Fig 2: The relative expression level of glycosylation-related prognostic genes. (A) The relative mRNA level of PPIA, ALG3, CTSA, CAD, B3GAT3, TRAPPC3, HSP90AA1, SRD5A3, BAG2, DNAJC1, ADAMTS5, PLOD2, DYNC1LI1, ST6GALNAC4, and CHP1. (B) Expression of 15 hub genes in HCC primary tumor samples and adjacent normal tissues at the protein level from the CPTAC database (n = 165). (C) Expression of 15 hub genes in MIHA cell and HCC-LM3 cell at the protein level. (Data are presented as the mean ± SD, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, and ns, no significance.).

Fig 3: miR-325 is directly targeted by the BAG2 gene. (A) Prediction of the binding site between miR-325 and BAG2 using TargetScan software. (B) Interaction between miR-325 and BAG2 assessed by a luciferase report gene assay. **P<0.01 vs. mimic control. BAG2, Bcl-2-associated athanogene; miR, microRNA; MUT, mutant; UTR, untranslated region; WT, wild-type.

Fig 4: A representative western blot of the siRNA transfection experiment.A The blot of siRNA BAG2 and MDK, C the blot of siRNA MAD2L1. β-Tubulin was used as a loading control and GAPDH was the positive control of the siRNA transfection. As shown in the blots and also in graphs (B) and (D) there was a significant reduction of the protein level in the silenced cells, as compared to the negative CTRL. E Graph showing the comparison of protein expression in MeT-5A and MSTO cell lines of BAG2, MAD2L1, and MDK (Mann–Whitney test; p value < 0.05 were considered significant, p value = 0.0332(*), 0.0021(**), 0.0002(***), <0.0001(****)).

Fig 5: Quantification of protein expression in RMP vs MPM as assessed by IHC and H-score.Graphs for BAG2 immunostaining in RMP vs MPM regardless of subtype (A) and RMP vs the different subtypes of MPM (B), respectively. Graphs for MAD2L1 immunostaining in RMP vs MPM regardless of subtype (C) and RMP vs the different subtypes of MPM (D), respectively. Graphs for MDK immunostaining in RMP vs MPM regardless of subtype (E) and RMP vs the different subtypes of MPM (F), respectively. Kruskal–Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate the statistical difference between the median of each group, p value <0.001(***), <0.01(**), <0.05(*).