| Literature DB >> 28945760 |
Niedzica Camacho1,2,3, Peter Van Loo4,5, Sandra Edwards1, Jonathan D Kay6,7, Lucy Matthews1, Kerstin Haase4, Jeremy Clark8, Nening Dennis9, Sarah Thomas9, Barbara Kremeyer10, Jorge Zamora10, Adam P Butler10, Gunes Gundem10,11, Sue Merson1, Hayley Luxton6,7, Steve Hawkins6, Mohammed Ghori10, Luke Marsden12, Adam Lambert13, Katalin Karaszi13,14, Gill Pelvender14, Charlie E Massie6,15, Zsofia Kote-Jarai1, Keiran Raine10, David Jones10, William J Howat16, Steven Hazell9, Naomi Livni9, Cyril Fisher9, Christopher Ogden9, Pardeep Kumar9, Alan Thompson9, David Nicol9, Erik Mayer9, Tim Dudderidge9, Yongwei Yu17, Hongwei Zhang17, Nimish C Shah18, Vincent J Gnanapragasam19, William Isaacs20, Tapio Visakorpi21, Freddie Hamdy14, Dan Berney22, Clare Verrill23, Anne Y Warren18, David C Wedge10,24, Andrew G Lynch25,26, Christopher S Foster27, Yong Jie Lu22, G Steven Bova21, Hayley C Whitaker6,7, Ultan McDermott10, David E Neal6,19, Rosalind Eeles1,9, Colin S Cooper1,8, Daniel S Brewer8,28.
Abstract
A variety of models have been proposed to explain regions of recurrent somatic copy number alteration (SCNA) in human cancer. Our study employs Whole Genome DNA Sequence (WGS) data from tumor samples (n = 103) to comprehensively assess the role of the Knudson two hit genetic model in SCNA generation in prostate cancer. 64 recurrent regions of loss and gain were detected, of which 28 were novel, including regions of loss with more than 15% frequency at Chr4p15.2-p15.1 (15.53%), Chr6q27 (16.50%) and Chr18q12.3 (17.48%). Comprehensive mutation screens of genes, lincRNA encoding sequences, control regions and conserved domains within SCNAs demonstrated that a two-hit genetic model was supported in only a minor proportion of recurrent SCNA losses examined (15/40). We found that recurrent breakpoints and regions of inversion often occur within Knudson model SCNAs, leading to the identification of ZNF292 as a target gene for the deletion at 6q14.3-q15 and NKX3.1 as a two-hit target at 8p21.3-p21.2. The importance of alterations of lincRNA sequences was illustrated by the identification of a novel mutational hotspot at the KCCAT42, FENDRR, CAT1886 and STCAT2 loci at the 16q23.1-q24.3 loss. Our data confirm that the burden of SCNAs is predictive of biochemical recurrence, define nine individual regions that are associated with relapse, and highlight the possible importance of ion channel and G-protein coupled-receptor (GPCR) pathways in cancer development. We concluded that a two-hit genetic model accounts for about one third of SCNA indicating that mechanisms, such haploinsufficiency and epigenetic inactivation, account for the remaining SCNA losses.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28945760 PMCID: PMC5628936 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Genet ISSN: 1553-7390 Impact factor: 5.917
Fig 1Somatic copy number alterations in 103 patients.
(A) Somatic copy number alterations in relapse free (n = 59) and progressed patients (n = 10) after radical prostatectomy at six months and (B) association with time to biochemical recurrence (the two groups were defined relative to the mean number of SCNAs in progressed patients (44 SCNAs) within the cohort). Progressed patients had significantly more SCNAs than relapse free patients (a mean of 19 compared to 44; Mann-Whitney U p = 0.0133). (C) Copy number burden in relapse free and progressed patients after radical prostatectomy at six months and (D) association with time to biochemical recurrence (the two groups were defined relative to the mean copy number burden in progressed patients within the cohort). Progressed patients had lower copy number burden (mean of 7.359 compared to a mean of 11.710; Mann-Whitney U p = 0.0166).
Fig 2Cluster dendogram and heatmap of somatic copy number alterations in 103 patients.
Cluster dendogram and heatmap of amplifications (red) and deletions (blue) representing the somatic copy number profile of the 103 patients calculated using unsupervised hierarchical clustering with Manhattan distance and complete inter-cluster linkage. Samples with SNP6.0 data are indicated with an asterisk. Confidence intervals determined by multiscale bootstrap resampling are displayed in S2 Fig.
Fig 3Cluster associations with clinical factors.
(A) Clusters association with Gleason Score (prostatectomies and TURP samples only). (B) Clusters association to risk of biochemical recurrence within C1 and C2-C5. At the time of writing the single prostatectomy case in C5 had a follow up time of 23 months and had not progressed.
Fig 4Frequency plot representing regions of amplification (red) and deletion (blue).
Across samples from (A) all 103 patients, (B) ETS-positive cancers, and (C) ETS-negative cancers. SCNAs present in more than one patient were plotted. The green lines represent the cut-off (5 patients) for defining recurrently altered regions. Chromosome numbers are indicated in black. Genes potentially involved in prostate cancer development in the minimal regions of alteration are annotated in black.
