Peilin Jia, Zhongming Zhao  Cell Reports 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Somatic Mutation Distributions Determining Cut-offs Supp. Figure 5.
Advertisements

Development of a Pan-Cancer 15 Gene Expression Signature to Detect a Subgroup Driven by MAPK Signalling Nuala McCabe,1,2 Laura A. Knight, 2 Andrena McCavigan,2.
Recurrent copy number alterations in prostate cancer: an in silico meta-analysis of publicly available genomic data  Julia L. Williams, Peter A. Greer,
From: Epigenetic instability of imprinted genes in human cancers
A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Sensitivity Analysis of the MGMT-STP27 Model and Impact of Genetic and Epigenetic Context to Predict the MGMT Methylation Status in Gliomas and Other.
M. Fu, G. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Yu, F. Meng 
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages e8 (April 2017)
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages (January 2016)
The cBio Cancer Genomics Portal.
Sensitivity Analysis of the MGMT-STP27 Model and Impact of Genetic and Epigenetic Context to Predict the MGMT Methylation Status in Gliomas and Other.
Strategy Description Discovery Validation Application
Assessing Copy Number Alterations in Targeted, Amplicon-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Data  Catherine Grasso, Timothy Butler, Katherine Rhodes, Michael.
The Functional Impact of Alternative Splicing in Cancer
CDKN2A/p16 Inactivation Mechanisms and Their Relationship to Smoke Exposure and Molecular Features in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer  Kit W. Tam, MD, MHS,
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (September 2016)
Molecular Signatures for Tumor Classification
Nicholas McGranahan, Charles Swanton  Cell 
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2017)
ML criticality in clinical outcome across cancer types.
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages e6 (August 2017)
Hotspot mutations drive clustering of tumor types
CLT030, a leukemic stem cell–targeting CLL1 antibody-drug conjugate for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia by Ying-Ping Jiang, Bob Y. Liu, Quan Zheng,
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2017)
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages (February 2017)
Total-Genome Analysis of BRCA1/2-Related Invasive Carcinomas of the Breast Identifies Tumor Stroma as Potential Landscaper for Neoplastic Initiation 
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (December 2006)
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages (October 2017)
Discovery and Characterization of piRNAs in the Human Fetal Ovary
Association of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Activating Mutations with Low ERCC1 Gene Expression in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer  David R. Gandara, MD,
Volume 165, Issue 1, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages (July 2013)
Proteome-Scale Investigation of Protein Allosteric Regulation Perturbed by Somatic Mutations in 7,000 Cancer Genomes  Qiancheng Shen, Feixiong Cheng,
The Functional Impact of Alternative Splicing in Cancer
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages (August 2013)
Kelsie L. Thu, BSc, Raj Chari, PhD, William W
When Genome Maintenance Goes Badly Awry
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e5 (October 2018)
Patterns of Somatically Acquired Amplifications and Deletions in Apparently Normal Tissues of Ovarian Cancer Patients  Leila Aghili, Jasmine Foo, James.
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Pan-Cancer Landscape of Aberrant DNA Methylation across Human Tumors
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages (January 2018)
Volume 151, Issue 2, Pages e6 (August 2016)
The Methylation Landscape of Human Cancers
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages e5 (September 2018)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2018)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages (January 2018)
Comprehensive Genetic Landscape of Uveal Melanoma by Whole-Genome Sequencing  Beryl Royer-Bertrand, Matteo Torsello, Donata Rimoldi, Ikram El Zaoui, Katarina.
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (December 2006)
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages e4 (February 2019)
Patterns of Somatically Acquired Amplifications and Deletions in Apparently Normal Tissues of Ovarian Cancer Patients  Leila Aghili, Jasmine Foo, James.
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages e5 (March 2019)
Network-Based Coverage of Mutational Profiles Reveals Cancer Genes
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (November 2015)
NRG1 rearrangements are found in multiple solid tumors.
Four Key Steps Control Glycolytic Flux in Mammalian Cells
Gene expression patterns of SLC and ABC transporters in normal and tumor tissues. Gene expression patterns of SLC and ABC transporters in normal and tumor.
Mutational Analysis of Ionizing Radiation Induced Neoplasms
lncRNA HOXA11-AS is overexpressed in gastric cancer tissues.
Correlations between comutations of HRR-BER or HRR-MMR and tumor mutational burden, neoantigen load, and MSI-H. Correlations between comutations of HRR-BER.
Collin Tokheim, Rachel Karchin  Cell Systems 
Superenhancers near the KLF5 gene are focally amplified in diverse cancer types. Superenhancers near the KLF5 gene are focally amplified in diverse cancer.
