Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The identification of valuable predictive signatures to improve the prognosis of patients with GC is becoming a realistic prospect. DNA damage response-related long noncoding ribonucleic acids (drlncRNAs) play an important role in the development of cancers. However, their prognostic and therapeutic values remain sparse in gastric cancer (GC).
We obtained the transcriptome data and clinical information from The Cancer Genome Atlas Stomach Adenocarcinoma (TCGA-STAD) cohort. Co-expression network analyses were performed to discover functional modules using the igaph package. Subsequently, lncRNA pairs were identified by bioinformation analysis, and prognostic pairs were determined by univariate analysis, respectively. In addition, we utilized least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) cox regression analysis to construct the risk model based on lncRNA pairs. Then, we distinguished between the high- or low- risk groups from patients with GC based on the optimal model. Finally, we reevaluated the association between risk score and overall survival, tumor immune microenvironment, specific tumor-infiltrating immune cells related biomarkers, and the sensitivity of chemotherapeutic agents.
32 drlncRNA pairs were obtained, and a 17-drlncRNA pairs signature was constructed to predict the overall survival of patients with GC. The ROC was 0.797, 0.812 and 0.821 at 1, 2, 3 years, respectively. After reclassifying these patients into different risk-groups, we could differentiate between them based on negative overall survival outcome, specialized tumor immune infiltration status, higher expressed immune cell related biomarkers, and a lower chemotherapeutics sensitivity. Compared with previous models, our model showed better performance with a higher ROC value.
The prognostic and therapeutic signature established by novel lncRNA pairs could provide promising prediction value, and guide individual treatment strategies in the future.
Citation: Yuan Yang, Lingshan Zhou, Xi Gou, Guozhi Wu, Ya Zheng, Min Liu, Zhaofeng Chen, Yuping Wang, Rui Ji, Qinghong Guo, Yongning Zhou. Comprehensive analysis to identify DNA damage response-related lncRNA pairs as a prognostic and therapeutic biomarker in gastric cancer[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(1): 595-611. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022026
[1] | Chenxu Yang, Meng Ji, Kinkar Chandra Das, Yaping Mao . Extreme graphs on the Sombor indices. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19126-19146. doi: 10.3934/math.20221050 |
[2] | Fan Wu, Xinhui An, Baoyindureng Wu . Sombor indices of cacti. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1550-1565. doi: 10.3934/math.2023078 |
[3] | Zhenhua Su, Zikai Tang . Extremal unicyclic and bicyclic graphs of the Euler Sombor index. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6338-6354. doi: 10.3934/math.2025289 |
[4] | Zenan Du, Lihua You, Hechao Liu, Yufei Huang . The Sombor index and coindex of two-trees. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18982-18994. doi: 10.3934/math.2023967 |
[5] | Akbar Ali, Sadia Noureen, Akhlaq A. Bhatti, Abeer M. Albalahi . On optimal molecular trees with respect to Sombor indices. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5369-5390. doi: 10.3934/math.2023270 |
[6] | Yufei Huang, Hechao Liu . Bounds of modified Sombor index, spectral radius and energy. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11263-11274. doi: 10.3934/math.2021653 |
[7] | Akbar Ali, Ivan Gutman, Boris Furtula, Abeer M. Albalahi, Amjad E. Hamza . On chemical and mathematical characteristics of generalized degree–based molecular descriptors. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6788-6804. doi: 10.3934/math.2025311 |
[8] | Xiuwen Wang, Maoqun Wang . Sombor index of uniform hypergraphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30174-30185. doi: 10.3934/math.20241457 |
[9] | Damchaa Adiyanyam, Enkhbayar Azjargal, Lkhagva Buyantogtokh . Bond incident degree indices of stepwise irregular graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8685-8700. doi: 10.3934/math.2022485 |
[10] | Sumaira Hafeez, Rashid Farooq . On generalized inverse sum indeg index and energy of graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2388-2411. doi: 10.3934/math.2020158 |
Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The identification of valuable predictive signatures to improve the prognosis of patients with GC is becoming a realistic prospect. DNA damage response-related long noncoding ribonucleic acids (drlncRNAs) play an important role in the development of cancers. However, their prognostic and therapeutic values remain sparse in gastric cancer (GC).
We obtained the transcriptome data and clinical information from The Cancer Genome Atlas Stomach Adenocarcinoma (TCGA-STAD) cohort. Co-expression network analyses were performed to discover functional modules using the igaph package. Subsequently, lncRNA pairs were identified by bioinformation analysis, and prognostic pairs were determined by univariate analysis, respectively. In addition, we utilized least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) cox regression analysis to construct the risk model based on lncRNA pairs. Then, we distinguished between the high- or low- risk groups from patients with GC based on the optimal model. Finally, we reevaluated the association between risk score and overall survival, tumor immune microenvironment, specific tumor-infiltrating immune cells related biomarkers, and the sensitivity of chemotherapeutic agents.