Genes that are recurrently altered by coding-changing mutations in regions of recurrent somatic copy number alteration defined by the extended MRAs.
| Gene | Gene name | Number of mutations | Patients with a SCNA and mutation | Patients with SCNA (%) | Type of SCNA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forkhead box protein A1 | 11 | 1 | 6 (5.83) | Amp | |
| Tumor protein p53 | 9 | 9 | 37 (35.92) | Del | |
| Phosphatase and tensin homolog | 9 | 7 | 39 (37.86) | Del | |
| Hemicentin-1 | 6 | 1 | 8 (7.77) | Amp | |
| Kinesin family member 26B | 4 | 2 | 7 (6.80) | Amp | |
| Uncharacterized Protein KIAA1614 | 4 | 1 | 8 (7.77) | Amp | |
| Transcription factor 12 | 3 | 1 | 15 (14.56) | Del | |
| Calcium channel, voltage-dependent, R type, alpha 1E subunit | 3 | 1 | 8 (7.77) | Amp | |
| 5-Phosphohydroxy-L-lysine phospho-lyase | 3 | 0 | 8 (7.77) | Amp | |
| Sodium channel protein type 4 subunit alpha | 3 | 0 | 4 (3.88) | Amp | |
| Chromosome 17 open reading frame 58 | 3 | 0 | 4 (3.88) | Amp | |
| Ryanodine receptor 2 | 3 | 0 | 12 (11.65) | Amp | |
| Zinc finger homeobox 4 | 2 | 2 | 31 (30.10) | Amp | |
| Transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily A, member 1 | 2 | 2 | 31 (30.10) | Amp | |
| Nibrin | 2 | 2 | 32 (31.07) | Amp | |
| Collagen, type XXVII, alpha 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 (4.85) | Amp | |
| Alpha-1-microglobulin/Bikunin precursor | 2 | 1 | 5 (4.85) | Amp | |
| Ubiquitin interaction motif containing 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 (5.83) | Amp | |
| Solute carrier family 26 (anion exchanger), member 2 | 2 | 1 | 8 (7.77) | Amp |
Fig 5Examples of minimal recurrent deletions.
Deletions at (A) 6q14.3-q15, (B) 8p21.3-p21.2, (C) 10q23.31, (D) 13q14.13, (E) 14q24.1 and (F) 17q21.31. The genomic location of the MRA and linked genes are displayed. For the loss at 8p a recurrent region of homozygous loss (8:25417422–26386565) close to the MRA is indicated.
Fig 6Examples of gains.
Gains within the (A) q arm in Chr8, (B) focal amplifications at 7p11.2, and (C) 14p11.2. Three spatially separated regions of gain were present at 8q24.21. The chromosome gain events are represented with distinct colour blocks depending on the type of SCNA: gain (any gain in the number of normal allele copies) and amplification LOH (loss of one allele with any gain of the remaining allele). The regions of SCNA are ordered by length: top-smallest, bottom-largest. The genomic location of the MRAs and linked genes are additionally displayed.
Fig 7Minimal regions of deletion and amplification significantly associated with treatment failure.
(A), 1q42.2-q42.3 deletion, (B) 4p15.2-p15.1 deletion, and (C) 1q21.3-q22 amplification. Kaplan-Meier freedom from biochemical recurrence are displayed. Log-rank test probabilities adjusted for multiple testing by the Benjamini-Hochberg method are indicated. Ovals indicate the frequency of alteration.
Summary table of recurrent regions of deletion that follow the Knudson hit model.
| Minimal Region of Alteration Band | Candidate Genes/Region | Chromosomal Location | Number of Patients with Deletion | Homozygous Deletion | Number of Patients affected by Deletion and a Point Mutation/Indel on the opposite allele | Number of Patients affected by Deletion and a Breakpoint/Inversion on the opposite allele |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:77747736–84464833 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 1:233119181–235612283 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| 2:133429374–136875735 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 2:137523115–138435287 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| 3:72420976–72496069 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 3:72798428–72911065 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 5:98190908–98262240 | 29 | 6 | 0 | 8 | ||
| 5:98150767–100530128 | 32 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
| 5:100142639–100238970 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 7 | ||
| 5:71403061–71803554 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 6:87851165–88089974 | 50 | 1 | 3 | 14 | ||
| 6:87862551–87973914 | 50 | 2 | 1 | 14 | ||
| 8:23536206–23540440 | 62 | 3 | 0 | 8 | ||
| 8:22570769–23082639 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 9 | ||
| 11:113668596–113746292 | 14 | 0 | 5 | 5 | ||
| 11:113845603–115375675 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 12:12510013–12715317 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 12:129556270–130388211 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 13:48877887–49056122 | 46 | 3 | 1 | 0 | ||
| 13:45007655–47471169 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 8 | ||
| 16:78475408–90287535 | 42 | 0 | 17 | 0 | ||
| 17:7565097–7590856 | 37 | 2 | 9 | 5 | ||
| 22:46449749–46933067 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 4 |