| Literature DB >> 25987131 |
Guhyun Kang1,2, Hongseok Yun1,3, Choong-Hyun Sun3, Inho Park3, Seungmook Lee3, Jekeun Kwon3, Ingu Do1,4,5, Min Eui Hong1,5,6, Michael Van Vrancken1, Jeeyun Lee7, Joon Oh Park7, Jeonghee Cho8, Kyoung-Mee Kim1,5, Tae Sung Sohn9.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. We sequenced nine exomes and transcriptomes, and two genomes of GISTs for integrated analyses. We detected 306 somatic variants in nine GISTs and recurrent protein-altering mutations in 29 genes. Transcriptome sequencing revealed 328 gene fusions, and the most frequently involved fusion events were associated with IGF2 fused to several partner genes including CCND1, FUS, and LASP1. We additionally identified three recurrent read-through fusion transcripts: POLA2-CDC42EP2, C8orf42-FBXO25, and STX16-NPEPL1. Notably, we found intragenic deletions in one of three exons of the VHL gene and increased mRNAs of VEGF, PDGF-β, and IGF-1/2 in 56% of GISTs, suggesting a mechanistic link between VHL inactivation and overexpression of hypoxia-inducible factor target genes in the absence of hypoxia. We also identified copy number gain and increased mRNA expression of AMACR, CRIM1, SKP2, and CACNA1E. Mapping of copy number and gene expression results to the KEGG pathways revealed activation of the JAK-STAT pathway in small intestinal GISTs and the MAPK pathway in wild-type GISTs. These observations will allow us to determine the genetic basis of GISTs and will facilitate further investigation to develop new therapeutic options.Entities:
Keywords: exome; gastrointestinal stromal tumor; high-throughput nucleotide sequencing; transcriptome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 25987131 PMCID: PMC4872731 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.3731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinicopathologic data of nine gastrointestinal stromal tumors
| Patient | Sample | Tumor location | Size (cm) | Mitotic rate (per 5 mm2) | Risk of progression | Recurrence or metastasis | Clinical reponse to imatinib | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 01 | stomach | 7 | 2 | low | wild-type | no | no treatment |
| 02 | 02 | stomach | 6 | 1 | Low | wild-type | no | no treatment |
| 03 | 03 | stomach | 6 | 6 | High | yes | Y | |
| 04 | 04 | stomach | 12 | 9 | High | yes | Y | |
| 05 | 05 | stomach | 6 | 3 | low | no | no treatment | |
| 07 | 07 | small intestine (primary) | 12 | 10 | high | yes | N | |
| 08 | small intestine (recurrent) | 9 | 7 | |||||
| 08 | 09 | small intestine | 9 | 18 | high | yes | N | |
| 09 | 10 | small intestine | 11 | 8 | high | yes | Y |
Y, stable disease or partial reponse; N, progressive disease
Figure 1Mutation frequencies in each GIST sample (A) and spectra according to tumor location and KIT mutation status (B)
Figure 2Recurrently mutated genes identified by whole-exome sequencing and the enriched KEGG pathways for genes altered by copy number gain in GISTs (IM, imatinib mesylate; S, sensitive; R, resistant)
Figure 3Gene fusions detected in nine GISTs displayed as Circos plots
The width of the bands is proportion to the number of fusion events between two chromosomes (Read-through transcripts are not shown).
Distribution of putative fusion transcripts in nine GIST samples
| Sample | Private fusions | Recurrent fusions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fusions per tumor | Number of genes | Read-through transcripts | Fusions per tumor | Number of genes | Read-through transcripts | |
| 01 | 10 | 18 | 3 | 15 | 29 | 11 |
| 02 | 22 | 41 | 11 | 19 | 37 | 14 |
| 03 | 30 | 41 | 7 | 38 | 64 | 19 |
| 04 | 63 | 88 | 17 | 46 | 77 | 23 |
| 05 | 30 | 39 | 7 | 39 | 57 | 15 |
| 07 | 22 | 37 | 9 | 29 | 48 | 15 |
| 08 | 24 | 32 | 4 | 43 | 63 | 14 |
| 09 | 14 | 27 | 5 | 26 | 49 | 20 |
| 10 | 13 | 20 | 3 | 27 | 43 | 11 |
Candidate fusion transcripts in gastrointestinal stromal tumors
| Sample | Tool | 5′ | 3′ | Read-through | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene | Chromosome | FC* ≥ 2 | Gene | Chromosome | FC* ≥ 2 | |||
| 01 | DF / CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 01 | DF | 11 | 7 | |||||
| 01 | CS | 20 | 20 | 2.10 | Yes | |||
| 02 | DF / CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 02 | DF | 8 | 11 | |||||
| 03 | DF | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 03 | DF / CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 03 | DF | 11 | 17 | |||||
| 03 | DF | 12 | 11 | |||||
| 03 | DF | 8 | 8 | Yes | ||||
| 03 | DF | 11 | 11 | 2.77 | ||||
| 03 | CS | 8 | 8 | |||||
| 03 | CS | 11 | 11 | 2.00 | Yes | |||
| 04 | DF | 11 | 2.18 | 10 | ||||
| 04 | DF | 11 | 2.18 | 5 | ||||
| 04 | DF | 11 | 2.18 | 3 | ||||
| 04 | DF | 11 | 2.18 | 4 | 2.59 | |||
| 04 | DF | 7 | 5 | |||||
| 04 | DF | 1 | 3.36 | 11 | 2.18 | |||
| 04 | DF | 8 | 8 | Yes | ||||
| 04 | DF / CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 04 | CS | 11 | 11 | 3.14 | Yes | |||
| 05 | DF | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 05 | DF | 11 | 17 | |||||
| 05 | DF | 11 | 16 | |||||
| 05 | CS | 20 | 20 | Yes | ||||
| 07 | DF / CS | 11 | 5.27 | 11 | Yes | |||
| 07 | CS | 9 | 4.48 | 9 | ||||
| 08 | DF | 11 | 17 | |||||
| 08 | DF | 7 | 5 | |||||
| 08 | DF | 8 | 8 | Yes | ||||
| 08 | DF | 9 | 12 | |||||
| 08 | DF | 11 | 5 | |||||
| 08 | DF | 4 | 11 | |||||
| 08 | DF | 4 | 5 | |||||
| 08 | CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 09 | DF | 8 | 8 | Yes | ||||
| 09 | CS | 11 | 11 | Yes | ||||
| 09 | CS | 20 | 20 | Yes | ||||
| 09 | DF / CS | 9 | 9 | |||||
| 10 | DF | 11 | 2 | |||||
*Fold change (FC) represents the difference in RPKM values between a sample and the mean. Bold font indicates the genes listed in the Mitelman database (DF, defuse; CS, ChimeraScan).
Figure 4Exon-level copy number changes and overall gene expression in tumor samples with VHL loss (A) and AMACR gain (B)
Figure 5Selected KEGG pathways enriched by differentially expressed genes between groups of samples