| Literature DB >> 28324520 |
Rakesh M Rawal1, Madhvi N Joshi2, Poonam Bhargava2, Inayat Shaikh2, Aanal S Pandit2, Riddhi P Patel2, Shanaya Patel1, Kiran Kothari1, Manoj Shah1, Akshay Saxena2, Snehal B Bagatharia3.
Abstract
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is the sixth most common non-skin cancer in the world. Tobacco chewing is implicated with most of the cases of HNSCC but this type of cancer is increasing in non-tobacco chewers as well. This study was instigated to provide comprehensive variant and gene-level data in HNSCC subjects of the Indian population and fill the gap in the literature on comparative assessment of gene mutations in cancer subjects with a habit of tobacco and those without any habit using targeted amplicon sequencing. We performed targeted Amplicon sequencing of 409 tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes, frequently mutated across many cancer types, including head and neck. DNA from primary tumor tissues and matched blood was analyzed for HNSCC patients with a habit of tobacco and those without any habit. PDE4DIP, SYNE1, and NOTCH1 emerged as the highly mutated genes in HNSCC. A total of 39 candidate causal variants in 22 unique cancer driver genes were identified in non-habitual (WoH) and habitual (WH) subjects. Comparison of genes from both the subjects, showed seven unique cancer driver genes (KIT, ATM, RNF213, GATA2, DST, RET, CYP2C19) in WoH, while WH showed five (IL7R, PKHD1, MLL3, PTPRD, MAPK8) and 10 genes (SETD2, ATR, CDKN2A, NCOA4, TP53, SYNE1, KAT6B, THBS1, PTPRT, and FGFR3) were common to both subjects. In addition to this NOTCH1, NOTCH2, and NOTCH4 gene were found to be mutated only in habitual subjects. These findings strongly support a causal role for tobacco, acting via PI3K and MAPK pathway inhibition and stimulation of various genes leading to oncogenic transformations in case of tobacco chewers. In case of non-tobacco chewers it appears that mutations in the pathway affecting the squamous epithelial lineage and DNA repair genes lead to HNSCC. Somatic mutation in CYP2C19 gene in the non-habitual subjects suggests that this gene may have a tobacco independent role in development and progression of HNSCC. In addition to sharing high mutation rate, NOTCH gene family was found to be mutated only in habitual sample. Further, presence of mutated genes not earlier reported to be involved in HNSCC, suggest that the Indian sub-continent may have different sets of genes, as compared to other parts of the world, involved in the development and progression of HNSCC.Entities:
Keywords: Amplicon sequencing; Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; Mutation; Oncogenic transformations; Tobacco
Year: 2014 PMID: 28324520 PMCID: PMC4569615 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-014-0267-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Demographic, histopathological, and clinical details of patients taken for this study
| Subject type | Gender | Age | Ethnic group | Tobacco chewing | Smoking | Alcohol | Tumor site | Histopathological examination |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WoH | Male | 45 | Indian | – | – | – | Right lateral border of the tongue | Well to moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma |
| WH | Male | 47 | Indian | + | + | + | Left lateral border of the tongue | Well differentiated keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma |
| WH | Male | 51 | Indian | + | – | – | Left lateral border of the tongue | Well differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of level grade—I |
