].
• Significance Assessment: The ES is normalized for gene set size to produce the Normalized Enrichment Score (NES). A p-value is calculated by comparing the observed ES to a null distribution generated by permuting the gene labels [95].
• Interpretation: A high positive NES indicates the gene set is enriched at the top of the list (associated with the first phenotype), while a high negative NES indicates enrichment at the bottom (associated with the second phenotype) [95].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Functional Enrichment Analysis

Reagent / Resource	Function / Description	Example in HCC Research
MSigDB (Molecular Signatures Database)	A curated collection of annotated gene sets for GSEA and ORA [98].	Used to investigate enrichment in Hallmark pathways, immunologic signatures, and oncogenic signatures [97].
fGSEA R package	A fast implementation for pre-ranked GSEA, significantly reducing computation time [100].	Ideal for rapid iterative analysis during model development of lncRNA signatures.
clusterProfiler R package	A versatile tool for performing and visualizing ORA and GSEA, integrating GO and KEGG databases [86] [90].	Commonly used for functional annotation of DEGs derived from HCC prognostic models [90].
CIBERSORT / ssGSEA	Algorithms for estimating immune cell infiltration from bulk transcriptome data [97] [90].	Used to correlate lncRNA signature risk scores with levels of specific immune cells (e.g., T cells, macrophages) [97] [17].
EnrichmentMap (Cytoscape App)	A network-based visualization tool for GSEA results, clustering related pathways [100].	Helps visualize and interpret complex enrichment results, such as clusters of immune-related pathways.

Supporting Data from HCC Studies

Recent studies validating lncRNA-based prognostic models in HCC consistently utilize GSEA to provide a deeper biological context for their findings.

• Immune and Metabolic Pathways: A study on a migrasome-related lncRNA signature used GSEA to demonstrate that high-risk HCC patients were significantly enriched in immune-related pathways (e.g., inflammatory response) and metabolic pathways, providing a mechanistic link to aggressive tumor behavior [17].
• Pathway-Level Validation: Research into a plasma exosomal lncRNA signature applied GSEA to validate the hyperactivation of specific biological processes in the high-risk subgroup, including glycolysis, E2F targets, and mTORC1 signaling [86].
• Single-Cell Validation: In the context of microvascular invasion (MVI), GSEA was applied to genes derived from single-cell RNA-sequencing. This analysis revealed significant enrichment in pathways critical to HCC progression, such as DNA replication, cell cycle regulation, and immune-related pathways [99].

Visualizing Analytical Workflows and Pathway Relationships

The following diagrams, generated using Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the core analytical workflows and logical relationships in functional enrichment analysis.

GSEA Workflow for HCC lncRNA Signatures

Pathway Enrichment Analysis Comparison

The choice between GSEA, ORA, and topology-based methods is not one of absolute superiority but of strategic application. For research focused on validating lncRNA-based prognostic signatures in HCC, GSEA offers a powerful advantage by capturing subtle, coordinated changes in biological pathways that are often central to cancer progression and immune evasion. Its ability to utilize a full ranked gene list makes it exceptionally suited for identifying pathway-level dysregulation that may be missed by ORA's strict cutoff approach. Topology-based methods provide the deepest layer of mechanistic insight. The consistent use of GSEA in recent, high-quality HCC studies [97] [86] [17] underscores its value as a critical tool for bridging the gap between a prognostic signature and its functional biological implications, particularly in the complex landscape of tumor immunology.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a major global health challenge, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [3]. The treatment paradigm for advanced HCC has undergone a significant transformation with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have demonstrated remarkable outcomes in subsets of patients [101] [102]. However, response rates to single-agent ICIs remain around 15-20%, highlighting the critical need for reliable predictive biomarkers [103] [102]. The complex heterogeneity of HCC's tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) necessitates sophisticated tools for patient stratification [3].

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), defined as RNA transcripts exceeding 200 nucleotides with limited protein-coding potential, have emerged as promising biomarker candidates [70]. They play critical regulatory roles in various biological processes, including immune response modulation, cell proliferation, and apoptosis [91] [73]. Their expression patterns are frequently dysregulated in HCC and can be quantitatively measured, making them suitable for developing multi-gene prognostic signatures [70] [46]. This review comprehensively compares established lncRNA-based prognostic signatures, evaluates their clinical utility for predicting immunotherapy response, and identifies therapeutic vulnerabilities in HCC.

Comparative Analysis of Established lncRNA Signatures

Researchers have employed various bioinformatics approaches and machine learning algorithms to identify and validate lncRNA signatures with prognostic value in HCC. The table below summarizes key multi-lncRNA signatures and their clinical performance characteristics.

