INTRODUCTION: Genomic alterations have been observed in breast carcinomas that affect the capacity of cells to regulate proliferation, signaling, and metastasis. Re-sequence studies have investigated candidate genes based on prior genetic observations (changes in copy number or regions of genetic instability) or other laboratory observations and have defined critical somatic mutations in genes such as TP53 and PIK3CA. METHODS: We have extended the paradigm and analyzed 21 genes primarily identified by expression profiling studies, which are useful for breast cancer subtyping and prognosis. This study conducted a bidirectional re-sequence analysis of all exons and 5', 3', and evolutionarily conserved regions (spanning more than 16 megabases) in 91 breast tumor samples. RESULTS: Eighty-seven unique somatic alterations were identified in 16 genes. Seventy-eight were single base pair alterations, of which 23 were missense mutations; 55 were distributed across conserved intronic regions or the 5' and 3' regions. There were nine insertion/deletions. Because there is no a priori way to predict whether any one of the identified synonymous and noncoding somatic alterations disrupt function, analysis unique to each gene will be required to establish whether it is a tumor suppressor gene or whether there is no effect. In five genes, no somatic alterations were observed. CONCLUSION: The study confirms the value of re-sequence analysis in cancer gene discovery and underscores the importance of characterizing somatic alterations across genes that are related not only by function, or functional pathways, but also based upon expression patterns.
INTRODUCTION: Genomic alterations have been observed in breast carcinomas that affect the capacity of cells to regulate proliferation, signaling, and metastasis. Re-sequence studies have investigated candidate genes based on prior genetic observations (changes in copy number or regions of genetic instability) or other laboratory observations and have defined critical somatic mutations in genes such as TP53 and PIK3CA. METHODS: We have extended the paradigm and analyzed 21 genes primarily identified by expression profiling studies, which are useful for breast cancer subtyping and prognosis. This study conducted a bidirectional re-sequence analysis of all exons and 5', 3', and evolutionarily conserved regions (spanning more than 16 megabases) in 91 breast tumor samples. RESULTS: Eighty-seven unique somatic alterations were identified in 16 genes. Seventy-eight were single base pair alterations, of which 23 were missense mutations; 55 were distributed across conserved intronic regions or the 5' and 3' regions. There were nine insertion/deletions. Because there is no a priori way to predict whether any one of the identified synonymous and noncoding somatic alterations disrupt function, analysis unique to each gene will be required to establish whether it is a tumor suppressor gene or whether there is no effect. In five genes, no somatic alterations were observed. CONCLUSION: The study confirms the value of re-sequence analysis in cancer gene discovery and underscores the importance of characterizing somatic alterations across genes that are related not only by function, or functional pathways, but also based upon expression patterns.
Authors: O Troyanskaya; M Cantor; G Sherlock; P Brown; T Hastie; R Tibshirani; D Botstein; R B Altman Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: C Mayor; M Brudno; J R Schwartz; A Poliakov; E M Rubin; K A Frazer; L S Pachter; I Dubchak Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tian-Li Wang; Carlo Rago; Natalie Silliman; Janine Ptak; Sanford Markowitz; James K V Willson; Giovanni Parmigiani; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-02-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Helen Davies; Graham R Bignell; Charles Cox; Philip Stephens; Sarah Edkins; Sheila Clegg; Jon Teague; Hayley Woffendin; Mathew J Garnett; William Bottomley; Neil Davis; Ed Dicks; Rebecca Ewing; Yvonne Floyd; Kristian Gray; Sarah Hall; Rachel Hawes; Jaime Hughes; Vivian Kosmidou; Andrew Menzies; Catherine Mould; Adrian Parker; Claire Stevens; Stephen Watt; Steven Hooper; Rebecca Wilson; Hiran Jayatilake; Barry A Gusterson; Colin Cooper; Janet Shipley; Darren Hargrave; Katherine Pritchard-Jones; Norman Maitland; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Giuseppe Palmieri; Antonio Cossu; Adrienne Flanagan; Andrew Nicholson; Judy W C Ho; Suet Y Leung; Siu T Yuen; Barbara L Weber; Hilliard F Seigler; Timothy L Darrow; Hugh Paterson; Richard Marais; Christopher J Marshall; Richard Wooster; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nature Date: 2002-06-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Katherine U Gaynor; Irina V Grigorieva; Michael D Allen; Christopher T Esapa; Rosemary A Head; Preethi Gopinath; Paul T Christie; M Andrew Nesbit; J Louise Jones; Rajesh V Thakker Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Emelyne Dejeux; Jo Anders Rønneberg; Hiroko Solvang; Ida Bukholm; Stephanie Geisler; Turid Aas; Ivo G Gut; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Per Eystein Lønning; Vessela N Kristensen; Jörg Tost Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Debashis Sarker; Joo Ern Ang; Richard Baird; Rebecca Kristeleit; Krunal Shah; Victor Moreno; Paul A Clarke; Florence I Raynaud; Gallia Levy; Joseph A Ware; Kathryn Mazina; Ray Lin; Jenny Wu; Jill Fredrickson; Jill M Spoerke; Mark R Lackner; Yibing Yan; Lori S Friedman; Stan B Kaye; Mika K Derynck; Paul Workman; Johann S de Bono Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jesus Gonzalez-Bosquet; Jacob Calcei; Jun S Wei; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Mark E Sherman; Stephen Hewitt; Joseph Vockley; Jolanta Lissowska; Hannah P Yang; Javed Khan; Stephen Chanock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Martin M J Kirschner; Mirle Schemionek; Claudia Schubert; Nicolas Chatain; Stephanie Sontag; Susanne Isfort; Nadina Ortiz-Brüchle; Karla Schmitt; Luisa Krüger; Klaus Zerres; Martin Zenke; Tim H Brümmendorf; Steffen Koschmieder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Benjamin J Raphael; Stanislav Volik; Peng Yu; Chunxiao Wu; Guiqing Huang; Elena V Linardopoulou; Barbara J Trask; Frederic Waldman; Joseph Costello; Kenneth J Pienta; Gordon B Mills; Krystyna Bajsarowicz; Yasuko Kobayashi; Shivaranjani Sridharan; Pamela L Paris; Quanzhou Tao; Sarah J Aerni; Raymond P Brown; Ali Bashir; Joe W Gray; Jan-Fang Cheng; Pieter de Jong; Mikhail Nefedov; Thomas Ried; Hesed M Padilla-Nash; Colin C Collins Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 13.583