X Wang1, X Li2, L Zhang1, S H Wong3, M H T Wang4, G Tse5, R Z W Dai6, G Nakatsu6, O O Coker6, Z Chen7, H Ko5, J Y K Chan8, T Liu9, C H K Cheng10, A S L Cheng10, K F To11, D Plewczynski12, J J Y Sung6, J Yu3, T Gin13, M T V Chan13, W K K Wu14. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 2. State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Public Laboratory, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin. 3. State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 4. The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 5. Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 6. State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 7. Departments of Microbiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 8. Departments of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 9. Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin. 10. School of Biomedical Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. 11. Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. 12. Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland. 13. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Electronic address: wukakei@cuhk.edu.hk. 14. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Electronic address: wukakei@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
Background: Cancer-related genes are under intense evolutionary pressure. We conjectured that gene size is an important determinant of amplification propensity for oncogenes and thus cancer susceptibility and therefore could be subject to natural selection. Patients and methods: Gene information, including size and genomic locations, of all protein-coding genes were downloaded from Ensembl (release 87). Quantification of gene amplification was based on Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer scores obtained from available The Cancer Genome Atlas studies. Results: Oncogenes are larger in size as compared with non-cancer genes (mean size: 92.1 kb versus 61.4 kb; P < 0.0001) in the human genome, which is contributed by both increased total exon size (mean size: 4.6 kb versus 3.4 kb; P < 0.0001) and higher intronic content (mean %: 84.8 versus 78.0; P < 0.01). Such non-random size distribution and intronic composition are conserved in mouse and Drosophila (all P < 0.0001). Stratification by gene age indicated that young oncogenes have been subject to a stronger evolutionary pressure for gene expansion than their non-cancer counterparts. Pan-cancer analysis demonstrated that larger oncogenes were amplified to a lesser extent. Tumor-suppressor genes also moved toward small oncogenes in the course of evolution. Conclusions: Oncogenes expand in size whereas tumor-suppressor genes move closer to small oncogenes in the course of evolution to withstand oncogenic somatic amplification. Our findings have shed new light on the previously unappreciated influence of gene size on oncogene amplification and elucidated how cancers have shaped our genome to its present configuration.
Background: Cancer-related genes are under intense evolutionary pressure. We conjectured that gene size is an important determinant of amplification propensity for oncogenes and thus cancer susceptibility and therefore could be subject to natural selection. Patients and methods: Gene information, including size and genomic locations, of all protein-coding genes were downloaded from Ensembl (release 87). Quantification of gene amplification was based on Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer scores obtained from available The Cancer Genome Atlas studies. Results: Oncogenes are larger in size as compared with non-cancer genes (mean size: 92.1 kb versus 61.4 kb; P < 0.0001) in the human genome, which is contributed by both increased total exon size (mean size: 4.6 kb versus 3.4 kb; P < 0.0001) and higher intronic content (mean %: 84.8 versus 78.0; P < 0.01). Such non-random size distribution and intronic composition are conserved in mouse and Drosophila (all P < 0.0001). Stratification by gene age indicated that young oncogenes have been subject to a stronger evolutionary pressure for gene expansion than their non-cancer counterparts. Pan-cancer analysis demonstrated that larger oncogenes were amplified to a lesser extent. Tumor-suppressor genes also moved toward small oncogenes in the course of evolution. Conclusions: Oncogenes expand in size whereas tumor-suppressor genes move closer to small oncogenes in the course of evolution to withstand oncogenic somatic amplification. Our findings have shed new light on the previously unappreciated influence of gene size on oncogene amplification and elucidated how cancers have shaped our genome to its present configuration.
Authors: Dan Huang; Xiansong Wang; Ziheng Huang; Yingzhi Liu; Xiaodong Liu; Tony Gin; Sunny Hei Wong; Jun Yu; Lin Zhang; Matthew Tak Vai Chan; Huarong Chen; William Ka Kei Wu Journal: Oncogene Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 9.867