| Literature DB >> 29127303 |
Peina Du1, Peide Huang1,2, Xuanlin Huang1, Xiangchun Li1,3, Zhimin Feng1, Fengyu Li1, Shaoguang Liang1, Yongmei Song4, Jan Stenvang2, Nils Brünner2, Huanming Yang1,5, Yunwei Ou6, Qiang Gao7, Lin Li8,9.
Abstract
Oesophageal carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in China, and more than 90% of these tumours are oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Although several ESCC genomic sequencing studies have identified mutated somatic genes, the number of samples in each study was relatively small, and the molecular basis of ESCC has not been fully elucidated. Here, we performed an integrated analysis of 490 tumours by combining the genomic data from 7 previous ESCC projects. We identified 18 significantly mutated genes (SMGs). PTEN, DCDC1 and CUL3 were first reported as SMGs in ESCC. Notably, the AJUBA mutations and mutational signature4 were significantly correlated with a poorer survival in patients with ESCC. Hierarchical clustering analysis of the copy number alteration (CNA) of cancer gene census (CGC) genes in ESCC patients revealed three subtypes, and subtype3 exhibited more CNAs and marked for worse prognosis compared with subtype2. Moreover, database annotation suggested that two significantly differential CNA genes (PIK3CA and FBXW7) between subtype3 and subtype2 may serve as therapeutic drug targets. This study has extended our knowledge of the genetic basis of ESCC and shed some light into the clinical relevance, which would help improve the therapy and prognosis of ESCC patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29127303 PMCID: PMC5681595 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14909-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Mutational signature analysis of ESCC. (A) Lego plots of mutational frequencies in the coding regions in ESCC specimens. Base substitutions were classified into six subtypes and each category was represented by different colours. Pie charts represent the distribution of the six subtypes. Base substitutions were further divided into 96 possible mutation types according to the flanking nucleotides surrounding the mutated base. (B) Heatmap for mutational signatures using sample exposures to one signature identified in ESCC specimens by the NMF method. Each column represents one individual. Each row represents one signature. (C,D) Top: Kaplan-Meier survival curves for signature4 and cluster3 were significantly associated with patient survival, p < 0.1 was considered statistically significant. Bottom: Cox proportional hazards model for patients, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 2Significantly mutated genes in ESCC specimens. Top: number of synonymous and nonsynonymous mutations. Middle: significantly mutated genes coloured by mutation types. Left: Nonsilent mutation frequency of each gene. Right: significantly mutated genes ranked by q-value according to MutSigCV analysis.
Figure 3Analysis of AJUBA. (A) Somatic mutation types and positions on AJUBA. (B) Left: Kaplan-Meier survival curve for AJUBA was significantly associated with patient survival, p < 0.1 was considered statistically significant. Right: Cox proportional hazards model for patients, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. (C) Comparison of the expression of AJUBA in tumour and normal samples in the TCGA ESCC cohort. (D) Comparison of the expression of AJUBA in the AJUBA mutant and wild-type samples in the TCGA ESCC cohort.
Figure 4Characterization of ESCC subtypes. (A) Hierarchical clustering analysis on the CNA of cancer gene census (CGC). Upper bars: stage, lymphatic metastasis and vital status. Bottom bars: nonsilent mutations of each sample and number of CNA genes. The line represents the median number of CNA genes. (B) Kaplan-Meier analysis comparing survival of patients stratified by subtype. (C) Multidimensional scaling screen for CGC genes by comparing subtypes 3 and 2. Genes that q < 0.001 and frequency of copy number gain or loss in subtypes 3 or 2 >= 40% were highlighted in red.