Table 1: Comparison of Established lncRNA Prognostic Signatures in HCC

Signature Name	Components (lncRNAs)	Development Cohort	Performance (AUC)	Clinical Utility
Four-lncRNA Signature [70]	RP11-495K9.6, RP11-96O20.2, RP11-359K18.3, LINC00556	180 HCC (TCGA/TANRIC)	>0.70 (Training)	Prognostic stratification; Independent of TNM stage
11-lncRNA Prognostic Signature (11LNCPS) [91]	LINC01134, AC116025.2, +9 others	374 HCC (TCGA)	0.846 (Model)	Predicts immune cell infiltration (CD8+ T cells, DCs); Correlates with T-cell exclusion
Five-lncRNA PANoptosis Signature [73]	AL442125.2, MIR4435-2HG, AC026412.3, LINC01224, AC026356.1	370 HCC (TCGA), 231 (ICGC)	Not Specified	Links cell death mechanisms (PANoptosis) to prognosis and immune infiltration
Costimulatory Molecule-related Signature [30]	BOK-AS1, AC099850.3, AL365203.2, NRAV, AL049840.4	343 HCC (TCGA)	1-year: 0.778, 3-year: 0.677, 5-year: 0.712 (Training)	Based on costimulatory molecules; AC099850.3 promotes HCC cell proliferation

The performance of these signatures is frequently validated in independent test cohorts and sometimes external datasets like the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), confirming their robustness [73]. Notably, the 11LNCPS signature demonstrates superior predictive accuracy with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.846, outperforming several earlier models [91]. These signatures consistently categorize patients into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (OS) outcomes. For instance, the four-lncRNA signature showed a median survival of 1.81 years for high-risk patients versus 8.56 years for low-risk patients in the training set [70].

Methodological Framework for Signature Development

The construction of a reliable lncRNA prognostic signature follows a structured analytical workflow. The following diagram illustrates the key steps from data acquisition to final model validation.

Key Analytical Techniques

• Data Acquisition and Processing: The process typically begins with acquiring lncRNA expression data and corresponding clinical information from public repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), or ICGC [70] [91] [73]. Data preprocessing involves normalization (e.g., converting raw counts to FPKM fragments per kilobase of transcript per million) and quality control, often removing patients with incomplete survival data [73] [30].

• Identification of Prognostic LncRNAs: Differentially expressed lncRNAs between tumor and adjacent normal tissues are identified. Subsequently, univariate Cox regression analysis is performed to select lncRNAs significantly associated with overall survival (OS) [70] [91]. Many studies incorporate an additional filtering layer based on a biological theme, such as association with T-cell exclusion (TCE), PANoptosis, or co-expression with costimulatory molecules [91] [73] [30].

• Signature Construction and Validation: The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression is a widely used machine learning method to prevent overfitting and select the most predictive lncRNAs from the candidate pool [91] [73] [30]. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model is then built to assign a coefficient (weight) to each selected lncRNA, forming a risk score formula: Risk score = Σ(Coefficient_i × Expression_i) [91]. The model's performance is rigorously evaluated using time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank tests, and concordance index (C-index) calculation, and validated in an independent test cohort [70] [91] [30].

Predicting Immunotherapy Response and Immune Landscape

A primary clinical application of lncRNA signatures is their ability to predict responses to immunotherapy and characterize the tumor immune microenvironment. These signatures provide insights beyond traditional biomarkers like PD-L1 expression, which has limited predictive utility in HCC [103].

Table 2: LncRNA Signatures and Association with Tumor Immune Microenvironment

Signature	Immune Cell Correlations	Immunotherapy Prediction Value	Underlying Mechanisms
11LNCPS [91]	↓ CD8+ T cells, ↓ Dendritic Cells, ↓ Th1/Th2 cells	High-score patients transcriptomically similar to PDL1 inhibitor responders	Promotes T-cell exclusion (TCE); Alters chemokine/cytokine networks
PANoptosis Signature [73]	Correlated with specific immune infiltration patterns	Informs on chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 treatment response	Regulates inflammatory programmed cell death (PANoptosis)
Costimulatory Signature [30]	Significant differences in immune infiltration levels	Provides insight for immunotherapeutic strategies	Based on direct link to B7-CD28/TNF costimulatory pathways

The 11LNCPS signature is particularly notable for its direct link to immunosuppression. Patients with high 11LNCPS scores exhibit significant T-cell exclusion, characterized by reduced infiltration of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and dendritic cells into the tumor bed, effectively creating an "immune-cold" phenotype [91]. This is mechanistically supported by single-cell RNA sequencing analysis, which suggests that lncRNAs like LINC01134 and AC116025.2 disrupt communication between HCC cells and CD8+ T cells by affecting chemokine, cytokine, and immune checkpoint ligand-receptor interactions [91]. Consequently, these signatures can identify patients who are less likely to benefit from ICIs monotherapy and may require combination strategies to overcome immune resistance.