32 drlncRNA pairs were obtained, and a 17-drlncRNA pairs signature was constructed to predict the overall survival of patients with GC. The ROC was 0.797, 0.812 and 0.821 at 1, 2, 3 years, respectively. After reclassifying these patients into different risk-groups, we could differentiate between them based on negative overall survival outcome, specialized tumor immune infiltration status, higher expressed immune cell related biomarkers, and a lower chemotherapeutics sensitivity. Compared with previous models, our model showed better performance with a higher ROC value.
The prognostic and therapeutic signature established by novel lncRNA pairs could provide promising prediction value, and guide individual treatment strategies in the future.
Topological indices have become an important research topic associated with the study of their mathematical and computational properties and, fundamentally, for their multiple applications to various areas of knowledge (see, e.g., [1,2,3]). Within the study of mathematical properties, we will contribute to the study of inequalities and optimization problems associated with topological indices. Our main goals are the Sombor indices, introduced by Gutman in [4].
In what follows, G=(V(G),E(G)) will be a finite undirected graph, and we will assume that each vertex has at least a neighbor. We denote by dw the degree of the vertex w, i.e., the number of neighbors of w. We denote by uv the edge joining the vertices u and v (or v and u). For each graph G, its Sombor index is
SO(G)=∑uv∈E(G)√d2u+d2v. |
In the same paper is also defined the reduced Sombor index by
SOred(G)=∑uv∈E(G)√(du−1)2+(dv−1)2. |
In [5] it is shown that these indices have a good predictive potential.
Also, the modified Sombor index of G was proposed in [6] as
mSO(G)=∑uv∈E(G)1√d2u+d2v. | (1.1) |
In addition, two other Sombor indices have been introduced: the first Banhatti-Sombor index [7]
BSO(G)=∑uv∈E(G)√1d2u+1d2v | (1.2) |
and the α-Sombor index [8]
SOα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)1/α, | (1.3) |
here α∈R∖{0}. In fact, there is a general index that includes most Sombor indices listed above: the first (α,β)–KA index of G which was introduced in [9] as
KAα,β(G)=KA1α,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β, | (1.4) |
with α,β∈R. Note that SO(G)=KA2,1/2(G), mSO(G)=KA2,−1/2(G), BSO(G)=KA−2,1/2(G), and SOα(G)=KAα,1/α(G). Also, we note that KA1,β(G) equals the general sum-connectivity index [10] χβ(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(du+dv)β. Reduced versions of SO(G), mSO(G) and KAα,β(G) were also introduced in [4,6,11], e.g., the reduced (α,β)–KA index is
redKAα,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)((du−1)α+(dv−1)α)β. |
If α<0, then redKAα,β(G) is just defined for graphs without pendant vertices (recall that a vertex is said pendant if its degree is equal to 1).
Since I. Gutman initiated the study of the mathematical properties of Sombor index in [4], many papers have continued this study, see e.g., [12,13,14,15,16,17,18].
Our main aim is to obtain new bounds of Sombor indices, and to characterize the graphs where equality occurs. In particular, we have obtained bounds for Sombor indices relating them with the first Zagreb index, the forgotten index and the first variable Zagreb index. Also, we solve some extremal problems for Sombor indices.
The following inequalities are known for x,y>0:
xa+ya<(x+y)a≤2a−1(xa+ya)if a>1,2a−1(xa+ya)≤(x+y)a<xa+yaif 0<a<1,(x+y)a≤2a−1(xa+ya)if a<0, |
and the second, third or fifth equality is attained for each a if and only if x=y. These inequalities allow to obtain the following result relating KA indices.
Theorem 1. Let G be any graph and α,β,λ∈R∖{0}.Then
KAαβ/λ,λ(G)<KAα,β(G)≤2β−λKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β>λ,βλ>0,2β−λKAαβ/λ,λ(G)≤KAα,β(G)<KAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β<λ,βλ>0,KAα,β(G)≤2β−λKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β<0,λ>0,KAα,β(G)≥2β−λKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β>0,λ<0, |
and the second, third, fifth or sixth equality is attained for each α,β,λ if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
Proof. If a=β/λ, x=dαu and y=dαv, then the previous inequalities give
dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv<(dαu+dαv)β/λ≤2β/λ−1(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)if β/λ>1,2β/λ−1(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)≤(dαu+dαv)β/λ<dαβ/λu+dαβ/λvif 0<β/λ<1,(dαu+dαv)β/λ≤2β/λ−1(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)if β/λ<0, |
and the second, third or fifth equality is attained if and only if du=dv.
Hence, we obtain
(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λ<(dαu+dαv)β≤2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif β/λ>1,λ>0,2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λ≤(dαu+dαv)β<(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif β/λ>1,λ<0,2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λ≤(dαu+dαv)β<(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif 0<β/λ<1,λ>0,(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λ<(dαu+dαv)β≤2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif 0<β/λ<1,λ<0,(dαu+dαv)β≤2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif β<0,λ>0,(dαu+dαv)β≥2β−λ(dαβ/λu+dαβ/λv)λif β>0,λ<0, |
and the equality in the non-strict inequalities is tight if and only if du=dv.
