Literature DB >> 30309206

Generation of Whole-Genome Sequencing Data for Comparing Primary and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Jong-Lyul Park1, Seon-Kyu Kim2, Jeong-Hwan Kim1, Seok Joong Yun3,4, Wun-Jae Kim3,4, Won Tae Kim3,4, Pildu Jeong3, Ho Won Kang4, Seon-Young Kim1,5.   

Abstract

Because castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) does not respond to androgen deprivation therapy and has a very poor prognosis, it is critical to identify a prognostic indicator for predicting high-risk patients who will develop CRPC. Here, we report a dataset of whole genomes from four pairs of primary prostate cancer (PC) and CRPC samples. The analysis of the paired PC and CRPC samples in the whole-genome data showed that the average number of somatic mutations per patients was 7,927 in CRPC tissues compared with primary PC tissues (range, 1,691 to 21,705). Our whole-genome sequencing data of primary PC and CRPC may be useful for understanding the genomic changes and molecular mechanisms that occur during the progression from PC to CRPC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA variants; castration-resistant prostate cancer; whole-genome sequencing

Year:  2018        PMID: 30309206      PMCID: PMC6187813          DOI: 10.5808/GI.2018.16.3.71

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genomics Inform        ISSN: 1598-866X


Introduction

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common malignancy in males [1]. It is known that about 20% of PC patients experience disease progression and distant metastasis [2, 3]. The therapeutic options for patients with aggressive PC include prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) [4]. Although ADT therapy induces short 2–3-year remissions, unfortunately, most PCs eventually progress into castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) [3], which does not respond to ADT therapy and shows poor clinical behavior. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the molecular characteristics and identify robust biomarkers that are associated with the development of CRPC from primary PC. High-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies have gradually uncovered the molecular characteristics of PC, along with CRPC [5-8]. However, many genomic studies on CRPC have been conducted on metastasized CRPC that has been discovered at distant organs. These studies of metastatic sites do not reflect the precise molecular characteristics of CRPC, because these sites are not the primary PC site and because metastatic sites have completely different microenvironments from the primary site [9]. Here, we generated a dataset of whole genomes from four pairs of primary PC and CRPC samples from the same patient (i.e., a total of eight paired samples from four PC patients). In this report, the genomic status of samples with primary PC and CRPC was explored, and different variants between these two distinct phenotypes were identified by comparing the genomes of primary PC and its paired CRPC.

Methods

Tissues samples

Four pairs of primary PC and CRPC tissues were obtained from Chungbuk National University Hospital (Korea) with informed consent and approval of the Internal Review Board at Chungbuk National University. To obtain a consistent variant profile that was associated with the development of CRPC, primary CRPCs were obtained from homogenous biopsy sites, and none of our PC samples was from distant metastatic sites. Detailed clinical characteristics of the four pairs of primary PC and CRPC tissues are described in Supplementary Table 1.

Whole-genome sequencing library construction and sequencing

Genomic DNA was isolated using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and the sequencing library was constructed using the Illumina TruSeq DNA Library Prep Kit (San Diego, CA, USA). Next, paired-end sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq X Ten sequencing instrument, yielding ~ 150-bp short sequencing reads.

Data analysis

The sequenced reads were aligned to human reference genome 19 using Burrows Wheelers Aligner [10], and duplicate reads were removed using Picard (Broad Institute). Then, the remaining reads were calibrated and realigned using the Genome Analysis Toolkit [11]. The realigned Binary Alignment Map files were analyzed using Strelka [12] to detect somatic single-nucleotide variants and insertions/ deletions. For all programs, the default parameter settings were applied.

Results and Discussion

Quality and quantity of the sequencing data

The whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data, including the mapping rate, genome coverage, scores of the mapping quality, and duplicate reads, are summarized in Table 1. Briefly, the mapping rate and scores of the mapping quality in the four pairs of primary PC and CRPC samples were higher than 95% and 53%, respectively. In addition, the average genome coverage of our samples was over 30× (between 31.81× and 53.54×). Although coverage of several hundred times is required for detecting low-level mutations in next-generation sequence data [13], WGS with 30× sequence coverage is appropriate for comprehensive identification of tumor-specific somatic mutations [14]. These results suggest that the quality and quantity of our sequencing data are adequate for mutational analysis during the progression from PC to CRPC.
Table 1