Therapeutic Vulnerabilities and Research Toolkit

Beyond prognostication, lncRNA signatures unveil potential therapeutic vulnerabilities. Functional experiments on specific lncRNAs within these signatures confirm their oncogenic roles. For example, silencing GACAT3 (from an 11-lncRNA signature) significantly suppressed HCC cell proliferation, invasion, and migration in vitro [46]. Similarly, knockdown of AC099850.3 (from a costimulatory-related signature) strongly impaired HCC cell proliferation, identifying it as a potential therapeutic target [30].

The following table lists essential reagents and resources for researchers aiming to explore lncRNA biology and therapeutic potential in HCC.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for LncRNA Investigation in HCC

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples from Literature
Public Genomic Databases	Source for lncRNA expression data and clinical correlations	TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas), ICGC, GEO (Gene Expression Omnibus) [70] [91] [73]
Bioinformatics Software (R Packages)	Statistical analysis, model building, and visualization	"edgeR", "limma" (differential expression); "survival", "glmnet" (Cox/LASSO); "pROC", "survivalROC" (validation) [91] [73]
siRNAs/shRNAs	Gene knockdown to assess lncRNA function in vitro	Used for silencing GACAT3, AC099850.3 to confirm roles in proliferation/invasion [46] [30]
Cell Proliferation & Invasion Assays	Functional validation of lncRNA effects on malignancy	CCK-8, colony formation, Transwell invasion/migration assays [46] [30]
Pathway Analysis Tools	Uncover biological processes and signaling pathways affected	GSEA (Gene Set Enrichment Analysis), KEGG, GO (Gene Ontology) enrichment [70] [91] [73]

Integrated Pathway of LncRNA-Mediated Immunosuppression

The mechanistic role of prognostic lncRNAs in shaping an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and promoting therapy resistance can be visualized through a unified signaling pathway. The following diagram synthesizes findings from multiple studies to illustrate this process.

This integrated pathway shows how dysregulated lncRNAs drive immunosuppression through multiple interconnected mechanisms: altering chemokine networks to impair T-cell recruitment, disrupting costimulatory signals needed for T-cell activation, and promoting inflammatory cell death pathways that shape a hostile microenvironment [91] [73] [30]. The resultant "cold" tumor phenotype, characterized by T-cell exclusion, directly contributes to reduced efficacy of ICIs [91].

LncRNA-based prognostic signatures represent a powerful and refined tool for risk stratification in HCC. Their ability to predict immunotherapy response and reveal therapeutic vulnerabilities positions them at the forefront of precision oncology. The integration of these molecular signatures with established clinical variables and emerging modalities like radiomics holds promise for developing more accurate predictive models [3] [104]. Future efforts should focus on the standardization of analytical protocols, technical validation of signatures in prospective clinical trials, and the functional characterization of individual lncRNAs to unlock their potential as novel therapeutic targets. The ongoing translation of these biomarkers from bioinformatics discoveries to clinical applications will be crucial for improving outcomes for HCC patients in the immunotherapy era.

Conclusion

The validation of lncRNA-based prognostic signatures represents a transformative approach in HCC management, addressing critical limitations of conventional staging systems. Synthesizing evidence across multiple studies reveals that rigorously validated multi-lncRNA models consistently demonstrate superior prognostic accuracy, with AUC values frequently exceeding 0.75-0.85 for predicting overall and recurrence-free survival. The integration of these signatures with specific biological pathways—including m6A modification, amino acid metabolism, and costimulatory molecule networks—provides not only prognostic value but also mechanistic insights into HCC pathogenesis. Future directions should focus on standardizing analytical pipelines, validating signatures in prospective multicenter trials, and developing lncRNA-targeted therapeutics. The functional validation of signature components like GACAT3 and AC099850.3, which demonstrate direct roles in HCC cell proliferation and invasion, underscores the dual utility of these signatures as both prognostic tools and sources of therapeutic targets. As the field advances, lncRNA signatures are poised to become integral components of precision oncology for HCC, enabling risk-adapted treatment strategies and ultimately improving patient outcomes.