If we sum on uv∈E(G) these inequalities, then we obtain (1).
Remark 2. Note that the excluded case β=λ in Theorem 1 is not interesting, since KAαβ/λ,λ(G)=KAα,β(G) if β=λ.
The argument in the proof of Theorem 1 also allows to obtain the following result relating reduced KA indices.
Theorem 3. Let G be any graph and α,β,λ∈R∖{0}.If α<0 or αβλ<0, we also assume that G does not have pendant vertices.Then
redKAαβ/λ,λ(G)<redKAα,β(G)≤2β−λredKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β>λ,βλ>0,2β−λredKAαβ/λ,λ(G)≤redKAα,β(G)<redKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β<λ,βλ>0,redKAα,β(G)≤2β−λredKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β<0,λ>0,redKAα,β(G)≥2β−λredKAαβ/λ,λ(G)if β>0,λ<0, |
and the second, third, fifth or sixth equality is attained for each α,β,λ if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
If we take β=1/α and μ=1/λ in Theorem 1, we obtain the following inequalities for the α-Sombor index.
Corollary 4. Let G be any graph and α,μ∈R∖{0}.Then
SOμ(G)<SOα(G)≤21/α−1/μSOμ(G)if μ>α,αμ>0,21/α−1/μSOμ(G)≤SOα(G)<SOμ(G)if μ<α,αμ>0,SOα(G)≤21/α−1/μSOμ(G)if α<0,μ>0, |
and the second, third or fifth equality is attained for each α,μ if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
Recall that one of the most studied topological indices is the first Zagreb index, defined by
M1(G)=∑u∈V(G)d2u. |
If we take μ=1 in Corollary 4, we obtain the following result.
Corollary 5. Let G be any graph and α∈R∖{0}.Then
M1(G)<SOα(G)≤21/α−1M1(G)if 0<α<1,21/α−1M1(G)≤SOα(G)<M1(G)if α>1,SOα(G)≤21/α−1M1(G)if α<0, |
and the second, third or fifth equality is attained for each α if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
If we take α=2, β=−1/2 and λ=1/2 in Theorem 1, we obtain the following inequality relating the modified Sombor and the first Banhatti-Sombor indices.
Corollary 6. Let G be any graph.Then
mSO(G)≤12BSO(G) |
and the bound is tight if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs
In [19,20,21], the first variable Zagreb index is defined by
Mα1(G)=∑u∈V(G)dαu, |
with α∈R.
Note that Mα1 generalizes numerous degree–based topological indices which earlier have independently been studied. For α=2, α=3, α=−1/2, and α=−1, Mα1 is, respectively, the ordinary first Zagreb index M1, the forgotten index F, the zeroth–order Randić index 0R, and the inverse index ID [2,22].
The next result relates the KAα,β and Mα+11 indices.
Theorem 7. Let G be any graph with maximum degree Δ, minimum degree δ and m edges, and α∈R∖{0}, β>0.Then
KAα,β(G)≥(Mα+11(G)+2Δα/2δα/2m√2(Δα/2+δα/2))2βif 0<β<1/2,KAα,β(G)≥(Mα+11(G)+2Δα/2δα/2m√2(Δα/2+δα/2))2βm1−2βif β≥1/2, |
and the second equality is attained for some α,β if and only if G is a regular graph.
Proof. If uv∈E(G) and α>0, then
√2δα/2≤√dαu+dαv≤√2Δα/2. |
If α<0, then the converse inequalities hold. Hence,
(√dαu+dαv−√2δα/2)(√2Δα/2−√dαu+dαv)≥0,√2(Δα/2+δα/2)√dαu+dαv≥dαu+dαv+2Δα/2δα/2. |
Since
∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)=∑u∈V(G)dudαu=∑u∈V(G)dα+1u=Mα+11(G), |
If 0<β<1/2, then 1/(2β)>1 and
∑uv∈E(G)√dαu+dαv=∑uv∈E(G)((dαu+dαv)β)1/(2β)≤(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β)1/(2β)=KAα,β(G)1/(2β). |
Consequently, we obtain
KAα,β(G)1/(2β)≥Mα+11(G)+2Δα/2δα/2m√2(Δα/2+δα/2). |
If β≥1/2, then 2β≥1 and Hölder inequality gives
∑uv∈E(G)√dαu+dαv=∑uv∈E(G)((dαu+dαv)β)1/(2β)≤(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β)1/(2β)(∑uv∈E(G)12β/(2β−1))(2β−1)/(2β)=m(2β−1)/(2β)KAα,β(G)1/(2β). |
Consequently, we obtain
KAα,β(G)1/(2β)≥Mα+11(G)+2Δα/2δα/2m√2(Δα/2+δα/2)m(1−2β)/(2β). |
If G is regular, then
(Mα+11(G)+2Δα/2δα/2m√2(Δα/2+δα/2))2βm1−2β=(2Δαm+2Δαm√22Δα/2)2βm1−2β=(√2Δα/2m)2βm1−2β=(2Δα)βm=KAα,β(G). |
If the second equality is attained for some α,β, then we have dαu+dαv=2δα or dαu+dαv=2Δα for each uv∈E(G). Also, the equality in Hölder inequality gives that there exists a constant c such that dαu+dαv=c for every uv∈E(G). Hence, we have either dαu+dαv=2δα for each edge uv or dαu+dαv=2Δα for each edge uv, and hence, G is regular.