Quality and quantity of the sequencing data

Sample IDTotal No. of readsMapped reads, n/%Duplicate reads, n/%Genome coverage (mean)Mapping quality
P1_PC848,047,506808,804,115/95.3768,671,081/8.1037.8954.01
P1_CRPC948,133,472906,103,176/95.57261,605,851/27.5942.8654.05
P2_PC850,014,794812,799,767/95.62132,111,659/15.5438.2454.10
P2_CRPC1,119,621,7521,074,841,222/96.00178,460,836/15.9450.8554.32
P3_PC873,087,626831,226,978/95.21219,433,437/25.1339.2954.05
P3_CRPC1,217,525,6261,164,525,389/95.65182,382,654/14.9853.5453.79
P4_PC740,468,590703,382,210/94.99138,235,516/18.6731.8153.21
P4_CRPC915,523,140875,358,078/95.40215,503,940/23.4941.3954.03

Mutation patterns identified from CRPC compared with PC

The average number of somatic mutations per patients was 7,927 in CRPC tissues compared with primary PC tissues (range, 1691 to 21,705). In particular, patient P2 had hypermutations (n = 21,705), whereas patient P1 had a low mutation frequency (n = 1,691) (Fig. 1A). To observe the mutation signatures in the development of CRPC from primary PC, we examined the spectrum of base substitutions. This analysis revealed an unusually high proportion of C:G > T:A and A:T>G:C transversions (Fig. 1B), similar to a previous study [15]. Next, the mutated sites were annotated as non-synonymous, synonymous, stop, and gain mutations. The number of mutations affecting protein-coding genes was 9, 321, 22, and 10 for the four patients (Table 2), and we observed recurrent mutations in the ANKRD20A4, ANDRK38B, AQP7, GGT1, and TAS2R31 genes. Detailed information for the non-synonymous and recurrent mutations is summarized in Supplementary Table 2. Further study will be needed to examine whether the mutated genes are associated with the development of CRPC from primary PC.
Fig. 1

Number of mutations and distribution of mutation type. (A) Somatic mutations were detected using the Strelka package with default parameter settings. (B) Relative distribution of single-base substitutions by type in each of the four paired castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. SNV, single nucleotide variant.

Table 2

Summary of mutation in exonic regions

Sample IDSynonymous mutationsNon-synonymous mutationsStop or gainMutated genes
P13609
P210422610321
P31113022
P438110
In conclusion, PC is a heterogeneous disease and has various steps in its disease progression, including CRPC, the poorest prognostic status during the progression of PC. Understanding the molecular characteristics of the development of CRPC will help identify high-risk PC patients and develop novel therapeutic strategies to block the progression of CRPC. We generated a set of WGS data, consisting of eight PC samples containing four pairs of primary PC and CRPC samples from the same patient, because genetic mutations have the greatest potential to play a role in the progression of PC and CRPC and the therapeutic management of CRPC [16, 17]. By comparing primary PC and its paired CRPC, many somatic mutations that were significantly associated with the development of CRPC were identified, including TP53 and KMT2C, which are known to be involved in the progression of PC [16, 17]. We hope that our whole-genome sequence data of the four paired PC and CRPC tissues will be utilized by many researchers to understand the progression of PC and the resistance to androgen deprivation therapy.
  17 in total

1.  The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data.

Authors:  Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  An integrated network of androgen receptor, polycomb, and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions in prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Jindan Yu; Jianjun Yu; Ram-Shankar Mani; Qi Cao; Chad J Brenner; Xuhong Cao; Xiaoju Wang; Longtao Wu; James Li; Ming Hu; Yusong Gong; Hong Cheng; Bharathi Laxman; Adaikkalam Vellaichamy; Sunita Shankar; Yong Li; Saravana M Dhanasekaran; Roger Morey; Terrence Barrette; Robert J Lonigro; Scott A Tomlins; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Zhaohui S Qin; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 31.743

3.  Cross-species hybridization of microarrays for studying tumor transcriptome of brain metastasis.

Authors:  Eun Sung Park; Sun Jin Kim; Seung Wook Kim; Se-Lyun Yoon; Sun-Hee Leem; Sang-Bae Kim; Soo Mi Kim; Yun-Yong Park; Jae-Ho Cheong; Hyun Goo Woo; Gordon B Mills; Isaiah J Fidler; Ju-Seog Lee
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Daniel H Hovelson; Scott A Tomlins
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2016 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.360