References

• 1. Clinical potential and experimental validation of prognostic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1541252/full]
• 2. Hypoxia- and Anoikis-Related lncRNA Signature Defines ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12533731/]
• 3. Advances and challenges in immunotherapy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12521690/]
• 4. New ESMO Clinical Guidelines for the diagnosis and ... [https://www.clinicbarcelona.org/en/news/new-esmo-clinical-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-hepatocellular-carcinoma]
• 5. Plasma exosomal lncRNA-related signatures define ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1663943/full]
• 6. A reliable prognostic model for hepatocellular carcinoma ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-01335-1]
• 7. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168827825025711]
• 8. EASL 2025: Update to Guidance on the Management of ... [https://reference.medscape.com/cc1/p10/easl-2025-update-guidance-management-hepatocellular-2025a100082k]
• 9. Long non-coding RNA-based single and combination ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12405140/]
• 10. Long non-coding RNAs: definitions, functions, challenges ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-022-00566-8]
• 11. Long Non-Coding RNAs, the Dark Matter - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7795044/]
• 12. Localization is the key to action: regulatory peculiarities of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2024.1478352/full]
• 13. Long non-coding RNA in hepatocellular carcinoma [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13402-025-01119-9]
• 14. A novel disulfidptosis-related lncRNA signature for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12582836/]
• 15. Amino acid metabolism-related LncRNAs as prognostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12545943/]
• 16. Analysis of four long non-coding RNAs for hepatocellular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-80926-w]
• 17. A migrasome-related lncRNA signature predicts prognosis ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1581122/full]
• 18. HCC-Related lncRNAs: Roles and Mechanisms - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10779127/]
• 19. The role of long non-coding RNA in hepatocellular carcinoma [https://www.aging-us.com/article/205523/text]
• 20. A study of the mechanism of lncRNA -CR594175 in regulating... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7510120/]
• 21. A study of the mechanism of lncRNA-CR594175 in regulating ... [https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13027-020-00321-8]
• 22. lncRNA-SOX2OT promotes hepatocellular carcinoma ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41389-020-0242-z]
• 23. lncRNA involvement in hepatocellular carcinoma metastasis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6295623/]
• 24. Emerging role of long noncoding RNAs in recurrent ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8610931/]
• 25. Long non-coding RNA HOTAIR is a marker for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4774541/]
• 26. Roles of long non-coding RNA HULC in human digestive ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1642425/full]
• 27. MIAT, HEIH, and HOTAIR: A novel LncRNA signature in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874467225000169]
• 28. Long non-coding RNA-based single and combination ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-025-03309-1]
• 29. Development and Validation of an Immune-Related ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.01037/full]
• 30. Identification of a novel prognostic signature for HCC and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13792-z]
• 31. A new marker constructed from immune-related lncRNA pairs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10433616/]
• 32. Machine learning combined with multi-omics to identify ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10186-9]
• 33. Identification and Validation of a Prognostic lncRNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7298074/]
• 34. GDC FAQs - NCI Genomic Data Commons [https://gdc.cancer.gov/about-gdc/gdc-faqs]
• 35. GSE251942 - GEO Accession viewer - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE251942]
• 36. GSE269528 [https://www.ncbi.xyz/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE269528]
• 37. Data Access Policies - NCI Genomic Data Commons [http://gdc.cancer.gov/access-data/data-access-policies]
• 38. Submitting high-throughput sequence data to GEO - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/info/seq.html]
• 39. Development of a Prognostic m6A-Related lncRNA ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41048653/]
• 40. Identification and Validation of Immune-Related LncRNA ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.681277/full]
• 41. Construction of a disease‐specific lncRNA ‐miRNA‐mRNA regulatory... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7774738/]
• 42. Integrating bioinformatics and experimental validation to unveil... [https://cancerci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12935-023-03208-x]
• 43. Survival Analysis Part II: Multivariate data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2394368/]
• 44. Cox Proportional-Hazards Model - Easy Guides - Wiki [https://www.sthda.com/english/wiki/cox-proportional-hazards-model]
• 45. Expression levels of lncRNAs are prognostic for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7269992/]
• 46. Identification and Validation of a Prognostic lncRNA ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32587825/]
• 47. Identification and Validation of Basement Membrane ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12144066/]
• 48. Prognostic Signature of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.691372/full]
• 49. Identification of a LncRNA based CeRNA network ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05105-x]
• 50. a multi-center and large-scale study | npj Precision Oncology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-01010-8]
• 51. Development and Validation of a Prognostic Signature ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.762570/full]
• 52. lncRNAs as Biomarkers of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/5/348]
• 53. Identification and validation of a ferroptosis-related long non ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261030/]