If we take α=2 and β=1/2 in Theorem 7 we obtain:
Corollary 8. Let G be any graph with maximum degree Δ and minimum degree δ, and m edges.Then
SO(G)≥F(G)+2Δδm√2(Δ+δ), |
and the bound is tight if and only if G is regular.
In order to prove Theorem 10 below we need an additional technical result. A converse of Hölder inequality appears in [23,Theorem 3], which, in the discrete case, can be stated as follows [23,Corollay 2].
Proposition 9. Consider constants 0<α≤β and 1<p,q<∞ with 1/p+1/q=1.If wk,zk≥0 satisfy αzqk≤wpk≤βzqk for 1≤k≤n, then
(n∑k=1wpk)1/p(n∑k=1zqk)1/q≤Cp(α,β)n∑k=1wkzk, |
where
Cp(α,β)={1p(αβ)1/(2q)+1q(βα)1/(2p),when 1<p<2,1p(βα)1/(2q)+1q(αβ)1/(2p),when p≥2. |
If (w1,…,wn)≠0, then the bound is tight if and only if wpk=αzqkfor each 1≤k≤n and α=β.
Recall that a bipartite graph with X and Y partitions is called (a,b)-biregular if all vertices of X have degree a and all vertices of Y have degree b.
The next result relates several KA indices.
Theorem 10. Let G be any graph, α,β,μ∈R and p>1.Then
DppKAα,p(β−μ)(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1≤KAα,β(G)p≤KAα,p(β−μ)(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1 |
where
Dp={Cp((2δα)p(β−μpp−1),(2Δα)p(β−μpp−1))−1,if α(β−μpp−1)≥0,Cp((2Δα)p(β−μpp−1),(2δα)p(β−μpp−1))−1,if α(β−μpp−1)<0, |
and Cp is the constant in Proposition 9. The equality in the upper(lower) bound is tight for each α,β,μ,p if G is a biregular graph (with α(β−μpp−1)≠0 if and only if G is a regular graph.)
Proof. Hölder inequality gives
KAα,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β−μ(dαu+dαv)μ≤(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)p(β−μ))1/p(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)pμ/(p−1))(p−1)/p,KAα,β(G)p≤KAα,p(β−μ)(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1. |
If G is a biregular graph with m edges, we obtain
KAα,p(β−μ)(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1=(Δα+δα)p(β−μ)m((Δα+δα)pμ/(p−1)m)p−1=(Δα+δα)p(β−μ)(Δα+δα)pμmp=((Δα+δα)βm)p=KAα,β(G)p. |
Since
(dαu+dαv)p(β−μ)(dαu+dαv)pμ/(p−1)=(dαu+dαv)p(β−μpp−1), |
if αp(β−μpp−1)≥0, then
(2δα)p(β−μpp−1)≤(dαu+dαv)p(β−μ)(dαu+dαv)pμ/(p−1)≤(2Δα)p(β−μpp−1), |
and if αp(β−μpp−1)<0, then
(2Δα)p(β−μpp−1)≤(dαu+dαv)p(β−μ)(dαu+dαv)pμ/(p−1)≤(2δα)p(β−μpp−1). |
Proposition 9 gives
KAα,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β−μ(dαu+dαv)μ≥Dp(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)p(β−μ))1/p(∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)pμ/(p−1))(p−1)/p,KAα,β(G)p≥DppKAα,p(β−μ)(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1. |
Proposition 9 gives that the equality is tight in this last bound for some α,β,μ,p with α(β−μpp−1)≠0 if and only if
(2δα)p(β−μpp−1)=(2Δα)p(β−μpp−1)⇔δ=Δ, |
i.e., G is regular.
If we take β=0 in Theorem 10 we obtain the following result.
Corollary 11. Let G be any graph with m edges, α,μ∈R and p>1.Then
KAα,−pμ(G)KAα,pμ/(p−1)(G)p−1≥mp. |
The equality in the bound is tight for each α,μ,p if G is a biregular graph.
If we take α=2, β=0, p=2 and μ=1/4 in Theorem 10 we obtain the following result.
Corollary 12. Let G be any graph with maximum degree Δ, minimum degree δ and m edges, then
m2≤mSO(G)SO(G)≤(Δ+δ)24Δδm2. |
The equality in the upper bound is tight if and only if G is regular.The equality in the lower bound is tight if G is a biregular graph.
Note that the following result improves the upper bound in Corollary 5 when α>1.
Theorem 13. Let G be any graph with minimum degree δ, and α≥1.Then
21/α−1M1(G)≤SOα(G)≤M1(G)−(2−21/α)δ, |
and the equality holds for some α>1 in each bound if and only if G is regular.
Proof. The lower bound follows from Corollary 5. Let us prove the upper bound.
First of all, we are going to prove that
(xα+yα)1/α≤x+(21/α−1)y | (2.1) |
for every α≥1 and x≥y≥0. Since (2.1) is direct for α=1, it suffices to consider the case α>1.
We want to compute the minimum value of the function
f(x,y)=x+(21/α−1)y |
with the restrictions g(x,y)=xα+yα=1, x≥y≥0. If (x,y) is a critical point, then there exists λ∈R such that
1=λαxα−1,21/α−1=λαyα−1, |
and so, (y/x)α−1=21/α−1 and y=(21/α−1)1/(α−1)x; this fact and the equality xα+yα=1 imply
(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))xα=1,x=(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α,y=(21/α−1)1/(α−1)(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α,f(x,y)=(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α+(21/α−1)(21/α−1)1/(α−1)(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α=(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α+(21/α−1)α/(α−1)(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))−1/α=(1+(21/α−1)α/(α−1))(α−1)/α>1. |
If y=0, then x=1 and f(x,y)=1.
If y=x, then x=2−1/α=y and
f(x,y)=2−1/α+(21/α−1)2−1/α=1. |
Hence, f(x,y)≥1 and the bound is tight if and only if y=0 or y=x. By homogeneity, we have f(x,y)≥1 for every x≥y≥0 and the bound is tight if and only if y=0 or y=x. This finishes the proof of (2.1).
Consequently,
(dαu+dαv)1/α≤du+(21/α−1)dv=du+dv−(2−21/α)dv |
for each α≥1 and du≥dv. Thus,
(dαu+dαv)1/α≤du+dv−(2−21/α)δ |
for each α≥1 and uv∈E(G), and the equality holds for some α>1 if and only if du=dv=δ. Therefore,
SOα(G)≤M1(G)−(2−21/α)δ, |
and the equality holds for some α>1 if and only if du=dv=δ for every uv∈E(G), i.e., G is regular.
Corollary 14. Let G be any graph with minimum degree δ.Then
2−1/2M1(G)≤SO(G)≤M1(G)−(2−√2)δ, |
and the equality holds in each bound if and only if G is regular.
The upper bound in Corollary 14 appears in [14,Theorem 7]. Hence, Theorem 13 generalizes [14,Theorem 7].
A family of topological indices, named Adriatic indices, was put forward in [24,25]. Twenty of them were selected as significant predictors in Mathematical Chemistry. One of them, the inverse sum indeg index, ISI, was singled out in [25] as a significant predictor of total surface area of octane isomers. This index is defined as
ISI(G)=∑uv∈E(G)dudvdu+dv=∑uv∈E(G)11du+1dv. |
In the last years there has been an increasing interest in the mathematical properties of this index. We finish this section with two inequalities relating the Sombor, the first Zagreb and the inverse sum indeg indices.
Theorem 15. Let G be any graph, then
√2(M1(G)−2ISI(G))≥SO(G)>M1(G)−2ISI(G) |
and the upper bound is tight if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
Proof. It is well-known that for x,y>0, we have
x2+y2<(x+y)2≤2(x2+y2),√x2+y2<x+y≤√2√x2+y2, |
and the equality
√d2u+d2v√d2u+d2v+2dudv=(du+dv)2 |
give
(du+dv)√d2u+d2v+2dudv>(du+dv)2,√d2u+d2v+2dudvdu+dv>du+dv,SO(G)+2ISI(G)>M1(G). |
In a similar way, we obtain
1√2(du+dv)√d2u+d2v+2dudv≤(du+dv)2,√d2u+d2v+√22dudvdu+dv≤√2(du+dv),SO(G)+2√2ISI(G)≤√2M1(G). |
The equality in this last inequality is tight if and only if 2(d2u+d2v)=(du+dv)2 for each edge uv, i.e., du=dv for every uv∈E(G), and this happens if and only if all the connected components of G are regular graphs.
We start this section with a technical result.
Proposition 16. Let G be any graph, u,v∈V(G) with uv∉E(G), and α,β∈R∖{0} with αβ>0.Then KAα,β(G∪{uv})>KAα,β(G).If α>0, then redKAα,β(G∪{uv})>redKAα,β(G).Furthermore, if α<0 and G does not have pendant vertices, then redKAα,β(G∪{uv})>redKAα,β(G).
Proof. Let {w1,…,wdu} and {w1,…,wdv} be the sets of neighbors of u and v in G, respectively. Since αβ>0, the function
U(x,y)=(xα+yα)β |
is strictly increasing in each variable if x,y>0. Hence,
KAα,β(G∪{uv})−KAα,β(G)=((du+1)α+(dv+1)α)β++du∑j=1(((du+1)α+dαwj)β−(dαu+dαwj)β)+dv∑k=1(((dv+1)α+dαwk)β−(dαv+dαwk)β)>((du+1)α+(dv+1)α)β>0. |
The same argument gives the results for the redKAα,β index.
Given an integer number n≥2, let Γ(n) (respectively, Γc(n)) be the set of graphs (respectively, connected graphs) with n vertices.
