OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and spectrum of mutations in RPL22 a gene identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) as mutated in endometrioid endometrial cancer, and determine the relationship between RPL22 defects and clinicopathologic features. METHODS: Direct sequencing of the entire coding region of the RPL22 cDNA and exons 2/4 was performed in tumors with/without microsatellite instability (MSI). RPL22 expression was assessed by immunofluorescence microscopy in the KLE, RL952 and AN3CA cell lines, wildtype, heterozygous and homozygous mutants, respectively. Relationships between RPL22 mutation and clinicopathological features were assessed using Chi-squared analysis and Student's t test. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of recurrence. RESULTS: A single nucleotide deletion in an A8 coding repeat was identified in exon 2 of the RPL22 gene in 116/226 (52%) of MSI-high tumors. No mutations were identified in MSI-stable tumors. Only 2% of the tumors expressed a homozygous A deletion. RPL22 mutation was not associated with stage, grade, race and lymphovascular space invasion. Women whose tumors harbored RPL22 mutations were significantly older (67 vs. 63years, p=0.005). There was no difference in PFS between patients with the wildtype and mutant genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: RPL22 is frequently mutated in MSI-high endometrioid endometrial cancers. The A8 mutation identified was not reported in the whole exome sequences analyzed by the TCGA. The demonstration of frequent mutation in RPL22 may point to a limitation of the exome capture and next generation sequencing analysis methods for some mononucleotide string mutations. Functional assessment of the RPL22 knockdown may be warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and spectrum of mutations in RPL22 a gene identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) as mutated in endometrioid endometrial cancer, and determine the relationship between RPL22 defects and clinicopathologic features. METHODS: Direct sequencing of the entire coding region of the RPL22 cDNA and exons 2/4 was performed in tumors with/without microsatellite instability (MSI). RPL22 expression was assessed by immunofluorescence microscopy in the KLE, RL952 and AN3CA cell lines, wildtype, heterozygous and homozygous mutants, respectively. Relationships between RPL22 mutation and clinicopathological features were assessed using Chi-squared analysis and Student's t test. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of recurrence. RESULTS: A single nucleotide deletion in an A8 coding repeat was identified in exon 2 of the RPL22 gene in 116/226 (52%) of MSI-high tumors. No mutations were identified in MSI-stable tumors. Only 2% of the tumors expressed a homozygous A deletion. RPL22 mutation was not associated with stage, grade, race and lymphovascular space invasion. Women whose tumors harbored RPL22 mutations were significantly older (67 vs. 63years, p=0.005). There was no difference in PFS between patients with the wildtype and mutant genotypes. CONCLUSIONS:RPL22 is frequently mutated in MSI-high endometrioid endometrial cancers. The A8 mutation identified was not reported in the whole exome sequences analyzed by the TCGA. The demonstration of frequent mutation in RPL22 may point to a limitation of the exome capture and next generation sequencing analysis methods for some mononucleotide string mutations. Functional assessment of the RPL22 knockdown may be warranted.
Authors: J I Risinger; K Hayes; G L Maxwell; M E Carney; R K Dodge; J C Barrett; A Berchuck Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sharyn N Lewin; Thomas J Herzog; Nicanor I Barrena Medel; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; Xuming Sun; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: David E Cohn; Wendy L Frankel; Kimberly E Resnick; Vanna L Zanagnolo; Larry J Copeland; Heather Hampel; Nicole Kelbick; Carl D Morrison; Jeffrey M Fowler Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Destin Black; Robert A Soslow; Douglas A Levine; Carmen Tornos; Shirley C Chen; Amanda J Hummer; Faina Bogomolniy; Narciso Olvera; Richard R Barakat; Jeff Boyd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Israel Zighelboim; Paul J Goodfellow; Feng Gao; Randall K Gibb; Matthew A Powell; Janet S Rader; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara A Byron; Michael G Gartside; Candice L Wellens; Mary A Mallon; Jack B Keenan; Matthew A Powell; Paul J Goodfellow; Pamela M Pollock Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: B Smith; R Neff; D E Cohn; F J Backes; A A Suarez; D G Mutch; C M Rush; C J Walker; P J Goodfellow Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shuyun Rao; Kathy Q Cai; Jason E Stadanlick; Noa Greenberg-Kushnir; Nehal Solanki-Patel; Sang-Yun Lee; Shawn P Fahl; Joseph R Testa; David L Wiest Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christopher J Walker; Mario A Miranda; Matthew J O'Hern; James S Blachly; Cassandra L Moyer; Jennifer Ivanovich; Karl W Kroll; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Caroline E Sapp; David G Mutch; David E Cohn; Ralf Bundschuh; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Christopher J Walker; Mario A Miranda; Matthew J O'Hern; Joseph P McElroy; Kevin R Coombes; Ralf Bundschuh; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506