| WH | Male | 40 | Indian | + | – | – | Left tongue | Moderately differentiated keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma |
| Control | Matched normal lymphocytes of WoH and WH | |||||||
Total number of variants and the corresponding genes, percentage of variants in the dbSNP database and there transition/transversion ratio for total and novel (not reported in COSMIC and dbSNP) variants
| Sample | Variants | Genes | dbSNP (%) | Ti/Tv total | Ti/Tv novel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 (WoH) | 934 | 280 | 96.90 | 2.51 | 1.4 |
| Sample 2 (WH) | 959 | 275 | 95.50 | 2.61 | 1 |
| Sample 3 (control) | 1,354 | 318 | 94.30 | 2.52 |
Fig. 1Graph showing variant distribution across all chromosomes (a) non-filtered (b) filtered (variants with a call quality >20 and only were in exonic and non-synonymous)
Fig. 2Analysis workflow applied parallel to each sample involving filtering criteria; variants with a call quality >20 were considered as confidence variant. These confidence variants further refined to get variants occuring only in exonic and non-synonymous); functionally damaging (consequences of variation on gene and protein function with the help of bioinformatics) being considered to identify candidate causal variants and genes
Fig. 3Venn diagram depicting a comparative assessment of non-synonymous variants from both the samples. Sample 1 (red) and Sample 2 (green). Somatic and germline variants in each sample identified by comparing with its corresponding matched control. Variants from each samples found in matched control, were referred as germline whereas rest (sample specific variants) are considered as somatic. Each sample depicting non-habitual, habit specific (shown in green), and non-specific (shown in brown) somatic and germline variants
Details of cancer driver variants (present in COSMIC and novel functionally damaging) in habitual and non-habitual sample
| Subject | COSMIC/novel | Chromosome | Genomic position | Reference allele | Sample allele | Read depth | Variation type | Cytoband | Gene region | Gene symbol | Protein variant | Sample-genotype | Somatic/germline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual (WH) | Novel functionally damaging | 4 | 1,808,286 | G | A | 55 | SNV | p16.3 | Exonic | FGFR3 | p.V682I; p.V684I; p.V570I | Het | Somatic |
| 10 | 49,634,537 | A | C | 45 | SNV | q11.22 | Exonic | MAPK8 | p.E329A | Het | Somatic | ||
| 15 | 39,884,882 | G | T | 68 | SNV | q14 | Exonic | THBS1 | p.Q882H | Het | Germline | ||
| 20 | 41,420,019 | T | C | 108 | SNV | q12 | Exonic | PTPRT | p.H101R | Het | Germline | ||
| COSMIC | 10 | 51,568,378 | T | G | 133 | SNV | q11.23 | Intronic; Exonic | NCOA4 | p.F8V | Hom | Somatic | |
| 17 | 7,577,538 | C | T | 111 | SNV | p13.1 | Exonic | TP53 | p.R209Q; p.R116Q; p.R248Q | Het | Somatic | ||
| 3 | 47,125,385 | G | A | 29 | SNV | p21.31 | Exonic | SETD2 | p.P1962L | Het | Germline | ||
| 3 | 142,178,144 | C | T | 104 | SNV | q23 | Exonic | ATR | p.R2425Q | Het | Germline | ||
| 3 | 142,281,612 | A | G | 119 | SNV | q23 | Exonic | ATR | p.M211T | Het | Germline | ||
| 5 | 35,861,068 | T | C | 163 | SNV | p13.2 | Exonic | IL7R | p.I66T | Het | Germline | ||
| 5 | 35,871,190 | G | A | 152 | SNV | p13.2 | Exonic | IL7R | p.V138I | Het | Germline | ||
| 6 | 51,910,905 | T | C | 160 | SNV | p12.2 | Exonic | PKHD1 | p.N830S | Het | Germline | ||
| 6 | 152,665,261 | C | A | 100 | SNV | q25.2 | Exonic | SYNE1 | p.E3989D; p.E4060D | Het | Germline | ||
| 7 | 151,882,672 | C | A | 79 | SNV | q36.1 | Exonic | MLL3 | p.A1685S | Het | Germline | ||