We study in this section the extremal graphs for the KAα,β index on Γc(n) and Γ(n).
Theorem 17. Consider α,β∈R∖{0} with αβ>0, and an integer n≥2.
(1) The complete graph Kn is the unique graph that maximizes KAα,β on Γc(n) or Γ(n).
(2) Any graph that minimizes KAα,β on Γc(n) is a path.
(3) If n is even, then the union of n/2 paths P2 is the unique graph that minimizes KAα,β on Γ(n).If n is odd, then the union of (n−3)/2 paths P2 with a path P3 isthe unique graph that minimizes KAα,β on Γ(n).
(4) Furthermore, if α,β>0, then the three previous statements hold if we replace KAα,β with redKAα,β.
Proof. Let G be a graph with order n, minimum degree δ and m edges.
Items (1) and (2) follow directly from Proposition 16.
(3) Assume that n is even. It is well known that the sum of the degrees of a graph is equal to twice the number of edges of the graph (handshaking lemma). Thus, 2m≥nδ≥n. Since αβ>0, the function
U(x,y)=(xα+yα)β |
is strictly increasing in each variable if x,y>0. Hence, for any graph G∈Γ(n), we have
KAα,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β≥∑uv∈E(G)(1α+1α)β=2βm≥2βn2=2β−1n, |
and the equality is tight in the inequality if and only if du=1 for all u∈V(G), i.e., G is the union of n/2 path graphs P2.
Finally, assume that n is odd. Fix a graph G∈Γ(n). If du=1 for every u∈V(G), then handshaking lemma gives 2m=n, a contradiction (recall that n is odd). Therefore, there exists a vertex w with dw≥2. By handshaking lemma we have 2m≥(n−1)δ+2≥n+1. Recall that the set of neighbors of the vertex w is denoted by N(w). Since U(x,y) is a strictly increasing function in each variable, we obtain
KAα,β(G)=∑u∈N(w)(dαu+dαw)β+∑uv∈E(G),u,v≠w(dαu+dαv)β≥∑u∈N(w)(1α+2α)β+∑uv∈E(G),u,v≠w(1α+1α)β≥2(1+2α)β+2β(m−2)≥2(1+2α)β+2β(n+12−2)=2(1+2α)β+2βn−32, |
and the bound is tight if and only if du=1 for all u∈V(G)∖{w}, and dw=2. Hence, G is the union of (n−3)/2 path graphs P2 and a path graph P3.
(4) If α,β>0, then the same argument gives the results for the redKAα,β index.
We deal now with the optimization problem for redKAα,β when α,β<0.
Given an integer number n≥3, we denote by Γwp(n) (respectively, Γwpc(n)) the set of graphs (respectively, connected graphs) with n vertices and without pendant vertices.
Theorem 18. Consider α,β<0, and an integer n≥3.
(1) The cycle graph Cn is the unique graph that minimizes redKAα,β on Γwpc(n).
(2) The union of cycle graphs are the only graphs that minimize redKAα,β on Γwp(n).
(3) The complete graph Kn is the unique graph that maximizes redKAα,β on Γwpc(n) or Γwp(n).
Proof. Let G be a graph with order n, minimum degree δ and m edges. Since a graph without pendant vertices satisfies δ≥2, handshaking lemma gives 2m≥nδ≥2n. Since α,β<0, the function
U(x,y)=(xα+yα)β |
is strictly increasing in each variable if x,y>0. Hence, for any graph G∈Γwp(n), we have
KAα,β(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαu+dαv)β≥∑uv∈E(G)(2α+2α)β=2(α+1)βm≥2(α+1)βn, |
and the inequality is tight if and only if du=2 for all u∈V(G), i.e., the graph G is the union of cycle graphs. If G is connected, then it is the cycle graph Cn.
Item (3) follows from Proposition 16.
In this paper, we contributed to the study of inequalities and optimization problems associated with topological indices. In particular, we obtained new lower and upper optimal bounds of general Sombor indices, and we characterized the graphs where equality occurs.