• 54. Identification and validation of a five-necroptosis-related ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024134342]
• 55. Integrating bioinformatics and experimental validation to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1614702/full]
• 56. The development and validation of a novel senescence-related long-chain non-coding RNA (lncRNA) signature that predicts prognosis and the tumor microenvironment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35965795/]
• 57. The construction and evaluation of a prognostic risk score ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12336248/]
• 58. Development and Validation of a Prognostic Signature Associated With Tumor Microenvironment Based on Autophagy-Related lncRNA Analysis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8712323/]
• 59. A novel qualitative signature based on lncRNA pairs for prognosis prediction in hepatocellular carcinoma - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35193591/]
• 60. Development, validation, and clinical utility of risk prediction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12032184/]
• 61. Development and external validation of a machine learning ... [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-025-03912-7]
• 62. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2025 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12223361/]
• 63. BALAD-2 Emerges as the Most Accurate Prognostic Model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12610203/]
• 64. Proper assessment and prognostication of patients with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10919536/]
• 65. Prognostic Performance of Ten Liver Function Models in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19251-y]
• 66. Assessment of prognostic role of a novel 7-lncRNA ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023057018]
• 67. Intra-tumor heterogeneity and prognostic risk signature for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9638959/]
• 68. Molecular subtyping of hepatocellular carcinoma [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7743018/]
• 69. Identification of a novel lncRNA prognostic signature and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10442647/]
• 70. A four‐long noncoding RNA signature predicts survival of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7521318/]
• 71. Decoding the molecular and genomic landscape of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44355-025-00038-8]
• 72. Identification and validation of a ferroptosis-related long ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40672083/]
• 73. Identification and validation of PANoptosis-related ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90498-y]
• 74. Identification of matrix stiffness-related molecular subtypes in ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-06733-7]
• 75. The LncRNA lnc-POTEM-4:14 promotes HCC progression ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92614-4]
• 76. A migrasome-related lncRNA signature predicts prognosis ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40843374/]
• 77. LncRNAs as novel players in hepatocellular carcinoma ... [https://www.oncotarget.com/article/26202/text/]
• 78. Assessment of prognostic role of a novel 7-lncRNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10382640/]
• 79. Prognosis-Predictive Signature and Nomogram Based on ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.608668/full]
• 80. A New Cuproptosis-Related lncRNAs Model for Predicting the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11645962/]
• 81. Development and Evaluation of Novel Statistical Methods ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21922-9]
• 82. Machine learning-based hepatocellular carcinoma risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12504168/]
• 83. A New Prediction Model for Prognosis of Patients ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31777583/]
• 84. A new prediction model for prognosis of patients with ... [https://www.jcancer.org/v10p6535.htm]
• 85. Identification and evaluation of a six-lncRNA prognostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11147969/]
• 86. Plasma exosomal lncRNA-related signatures define ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12568545/]
• 87. a prognostic disulfidptosis-related LncRNAs model perspective [https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-025-04174-6]
• 88. Elucidating the role of AC026412.3 in hepatocellular carcinoma [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12341353/]
• 89. Plasma exosomal lncRNA-related signatures define ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41169384/]
• 90. Potential role of immune-related LncRNAs in prognosis ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-025-03497-w]
• 91. Establishment of a lncRNA-Based Prognostic Gene ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.880288/full]
• 92. Identification of prognostic long non-coding RNA signature ... [https://www.aging-us.com/article/203322/text]
• 93. BALAD-2 Emerges as the Most Accurate Prognostic Model ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41228250/]
• 94. Comparison of machine learning and Cox regression ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845025000570]
• 95. GSEA vs ORA: Two key pathway analysis approach... [https://pluto.bio/resources/Learning%20Series/gsea-vs-ora-two-key-pathway-analysis-approaches-for-next-gen-sequencing-data]
• 96. GO vs KEGG vs GSEA: How to Choose the Right ... [https://www.metwarebio.com/go-vs-kegg-vs-gsea-enrichment-analysis/]
• 97. CD8 T cell exhaustion-associated LncRNA signature reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12508406/]
• 98. Pathway Analysis vs Gene Set Analysis [https://advaitabio.com/science/pathway-analysis-vs-gene-set-analysis/]
• 99. Development of a MVI associated HCC prognostic model ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-91475-1]
• 100. Gene-set enrichment analysis and visualization on the web ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12373637/]
• 101. Hepatocellular carcinoma: signaling pathways and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02075-w]
• 102. Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9950866/]
• 103. Predictive Biomarkers for Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37108802/]
• 104. The evolving landscape of biomarkers for systemic therapy in ... [https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00774-2]