Literature DB >> 14573481

Likelihood models of somatic mutation and codon substitution in cancer genes.

Ziheng Yang1, Simon Ro, Bruce Rannala.   

Abstract

The role of somatic mutation in cancer is well established and several genes have been identified that are frequent targets. This has enabled large-scale screening studies of the spectrum of somatic mutations in cancers of particular organs. Cancer gene mutation databases compile the results of many studies and can provide insight into the importance of specific amino acid sequences and functional domains in cancer, as well as elucidate aspects of the mutation process. Past studies of the spectrum of cancer mutations (in particular genes) have examined overall frequencies of mutation (at specific nucleotides) and of missense, nonsense, and silent substitution (at specific codons) both in the sequence as a whole and in a specific functional domain. Existing methods ignore features of the genetic code that allow some codons to mutate to missense, or stop, codons more readily than others (i.e., by one nucleotide change, vs. two or three). A new codon-based method to estimate the relative rate of substitution (fixation of a somatic mutation in a cancer cell lineage) of nonsense vs. missense mutations in different functional domains and in different tumor tissues is presented. Models that account for several potential influences on rates of somatic mutation and substitution in cancer progenitor cells and allow biases of mutation rates for particular dinucleotide sequences (CGs and dipyrimidines), transition vs. transversion bias, and variable rates of silent substitution across functional domains (useful in detecting investigator sampling bias) are considered. Likelihood-ratio tests are used to choose among models, using cancer gene mutation data. The method is applied to analyze published data on the spectrum of p53 mutations in cancers. A novel finding is that the ratio of the probability of nonsense to missense substitution is much lower in the DNA-binding and transactivation domains (ratios near 1) than in structural domains such as the linker, tetramerization (oligomerization), and proline-rich domains (ratios exceeding 100 in some tissues), implying that the specific amino acid sequence may be less critical in structural domains (e.g., amino acid changes less often lead to cancer). The transition vs. transversion bias and effect of CpG dinucleotides on mutation rates in p53 varied greatly across cancers of different organs, likely reflecting effects of different endogenous and exogenous factors influencing mutation in specific organs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14573481      PMCID: PMC1462779     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  27 in total

Review 1.  The hallmarks of cancer.

Authors:  D Hanahan; R A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2000-01-07       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  p53 binds the nuclear matrix in normal cells: binding involves the proline-rich domain of p53 and increases following genotoxic stress.

Authors:  M Jiang; T Axe; R Holgate; C P Rubbi; A L Okorokov; T Mee; J Milner
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2001-09-06       Impact factor: 9.867

Review 3.  Cancer genetics.

Authors:  B A Ponder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-05-17       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Assessing TP53 status in human tumours to evaluate clinical outcome.

Authors:  T Soussi; C Béroud
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 5.  The role of tetramerization in p53 function.

Authors:  P Chène
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2001-05-10       Impact factor: 9.867

6.  Characterization of a 54K dalton cellular SV40 tumor antigen present in SV40-transformed cells and uninfected embryonal carcinoma cells.

Authors:  D I Linzer; A J Levine
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 41.582

7.  Detection of a transformation-related antigen in chemically induced sarcomas and other transformed cells of the mouse.

Authors:  A B DeLeo; G Jay; E Appella; G C Dubois; L W Law; L J Old
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  Ashok R Venkitaraman
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2002-01-25       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 9.  p53 mutation spectrum and load: the generation of hypotheses linking the exposure of endogenous or exogenous carcinogens to human cancer.

Authors:  S P Hussain; C C Harris
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1999-07-16       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 10.  Activation and activities of the p53 tumour suppressor protein.

Authors:  E Bálint E; K H Vousden
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-12-14       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

1.  Statistical analysis of pathogenicity of somatic mutations in cancer.

Authors:  Chris Greenman; Richard Wooster; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2006-06-18       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Estimation of DNA sequence context-dependent mutation rates using primate genomic sequences.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Gerard G Bouffard; Susan S Wallace; Jeffrey P Bond
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2007-08-04       Impact factor: 2.395

3.  Inferring somatic mutation rates using the stop-enhanced green fluorescent protein mouse.

Authors:  Simon Ro; Bruce Rannala
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2007-07-01       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes.

Authors:  Christopher Greenman; Philip Stephens; Raffaella Smith; Gillian L Dalgliesh; Christopher Hunter; Graham Bignell; Helen Davies; Jon Teague; Adam Butler; Claire Stevens; Sarah Edkins; Sarah O'Meara; Imre Vastrik; Esther E Schmidt; Tim Avis; Syd Barthorpe; Gurpreet Bhamra; Gemma Buck; Bhudipa Choudhury; Jody Clements; Jennifer Cole; Ed Dicks; Simon Forbes; Kris Gray; Kelly Halliday; Rachel Harrison; Katy Hills; Jon Hinton; Andy Jenkinson; David Jones; Andy Menzies; Tatiana Mironenko; Janet Perry; Keiran Raine; Dave Richardson; Rebecca Shepherd; Alexandra Small; Calli Tofts; Jennifer Varian; Tony Webb; Sofie West; Sara Widaa; Andy Yates; Daniel P Cahill; David N Louis; Peter Goldstraw; Andrew G Nicholson; Francis Brasseur; Leendert Looijenga; Barbara L Weber; Yoke-Eng Chiew; Anna DeFazio; Mel F Greaves; Anthony R Green; Peter Campbell; Ewan Birney; Douglas F Easton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Min-Han Tan; Sok Kean Khoo; Bin Tean Teh; Siu Tsan Yuen; Suet Yi Leung; Richard Wooster; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-03-08       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Predicting transcriptional activity of multiple site p53 mutants based on hybrid properties.

Authors:  Tao Huang; Shen Niu; Zhongping Xu; Yun Huang; Xiangyin Kong; Yu-Dong Cai; Kuo-Chen Chou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Germline fitness-based scoring of cancer mutations.

Authors:  Andrej Fischer; Chris Greenman; Ville Mustonen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Statistical method on nonrandom clustering with application to somatic mutations in cancer.

Authors:  Jingjing Ye; Adam Pavlicek; Elizabeth A Lunney; Paul A Rejto; Chi-Hse Teng
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Universal Patterns of Selection in Cancer and Somatic Tissues.

Authors:  Iñigo Martincorena; Keiran M Raine; Moritz Gerstung; Kevin J Dawson; Kerstin Haase; Peter Van Loo; Helen Davies; Michael R Stratton; Peter J Campbell
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 41.582

9.  A comparative analysis of algorithms for somatic SNV detection in cancer.

Authors:  Nicola D Roberts; R Daniel Kortschak; Wendy T Parker; Andreas W Schreiber; Susan Branford; Hamish S Scott; Garique Glonek; David L Adelson
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 6.937

10.  Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods.

Authors:  Ewy Mathe; Magali Olivier; Shunsuke Kato; Chikashi Ishioka; Pierre Hainaut; Sean V Tavtigian
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.