| Literature DB >> 27788131 |
Natalie Saini1, Steven A Roberts2, Leszek J Klimczak3, Kin Chan1, Sara A Grimm3, Shuangshuang Dai3, David C Fargo3, Jayne C Boyer4, William K Kaufmann5, Jack A Taylor6, Eunjung Lee7,8, Isidro Cortes-Ciriano7, Peter J Park7,8, Shepherd H Schurman9, Ewa P Malc10, Piotr A Mieczkowski10, Dmitry A Gordenin1.
Abstract
Accumulation of somatic changes, due to environmental and endogenous lesions, in the human genome is associated with aging and cancer. Understanding the impacts of these processes on mutagenesis is fundamental to understanding the etiology, and improving the prognosis and prevention of cancers and other genetic diseases. Previous methods relying on either the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells, or sequencing of single-cell genomes were inherently error-prone and did not allow independent validation of the mutations. In the current study we eliminated these potential sources of error by high coverage genome sequencing of single-cell derived clonal fibroblast lineages, obtained after minimal propagation in culture, prepared from skin biopsies of two healthy adult humans. We report here accurate measurement of genome-wide magnitude and spectra of mutations accrued in skin fibroblasts of healthy adult humans. We found that every cell contains at least one chromosomal rearrangement and 600–13,000 base substitutions. The spectra and correlation of base substitutions with epigenomic features resemble many cancers. Moreover, because biopsies were taken from body parts differing by sun exposure, we can delineate the precise contributions of environmental and endogenous factors to the accrual of genetic changes within the same individual. We show here that UV-induced and endogenous DNA damage can have a comparable impact on the somatic mutation loads in skin fibroblasts. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01087307.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27788131 PMCID: PMC5082821 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Genet ISSN: 1553-7390 Impact factor: 5.917
Fig 1Schematic for isolation and sequencing of single-cell fibroblast clonal lineages.
Example of Donor 1 is shown. Boxed insert illustrates the design of the clone IDs. Biopsy number is indicated if adjacent biopsies were taken from the same site.
Fig 2Structural changes detected in skin fibroblast clones D1-L-F1 and D2-L-F.
(A) All genome changes detected in D1-L-F1 and D2-L-F clones. The tracks numbered from innermost are as follows: 1—structural changes. Green = deletions, black = duplications, blue = inversions and red = translocations. 2—deletions as detected by read-depth analyses. 3—amplifications as detected by read-depth analyses. 4—LOH events. 5—somatic SNVs, black dots are heterozygous SNVs and red dots are homozygous SNVs. (B) Schematic describing the chr19, chr20 translocation in D1-L-F1. Black rectangles depict region wherein translocation event was detected with a concomitant change in copy number.
Fig 3Somatic mutation load and spectra in the fibroblast clones.
(A) The number of somatic mutations detected in each clone and the rate of accumulation of mutations per year are provided. (B) The spectra of base changes in the clones. For each base change the reverse complements are also included.
Fig 4Analysis of mechanistic knowledge-based mutation signatures in the genomes of skin fibroblasts.
Similar analysis for the whole-genome sequenced melanoma (SKCM) cohort (dataset from [46]) is provided for comparison. (A) Fold enrichment of nCg →nTg and UV-signature mutations (yCn→yTn, nTt→nCt; y is either C or T, n is either A, T, G or C, in the trinucleotide context the mutated base is in capital). The black horizontal line denotes the level of no enrichment. (B) The minimum estimates of signature-specific mutation loads for each clone. For the melanoma cohort, the median of the minimum estimated mutation loads for each signature per genome in is shown. (C) Total CC→TT counts of tandem dinucleotide changes in each clone and the median of the total CC→TT counts per genome in the melanoma cohort.
Fig 5Somatic mutation loads vary with replication timing and transcription status.
(A) SNVs from both, hips and forearms are enriched in late replicating genomic regions and heterochromatic regions of the genome. Values on the horizontal axis were obtained by averaging values of the genomic feature into 5 equal bins. (B) UV-attributable mutations demonstrate a strand bias for the non-transcribed strand. * denotes p-value after false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple hypothesis testing < 0.05, *** denotes p-value after FDR correction < .01 (p-values are in S13 Table). There is no preference for non-transcribed strand for mutations in C and T which do not conform to any UV-signature motif.
Estimates of rates of accumulation of endogenous and UV-induced mutations per year.
| Site | UV-induced mutation rate per year | Endogenous mutation rate per year | Total mutation rate per year | Source of damage–Approach 1 | Average rate of mutations by source–Approach 1 | Source of damage–Approach 2 | Average rate of mutations by source–Approach 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1-R-H1 | 5 | 13 | 22 | Endogenous (cons.) | 9.7 | Endogenous (max.) | 14.0 |
| D1-R-H2 | 2 | 9 | 11 | ||||
| D1-L-H | 2 | 7 | 9 | ||||
| D1-R-F | 3 | 12 | 17 | UV-induced (min.) | 10.3 | UV-induced (min.) | 10.3 |
| D1-L-F1 | 17 | 51 | 86 | ||||
| D1-L-F2 | 11 | 36 | 63 | ||||
| D2-R-H | 9 | 24 | 34 | Endogenous (cons.) | 32.5 | Endogenous (max.) | 57.0 |
| D2-L-H | 20 | 41 | 80 | ||||
| D2-R-F | 54 | 127 | 220 | UV-induced (min.) | 46.0 | UV-induced (min.) | 46.0 |
| D2-L-F | 38 | 84 | 148 |
a UV-induced mutation rates are calculated as the sum of minimum mutation loads by the yCn→yTn, nTt→nCt and CC→TT mutation signatures, divided by the age of the donors.
b Endogenous mutation rate per year is calculated by subtracting minimum mutation loads attributable to UV from the total mutation loads in the clones and dividing by the age of the donors.
c Total mutation rate per year is calculated by dividing the total mutation load by the age of the donors.
d In Approach 1, average Endogenous (cons.) mutation is calculated as the average of the “Endogenous mutation rate per year” for the hip samples of each donor. Average UV mutation rates in forearms are the average of the “UV-induced mutation rate per year” for the forearm samples of each donor.
e In Approach 2, average Endogenous (max.) mutation rate is calculated as the average of the “Total mutation rate per year” for the hip samples of each donor and compared to the average UV mutation rates in forearms of the same donor.
Mutation signatures analyzed in this study.
| Signature motif (abbreviated) | Signature motif (detailed) | Base substitution in a motif (a.k.a. mutation signature) |
|---|---|---|
| nCg | 5’ [a|t|g|c]C[g] 3’ | nCg→nTg |
| rCg | 5’ [a|g]C[g] 3’ | rCg→rTg |
| yCg | 5’ [t|c]C[g] 3’ | yCg→yTg |
| yCn | 5’ [t|c]C[a|t|g|c] 3’ | yCn→yTn |
| nTt | 5’ [a|t|g|c]T[t] 3’ | nTt→nCt |
| rTt | 5’ [a|g]T[t] 3’ | rTt→rCt |
| yTt | 5’ [t|c]T[t] 3’ | yTt→yCt |
The mutated residue is capitalized in the center of the motif. In the detailed signature motif, possible nucleotides for a position are show in brackets separated by |.