Specifically, we have obtained inequalities for these indices relating them with other indices: the first Zagreb index, the forgotten index and the first variable Zagreb index. Finally, we solve some extremal problems for general Sombor indices
We would like to thank the reviewers by their careful reading of the manuscript and their suggestions which have improved the presentation of this work. The research of José M. Rodríguez and José M. Sigarreta was supported by a grant from Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2019-106433GB- ´ I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), Spain. The research of Jose M. Rodríguez is supported by the Madrid Government (Comunidad de Madrid-Spain) under the Multiannual Agreement with UC3M in the line of Excellence of University Professors (EPUC3M23), and in the context of the V PRICIT (Regional Programme of Research and Technological Innovation).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
H. Sung, J. Ferlay, R. L. Siegel, M. Laversanne, I. Soerjomataram, A. Jemal, et al., Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA. Cancer J. Clin., 3 (2021), 209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
![]() |
[2] |
P. H. Viale, The american cancer society's facts & figures: 2020 edition, J. Adv. Pract. Oncol., 11 (2020), 135–136. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2020.11.2.1. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2020.11.2.1
![]() |
[3] |
A. D. Wagner, N. L. Syn, M. Moehler, W. Grothe, W. P. Yong, B. Tai, et al., Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 8 (2017), CD004064. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004064.pub4. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004064.pub4
![]() |
[4] |
J. J. G. Marin, L. Perez-Silva, R. I. R. Macias, M. Asensio, A. Peleteiro-Vigil, A. Sanchez-Martin, et al., Molecular bases of mechanisms accounting for drug resistance in gastric adenocarcinoma, Cancers (Basel), 12 (2020), 2116. doi: 10.3390/cancers12082116. doi: 10.3390/cancers12082116
![]() |
[5] |
L. H. Pearl, A. C. Schierz, S. E. Ward, B. Al-Lazikani, F. M. G. Pearl, Therapeutic opportunities within the DNA damage response, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 15 (2015), 166–180. doi: 10.1038/nrc3891. doi: 10.1038/nrc3891
![]() |
[6] |
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma, Nature, 513 (2014), 202–209. doi: 10.1038/nature13480. doi: 10.1038/nature13480
![]() |
[7] |
V. Krishnan, I. Orcid, D. X. E. Lim, S. Srivastava, J. Matsuo, K. K. Huang, et al., DNA damage signalling as an anti-cancer barrier in gastric intestinal metaplasia, Gut, 69 (2020), 1738–1749. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319002. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319002
![]() |
[8] |
M. J. O' Conno, Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer, Mol. Cell, 60 (2015), 547–560. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040
![]() |
[9] |
H. E. Lee, N. Han, M. A. Kim, H. S. Lee, H. Yang, B. L. Lee, et al., DNA damage response-related proteins in gastric cancer: ATM, Chk2 and p53 expression, Pathobiology, 81 (2014), 25–35. doi: 10.1159/000351072. doi: 10.1159/000351072
![]() |
[10] |
Y. Fang, M. J. Fullwood, Roles, functions, and mechanisms of long non-coding RNAs in cancer, Genomics Proteomics bioinf., 14 (2016), 42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2015.09.006. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2015.09.006
![]() |
[11] |
S. Xie, Y. Chang, H. Jin, F. Yang, Y. Xu, X. Yan, et al., Non-coding RNAs in gastric cancer, Cancer Lett., 493 (2020), 55–70. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.06.022. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.06.022
![]() |
[12] |
F. Michelini, S. Pitchiaya, I. Orcid, S. Sharma, U. Gioia, F. Pessina, et al., Damage-induced lncRNAs control the DNA damage response through interaction with DDRNAs at individual double-strand breaks, Nat. Cell Biol., 19 (2017), 1400–1411. doi: 10.1038/ncb3643. doi: 10.1038/ncb3643
![]() |
[13] |
F. Pessina, F. Giavazzi, I. Orcid, U. Gioia, V. Vitelli, A. Galbiati, et al., Functional transcription promoters at DNA double-strand breaks mediate RNA-driven phase separation of damage-response factors, Nat. Cell Biol., 21 (2019), 1286–1299. doi: 10.1038/s41556-019-0392-4. doi: 10.1038/s41556-019-0392-4
![]() |
[14] |
H. Zhang, Y. Hua, Z. Jiang, J. Yue, M. Shi, X. Zhen, et al., Cancer-associated fibroblast-promoted LncRNA DNM3OS confers radioresistance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Clin. Cancer Res., 25 (2019), 1989–2000. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0773. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0773
![]() |
[15] |
T. A. Knijnenburg, L. Wang, M. T. Zimmermann, N. Chambwe, G. F. Ga, A. D. Cherniack, et al., Genomic and molecular landscape of DNA damage repair deficiency across The Cancer Genome Atlas, Cell Rep., 1 (2018), 239–254. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.076. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.076
![]() |
[16] |
W. Hong, L. Liang, Y. Gu, Z. Qi, H. Qiu, X. Yang, et al., Immune-related lncRNA to construct novel signature and predict the immune landscape, Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids, 22 (2020), 937–947. doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.10.002. doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.10.002
![]() |
[17] |
C. Nastasi, L. Mannarino, M. D'Incalci, DNA damage response and immune defense, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 21 (2020), 7504. doi: 10.3390/ijms21207504. doi: 10.3390/ijms21207504
![]() |
[18] |