Presentation transcript:

Characterization of Tumor-Suppressor Gene Inactivation Events in 33 Cancer Types  Peilin Jia, Zhongming Zhao  Cell Reports  Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 496-506.e3 (January 2019) DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066 Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Definition of Inactivation Events L2 mutations (in red): both copies were lost because of genetic mutations. L1 mutations (in orange): strong evidence for loss of only one copy, whereas the other copy has less-compelling evidence of disruption. Mutation types in gray do not have evidence of the loss of two copies. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Identification of TSG Inactivation Events in 33 Cancer Types/Subtypes (A) Overview of genetic inactivation events of tumor-suppressor genes (TSGs) (without any statistical test). This shows genetic inactivation events of the top-40 TSGs that had the highest frequency of inactivation events in 32 cancer types or subtypes (THCA was excluded, because no TSGs had ≥ 5 mutations). Vertical bars in blue and cyan label the samples with L2 and L1 mutations of a TSG (rows), respectively. (B) Computational framework for identifying TSG inactivation events and their follow-up biological and functional impact analysis. First, we defined the genetically inactivated samples and WT samples for each TSG. Second, we examined the impact of the inactivation events on the gene expression of the TSG itself (cis-effect) and other genes in the transcriptome (trans-effect). Third, we studied other genomic impacts of the TSG inactivation events, including cross-type transcriptional profile similarity, pathways, and local networks. (C) Summary of the computational pipeline to detect genetic inactivation events in TSGs. (D) Overview of all TSG × cancer events. y axis indicates sample size. The colors label different types of mutations. Definition of mutation types: Homdel (red), homozygous deletion by CNVs (CNV = −2); Hetlose_NS_FS (green), heterozygous deletion by CNVs (CNV = −1) plus nonsense SNVs or frameshift indels; Hetlose_Mis (cyan), heterozygous deletion by CNVs (CNV = −1) plus missense SNVs; WT_NS_FS (purple): nonsense SNVs or frameshift indels occurred in samples without copy loss (CNV ≥ 0); WT_Mis (gray), missense SNVs occurred in samples without copy loss (CNV ≥ 0). Genes whose names are in orange were co-located with other genes in the human genome. For either L2 or L1, we applied a sample-based test and gene-length test wherever applicable (i.e., eligible sample sizes ≥ 20; # mutated genes ≥ 100). When such criteria could not be met, the sample test was skipped (denoted by L2: S = N or L1: S = N) or the gene test was skipped (denoted by L2: G = N or L1: G = N). ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; BLCA, bladder urothelial carcinoma; BRCA, breast invasive carcinoma; CESC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma; CHOL, cholangiocarcinoma; CESC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; COAD, colon adenocarcinoma; ESCA, esophageal carcinoma; GBM, glioblastoma multiforme; HNSC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; KICH, kidney chromophobe; KIRC, kidney renal clear cell carcinoma; KIRP, kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma; LAML, acute myeloid leukemia; LGG, brain lower grade glioma; LIHC, liver hepatocellular carcinoma; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma; LUSC, lung squamous cell carcinoma; MESO, mesothelioma; OV, ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma; PAAD, pancreatic adenocarcinoma; PCPG, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; PRAD, prostate adenocarcinoma; READ, rectum adenocarcinoma; SARC, sarcoma; SKCM, skin cutaneous melanoma; STAD, stomach adenocarcinoma; TGCT, testicular germ cell tumors; THCA, thyroid carcinoma; THYM, thymoma; UCEC, uterine corpus endometrioid carcinoma; UCS, uterine carcinosarcoma; UVM, uveal melanoma. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Inactivation Events of TSGs with Cis- and Trans-Effects (A) Evaluation of TSG × cancer inactivation events using transcriptomic data. In each panel, the group labeled “high” indicates the significant TSG × cancer events (psample < 0.05 and pgene < 0.05), and the group “low” indicates non-significant events. Cis- and trans-effects were assessed for L1 mutations and L2 mutations, respectively. (B and C) MAP3K1 (B) and GATA3 (C) as example genes that had no cis-effect but had a trans-effect. In both cases, as shown, although MAP3K1 and GATA3 were both found with inactivation mutations, their mRNA expression level was not decreased compared to the WT samples of the corresponding genes. (D) Plot of all TSGs for their cis- and trans-effects. Each dot indicates a TSG × cancer event. Node color indicates the events with different cis- or trans-effects. Nodes with a black circle indicate the 161 events with significant impact. (E) Distribution of DEGs (y axis) versus T (see main text for the definition of T). Each dot represents a TSG × cancer event. Node color indicates cancer types (like in F), and node size is proportional to the number of inactivated samples. (F) Distribution of differentially expressed genes (DEGs, y axis) versus empirical pemp (x axis) of each TSG in each cancer type. Color for cancer types are the same as those in (E). (G) Distribution of significant DEGs. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Transcriptome Impact of TSG Inactivation Events (A) Hierarchical cluster of 161 TSG × cancer events. The dendrogram was obtained based on a 10,000 bootstrap (see main text). (B) Comparison of cell-cycle genes in RB1-inactivated samples and in CDKN2A-inactivated samples. (C) Gene expression of CDKN2A and CCND1 in RB1-inactivated samples and wild-type samples and restricted to CDKN2A wild-type samples. (D) Gene expression of BRCA1 in RB1-inactivated samples and wild-type samples and restricted to CDKN2A wild-type samples. (E) ssGSEA results using mRNA expression. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Affected Local Networks by RB1 and TP53 Inactivation Events (A) Affected network for RB1. Recurrent nodes that were significantly changed in ≥ 5 cancer types were selected to plot on the graph. Node color is proportional to the number of cancer types in which the gene was changed. The nodes shaded in green mainly function in the cell-cycle pathway, and the nodes shaded in pink are mainly from the DNA repair pathway. (B) Affected network for TP53. Recurrent nodes that were significantly changed in ≥ 2 cancer types were selected to plot on the graph. The shaded areas were for signaling pathway (blue) and cell-cycle pathway (red), respectively. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Exploring the Impact of Missense Mutations on TSG Function Three example genes (TP53, ATRX, and KEAP1), whose deleterious missense mutations had an effect similar to other inactivation mutations, are shown. Triangle dots indicate genes that were detected as DEGs in both comparisons: they were DEGs when comparing the inactivated samples with the WT samples and were also DEGs when comparing the samples harboring missense mutations (gray bars in Figure 2D) with the WT samples. Note that those samples with missense mutations had no overlap with the inactivated samples. Cell Reports 2019 26, 496-506.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.066) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions