Lars Zender1, Scott W Lowe. 1. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724, USA. zender@cshl.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The completion of the human genome project has enabled several new technologies for studying cancer genetics and cancer genomes. However, genomic instability and heterogeneity of human tumors impedes a straightforward cataloging of cancer genes and possible therapeutic targets. Strategies enabling the distinction of causal genetic alterations from bystander genomic noise are needed and should significantly speed up the process of cancer-gene discovery. RECENT FINDINGS: A series of recent papers described the development of integrative oncogenomic approaches based on innovative cancer mouse models and how these can be used to speed up the discovery of new cancer genes. In the presented studies, spontaneously acquired genetic alterations in mouse tumors of defined genetic origin are used to filter/prioritize relevant lesions from complex human cancer genomes. As will be discussed in this review, a great advantage of this approach is that pinpointed candidate genes can be functionally validated in the right genetic context in vivo, which significantly increases confidence for later therapeutic development efforts. SUMMARY: The discussed approaches hold great promise to speed up the process of cancer-gene discovery and should be considered to complement time-consuming and costly endeavors like the Cancer Genome Project.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The completion of the human genome project has enabled several new technologies for studying cancer genetics and cancer genomes. However, genomic instability and heterogeneity of human tumors impedes a straightforward cataloging of cancer genes and possible therapeutic targets. Strategies enabling the distinction of causal genetic alterations from bystander genomic noise are needed and should significantly speed up the process of cancer-gene discovery. RECENT FINDINGS: A series of recent papers described the development of integrative oncogenomic approaches based on innovative cancer mouse models and how these can be used to speed up the discovery of new cancer genes. In the presented studies, spontaneously acquired genetic alterations in mouse tumors of defined genetic origin are used to filter/prioritize relevant lesions from complex human cancer genomes. As will be discussed in this review, a great advantage of this approach is that pinpointed candidate genes can be functionally validated in the right genetic context in vivo, which significantly increases confidence for later therapeutic development efforts. SUMMARY: The discussed approaches hold great promise to speed up the process of cancer-gene discovery and should be considered to complement time-consuming and costly endeavors like the Cancer Genome Project.
Authors: Michael T Hemann; Anka Bric; Julie Teruya-Feldstein; Andreas Herbst; Jonas A Nilsson; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; John L Cleveland; William P Tansey; Scott W Lowe Journal: Nature Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: L Chin; A Tam; J Pomerantz; M Wong; J Holash; N Bardeesy; Q Shen; R O'Hagan; J Pantginis; H Zhou; J W Horner; C Cordon-Cardo; G D Yancopoulos; R A DePinho Journal: Nature Date: 1999-07-29 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: N G Deane; M A Parker; R Aramandla; L Diehl; W J Lee; M K Washington; L B Nanney; Y Shyr; R D Beauchamp Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Robert Lucito; John Healy; Joan Alexander; Andrew Reiner; Diane Esposito; Maoyen Chi; Linda Rodgers; Amy Brady; Jonathan Sebat; Jennifer Troge; Joseph A West; Seth Rostan; Ken C Q Nguyen; Scott Powers; Kenneth Q Ye; Adam Olshen; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Larry Norton; Michael Wigler Journal: Genome Res Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Catherine M Shachaf; Andrew M Kopelman; Constadina Arvanitis; Asa Karlsson; Shelly Beer; Stefanie Mandl; Michael H Bachmann; Alexander D Borowsky; Boris Ruebner; Robert D Cardiff; Qiwei Yang; J Michael Bishop; Christopher H Contag; Dean W Felsher Journal: Nature Date: 2004-10-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: W S Pear; J P Miller; L Xu; J C Pui; B Soffer; R C Quackenbush; A M Pendergast; R Bronson; J C Aster; M L Scott; D Baltimore Journal: Blood Date: 1998-11-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Peter Olson; Jun Lu; Hao Zhang; Anny Shai; Matthew G Chun; Yucheng Wang; Steven K Libutti; Eric K Nakakura; Todd R Golub; Douglas Hanahan Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: E Andrés Houseman; Brock C Christensen; Margaret R Karagas; Margaret R Wrensch; Heather H Nelson; Joseph L Wiemels; Shichun Zheng; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey; Carmen J Marsit Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: M Z Xu; S W Chan; A M Liu; K F Wong; S T Fan; J Chen; R T Poon; L Zender; S W Lowe; W Hong; J M Luk Journal: Oncogene Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: GuangJun Zhang; Sebastian Hoersch; Adam Amsterdam; Charles A Whittaker; Eline Beert; Julian M Catchen; Sarah Farrington; John H Postlethwait; Eric Legius; Nancy Hopkins; Jacqueline A Lees Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.917