| 7 | 151,962,265 | C | T | 855 | SNV | q36.1 | Exonic | MLL3 | p.D348N | Het | Germline | ||
| 9 | 8,518,052 | G | C | 103 | SNV | p24.1 | Exonic | PTPRD | p.Q447E; p.Q444E; p.Q441E; p.Q437E | Het | Germline | ||
| 9 | 21,968,199 | C | G | 57 | SNV | p21.3 | 3′UTR | CDKN2A | Hom | Germline | |||
| 10 | 76,781,908 | GAGGATGAAGAGGAGGAAGAAGAG | 126 | Insertion | q22.2 | Exonic | KAT6B | p.914_915insEDEEEEEE; p.805_806insEDEEEEEE; p.1097_1098insEDEEEEEE | Het | Germline | |||
| 15 | 39,880,822 | A | G | 204 | SNV | q14 | Exonic | THBS1 | p.T523A | Het | Germline | ||
| 17 | 7,579,472 | G | C | 96 | SNV | p13.1 | Promoter; Exonic | TP53 | p.P72R; p.P33R | Het | Germline | ||
| Non-Habitual (WoH) | COSMIC | 6 | 152,665,261 | C | A | 33 | SNV | q25.2 | Exonic | SYNE1 | p.E3989D; p.E4060D | Hom | Somatic |
| 10 | 51,568,378 | T | G | 97 | SNV | q11.23 | Intronic; Exonic | NCOA4 | p.F8V | Hom | Somatic | ||
| 10 | 96,540,410 | G | A | 103 | SNV | q23.33 | Exonic | CYP2C19 | p.W212* | Het | Somatic | ||
| 17 | 78,302,157 | C | A | 53 | SNV | q25.3 | Exonic | RNF213 | p.Q1133K | Hom | Somatic | ||
| 17 | 78,319,136 | G | A | 103 | SNV | q25.3 | Exonic | RNF213 | p.S2334N | Hom | Somatic | ||
| 3 | 47,125,385 | G | A | 71 | SNV | p21.31 | Exonic | SETD2 | p.P1962L | Het | Germline | ||
| 3 | 142,281,612 | A | G | 171 | SNV | q23 | Exonic | ATR | p.M211T | Het | Germline | ||
| 4 | 55,593,464 | A | C | 42 | SNV | q12 | Exonic | KIT | p.M541L; p.M537L | Het | Germline | ||
| 9 | 21,968,199 | C | G | 65 | SNV | p21.3 | 3′UTR | CDKN2A | Hom | Germline | |||
| 10 | 76,781,908 | GAGGATGAAGAGGAGGAAGAAGAG | 69 | Insertion | q22.2 | Exonic | KAT6B | p.914_915insEDEEEEEE; p.805_806insEDEEEEEE; p.1097_1098insEDEEEEEE | Het | Germline | |||
| 11 | 108,175,462 | G | A | 111 | SNV | q22.3 | Exonic | ATM | p.D1853N | Het | Germline | ||
| 17 | 7,579,472 | G | C | 60 | SNV | p13.1 | Promoter; Exonic | TP53 | p.P72R; p.P33R | Het | Germline | ||
| Novel functionally damaging | 4 | 1,808,286 | G | A | 34 | SNV | p16.3 | Exonic | FGFR3 | p.V682I; p.V684I; p.V570I | Het | Somatic | |
| 3 | 128,202,753 | G | A | 46 | SNV | q21.3 | Exonic | GATA2 | p.H323Y | Het | Germline | ||
| 6 | 56,325,048 | G | A | 40 | SNV | p12.1 | Exonic | DST | p.T5045M | Het | Germline | ||
| 6 | 152,638,007 | G | A | 42 | SNV | q25.2 | Exonic | SYNE1 | p.R5563W; p.R5492W | Het | Germline | ||
| 10 | 43,615,078 | G | T | 72 | SNV | q11.21 | Exonic | RET | p.G831V | Het | Germline | ||
| 15 | 39,884,882 | G | T | 28 | SNV | q14 | Exonic | THBS1 | p.Q882H | Het | Germline | ||
| 20 | 41,420,019 | T | C | 55 | SNV | q12 | Exonic | PTPRT | p.H101R | Het | Germline |
The details include chromosome number, position, reference allele, sample allele, Read depth, variation type, cytoband loci, gene region, gene involved, protein variant, genotype and Somatic or Germline
Fig. 4Venn diagram showing cancer driver genes in each sample. Genes in red and green background are unique to non-habitual and habitual sample, respectively; genes in gray background common to both the samples
Reads mapping details showing number of reads mapped, reads mapped on to the target region, coverage, and coverage depth
| Sample | Mapped reads | Reads on target (%) | 20 × coverage (%) | Mean coverage depth (fold) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 (WoH) | (88.6 MB) 9,61,743 reads | 97.35 | 88.91 | 59.4883 |
| Sample 2 (WH) | (119 MB) 12,92,207 reads | 97.47 | 86.23 | 79.6575 |
| Sample 3 (control) | (143 MB) 15,42,354 reads | 97.61 | 93.80 | 95.5884 |