X. Zhang, Y. Peng, Y. Yuan, Y. Gao, F. Hu, J. Wang, et al., Histone methyltransferase SET8 is regulated by miR-192/215 and induces oncogene-induced senescence via p53-dependent DNA damage in human gastric carcinoma cells, Cell Death Dis., 11 (2020), 937. doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-03130-4. doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-03130-4
![]() |
[19] |
C. Xie, N. Li, H. Wang, C. He, Y. Hu, C. Peng, et al., Inhibition of autophagy aggravates DNA damage response and gastric tumorigenesis via Rad51 ubiquitination in response to H. pylori infection, Gut Microbes, 11 (2020), 1567–1589. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1774311. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1774311
![]() |
[20] |
F. S. Manoel-Caetano, A. F. T. Rossi, C. G. Morais, F. E. Severino, A. E. Silva, Upregulation of the APE1 and H2AX genes and miRNAs involved in DNA damage response, Genes Dis., 6 (2019), 176–184. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2019.03.007. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2019.03.007
![]() |
[21] |
H. Cai, C. Jing, X. Chang, D. Ding, T. Han, J. Yang, et al., Mutational landscape of gastric cancer and clinical application of genomic profiling based on target next-generation sequencing, J. Transl. Med., 17 (2019), 189. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1941-0. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1941-0
![]() |
[22] |
S. Ghafouri-Fard, M. Taheri, Long non-coding RNA signature in gastric cancer, Exp. Mol. Pathol., 113 (2020), 104365. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2019.104365. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2019.104365
![]() |
[23] |
H. Arai, R. Wada, K. Ishino, M. Kudo, E. Uchida, Z. Naito, Expression of DNA damage response proteins in gastric cancer: Comprehensive protein profiling and histological analysis, Int. J. Oncol., 52 (2018), 978–988. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4238. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4238
![]() |
[24] |
Y. Wu, J. Deng, S. Lai, Y. You, J. Wu, A risk score model with five long non-coding RNAs for predicting prognosis in gastric cancer: an integrated analysis combining TCGA and GEO datasets, PeerJ, 9 (2021), e10556. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10556. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10556
![]() |
[25] |
Z. H. Ma, Y. Shuai, X. Y. Gao, Y. Yan, K. M. Wang, X. Z. Wen, et al., BTEB2-Activated lncRNA TSPEAR-AS2 drives GC progression through suppressing GJA1 and upregulating CLDN4 expression, Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids, 22 (2020), 1129–1141. doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.10.022. doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.10.022
![]() |
[26] |
L. Yu, W. Luan, Z. Feng, J. Jia, Z. Wu, M. Wang, et al., Long non-coding RNA HAND2-AS1 inhibits gastric cancer progression by suppressing TCEAL7 expression via targeting miR-769-5p, Dig. Liver Dis., 2 (2021), 238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.08.045. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.08.045
![]() |
[27] |
T. Reisländer, F. J. Groelly, M. Tarsounas, DNA damage and cancer immunotherapy: a STING in the tale, Mol. Cell, 1 (2020), 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.07.026. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.07.026
![]() |
[28] |
B. S. Parker, J. Rautela, P. J. Hertzog, Antitumour actions of interferons: implications for cancer therapy, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 3 (2016), 131–144. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2016.14. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2016.14
![]() |
[29] |
T. Sen, B. L. Rodriguez, L. Chen, C. M. D Corte, N. Morikawa, J. Fujimoto, et al., Targeting DNA damage response promotes antitumor immunity through STING-mediated T-cell activation in small cell lung cancer, Cancer Discov., 5 (2019), 646–661. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1020. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1020
![]() |
[30] |
H. Zhang, T. Deng, R. Liu, T. Ning, H. Yang, D. Liu, et al., CAF secreted miR-522 suppresses ferroptosis and promotes acquired chemo-resistance in gastric cancer, Mol. Cancer, 1 (2020), 43. doi: 10.1186/s12943-020-01168-8. doi: 10.1186/s12943-020-01168-8
![]() |
[31] |
X. Meng, C. Duan, H. Pang, Q. Chen, B. Han, C. Zha, et al., DNA damage repair alterations modulate M2 polarization of microglia to remodel the tumor microenvironment via the p53-mediated MDK expression in glioma, EBioMedicine, 41 (2019), 185–199. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.067. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.067
![]() |
[32] |
A. Sistigu, T. Yamazaki, E. Vacchelli, K. Chaba, D.P. Enot, J. Adam, et al., Cancer cell-autonomous contribution of type Ⅰ interferon signaling to the efficacy of chemotherapy, Nat. Med., 11 (2014), 1301–1309. doi: 10.1038/nm.3708. doi: 10.1038/nm.3708
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Edil D. Molina, Paul Bosch, José M. Sigarreta, Eva Tourís, On the variable inverse sum deg index, 2023, 20, 1551-0018, 8800, 10.3934/mbe.2023387 | |
2. | Peichao Wei, Muhuo Liu, Note on Sombor index of connected graphs with given degree sequence, 2023, 330, 0166218X, 51, 10.1016/j.dam.2023.01.002 | |
3. | Fangxia Wang, Baoyindureng Wu, The k-Sombor Index of Trees, 2024, 41, 0217-5959, 10.1142/S0217595923500021 | |
4. | Peichao Wei, Muhuo Liu, Ivan Gutman, On (exponential) bond incident degree indices of graphs, 2023, 336, 0166218X, 141, 10.1016/j.dam.2023.04.011 | |
5. | Zenan Du, Lihua You, Hechao Liu, Yufei Huang, The Sombor index and coindex of two-trees, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 18982, 10.3934/math.2023967 | |
6. | Tomáš Vetrík, Degree-based function index of trees and unicyclic graphs, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02307-w |