5.  Cancer Statistics, 2017.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 6.  Management of prostate cancer in older patients: updated recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Droz; Matti Aapro; Lodovico Balducci; Helen Boyle; Thomas Van den Broeck; Paul Cathcart; Louise Dickinson; Eleni Efstathiou; Mark Emberton; John M Fitzpatrick; Axel Heidenreich; Simon Hughes; Steven Joniau; Michael Kattan; Nicolas Mottet; Stéphane Oudard; Heather Payne; Fred Saad; Toru Sugihara
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Maximum androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer: an overview of 22 randomised trials with 3283 deaths in 5710 patients. Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-07-29       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dan Robinson; Eliezer M Van Allen; Yi-Mi Wu; Nikolaus Schultz; Robert J Lonigro; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Bruce Montgomery; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Colin C Pritchard; Gerhardt Attard; Himisha Beltran; Wassim Abida; Robert K Bradley; Jake Vinson; Xuhong Cao; Pankaj Vats; Lakshmi P Kunju; Maha Hussain; Felix Y Feng; Scott A Tomlins; Kathleen A Cooney; David C Smith; Christine Brennan; Javed Siddiqui; Rohit Mehra; Yu Chen; Dana E Rathkopf; Michael J Morris; Stephen B Solomon; Jeremy C Durack; Victor E Reuter; Anuradha Gopalan; Jianjiong Gao; Massimo Loda; Rosina T Lis; Michaela Bowden; Stephen P Balk; Glenn Gaviola; Carrie Sougnez; Manaswi Gupta; Evan Y Yu; Elahe A Mostaghel; Heather H Cheng; Hyojeong Mulcahy; Lawrence D True; Stephen R Plymate; Heidi Dvinge; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Penny Flohr; Susana Miranda; Zafeiris Zafeiriou; Nina Tunariu; Joaquin Mateo; Raquel Perez-Lopez; Francesca Demichelis; Brian D Robinson; Marc Schiffman; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Alexandros Sigaras; Kenneth W Eng; Olivier Elemento; Andrea Sboner; Elisabeth I Heath; Howard I Scher; Kenneth J Pienta; Philip Kantoff; Johann S de Bono; Mark A Rubin; Peter S Nelson; Levi A Garraway; Charles L Sawyers; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 9.  Drug discovery in advanced prostate cancer: translating biology into therapy.

Authors:  Timothy A Yap; Alan D Smith; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Bissan Al-Lazikani; Paul Workman; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 84.694

10.  A comprehensive assessment of somatic mutation detection in cancer using whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Tyler S Alioto; Ivo Buchhalter; Sophia Derdak; Barbara Hutter; Matthew D Eldridge; Eivind Hovig; Lawrence E Heisler; Timothy A Beck; Jared T Simpson; Laurie Tonon; Anne-Sophie Sertier; Ann-Marie Patch; Natalie Jäger; Philip Ginsbach; Ruben Drews; Nagarajan Paramasivam; Rolf Kabbe; Sasithorn Chotewutmontri; Nicolle Diessl; Christopher Previti; Sabine Schmidt; Benedikt Brors; Lars Feuerbach; Michael Heinold; Susanne Gröbner; Andrey Korshunov; Patrick S Tarpey; Adam P Butler; Jonathan Hinton; David Jones; Andrew Menzies; Keiran Raine; Rebecca Shepherd; Lucy Stebbings; Jon W Teague; Paolo Ribeca; Francesc Castro Giner; Sergi Beltran; Emanuele Raineri; Marc Dabad; Simon C Heath; Marta Gut; Robert E Denroche; Nicholas J Harding; Takafumi N Yamaguchi; Akihiro Fujimoto; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Víctor Quesada; Rafael Valdés-Mas; Sigve Nakken; Daniel Vodák; Lawrence Bower; Andrew G Lynch; Charlotte L Anderson; Nicola Waddell; John V Pearson; Sean M Grimmond; Myron Peto; Paul Spellman; Minghui He; Cyriac Kandoth; Semin Lee; John Zhang; Louis Létourneau; Singer Ma; Sahil Seth; David Torrents; Liu Xi; David A Wheeler; Carlos López-Otín; Elías Campo; Peter J Campbell; Paul C Boutros; Xose S Puente; Daniela S Gerhard; Stefan M Pfister; John D McPherson; Thomas J Hudson; Matthias Schlesner; Peter Lichter; Roland Eils; David T W Jones; Ivo G Gut
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.