Study of Caspase 8 mutation in oral cancer and adjacent precancer tissues and implication in progression.

It is hypothesized that same driver gene mutations should be present in both oral leukoplakia and cancer tissues. So, we attempted to find out mutations at one of the driver genes, CASP8, in cancer and adjacent leukoplakia tissues. Patients (n = 27), affected by both of cancer and adjacent leukoplakia, were recruited for the study. Blood and tissue DNA samples were used to identify somatic mutations at CASP8 by next generation sequencing method. In total, 56% (15 out of 27) cancer and 30% (8 out of 27) leukoplakia tissues had CASP8 somatic mutations. In 8 patients, both cancer and adjacent leukoplakia tissues, located within 2-5 cm of tumor sites, had identical somatic mutations. But, in 7 patients, cancer samples had somatic mutations but none of the leukoplakia tissues, located beyond 5cm of tumor sites, had somatic mutations. Mutated allele frequencies at CASP8 were found to be more in cancer compared to adjacent leukoplakia tissues. This study provides mutational evidence that oral cancer might have progressed from previously grown leukoplakia lesion. Leukoplakia tissues, located beyond 5cm of cancer sites, were free from mutation. The study implies that CASP8 mutation could be one of the signatures for some of the leukoplakia to progress to oral cancer.

Introduction

Among others, tobacco use, excessive consumption of alcohol and betel quid chewing are prominent risk factors especially, in South-east Asian countries. More than 300,000 new cases of oral cancer are diagnosed annually worldwide and the high incidence rates are observed in South and South-east Asia [1]. Oral cancers are commonly preceded by potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions (PPOEL) such as leukoplakia, erythroplakia, submucous fibrosis and lichen planus [2], although majority of precancers do not progress to cancer. Malignant transformation rate of leukoplakia ranges from 0.13 to 34% [3-6]. Therefore, to control the disease, it is important to examine mutations in leukoplakias and treat them to control their progression to cancer.

Evasion of apoptosis is regarded as one of the important hallmarks of cancer. This could be caused by the inactivation of CASP8 (which encodes Caspase 8 protein) via multiple mechanisms such as mutations, epigenetic modifications, altered transcription, alternative splicing, post-translational changes. Studies, using next generation sequencing (NGS) method, reported that mutations in CASP8 can vary from 7–34% in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) across worldwide populations including India [7-10]. Based on Sanger sequencing method, another study on Southern Indian patient populations, reported 8% of oral cancer tissues had CASP8 mutations but none in oral sub-mucous fibrosis tissues (another oral precancerous lesion) [11]. CASP8 mutations with or without FAT1 mutations have been used as an important criterion for classifying mutational profiles of oral cancer patients. Further, studies on oral cancer cell lines showed that inactivating mutation in CASP8 can confer tumors with clonal growth advantage and increased cell migration [12].

Since the precancerous lesions are mostly asymptomatic and painless at the initial stages, patients are mostly reluctant to visit hospital making early diagnosis even more difficult. We were able to recruit patients into this study only when their lesions further aggravated. We recruited patients with both cancer and precancerous lesion fields and studied somatic mutations at CASP8 in cancer as well as adjacent leukoplakia tissues by NGS method. We also compared the mutation data at CASP8 between cancer and adjacent leukoplakia tissues, located at different distances from each other, to know whether the precancer and cancer tissues have common mutation which could be used as predictive signature for diagnosis at initial stage of progression.

Materials and methods

Collection of samples

This study had ethical approval from “Review committee for protection of research risk to humans” from Indian Statistical Institute, India and “Ethics committee” from Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College & Hospital, Kolkata, India. Written consents were taken from the patients with the information that their blood and tissues will be used for the present research. Patients, having both OSCC (oral squamous cell carcinoma) and adjacent leukoplakia were recruited between the year 2017(June) to 2018(May) from the hospital. Purposive and incidental type of sampling technique was used for recruitment of patients and all of them had tobacco smoking and/or chewing and/or alcohol consuming habit. Patients having verrucous carcinoma, submucosal fibrosis and lichen planus were not included in the study. International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) reported (Data Portal; Tag: March 2010, E7: Study design and Statistical issues), that sample size of 500 tumors are necessary to detect somatic mutation at a cancer gene in 3% of the tumors. But in this pilot study, initially 40 patients were recruited within the stipulated time but 27 patients were found to be suitable for the study. Thirteen samples were excluded due to different reasons such as insufficient DNA from tissue, non-leukoplakia precancer and non-OSCC cancer after histopathological study, insufficient data after NGS etc. From each patient, 2ml venous blood and biopsy punch from tumor and leukoplakia tissues were collected. Blood samples were kept at -20°C until extraction of DNA. Part of the leukoplakia and cancer tissue samples were kept in RNA Later solution and stored at -20°C until extraction of DNA. Remaining part of the tissue samples were used for histopathological examination.

DNA isolation, library preparation and sequencing

DNA was isolated from leukoplakia, cancer and blood tissues using QIAGEN DNA isolation kit. Concentration and quality of DNA was checked by Nanodrop 2000 (Thermo Scientific). From isolated DNA, library for NGS was prepared by Illumina library Preparation Kit and checked by Kapa quantification kit (Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA, USA). Sequencing was performed using Illumina HiSeq 2500 paired-end 100bp protocol.

Variant calling and bioinformatics analysis

Somatic mutations were identified in tumor and leukoplakia tissues by comparing it with blood from same patient using MuTect2[13] and all variants were annotated using ANNOVAR[14] (S1 Data). Mutation frequencies were verified from mpileup files, generated by Samtools for each sample[15]. Public databases like TCGA (The Caner Genome Atlas), COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutation in Cancer) and ClinVar [16] annotations were used to identify reported and novel variants.

Statistical analysis

For somatic mutation calling, Mutect2 used Bayesian somatic genotyping model which detected mutation even at very low allele frequency and allelic fraction showing high specificity [13]. The allelic frequencies obtained from Mutect2 of each leukoplakia and tumor tissues, were compared with frequency in respective blood samples. Significant difference (i.e. p-value <0.05) in mutation frequencies between blood and disease tissues was calculated by Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Demography

The study included 27 patients affected by both OSCC and adjacent leukoplakia and having history of consuming tobacco either in chewable or/and smoking form. Patients included both males (n = 21) and females (n = 6) and age of the patients ranged from 32 to 70 years (Table 1). All tumors, except one which was moderately differentiated, were well differentiated OSCC. Among all leukoplakia tissues, 13, 11 and 3 samples were diagnosed as mild, moderate and severe degree of dysplasia, respectively (Table 1). Some of the patients (n = 11) had a margin of >5cm between OSCC and leukoplakia tissues. Remaining patients (n = 16) had a margin of 2-5cm between OSCC and leukoplakia tissues.

Table 1

Demography of patients with tobacco habits and histopathological observations (n = 27).

Patient ID	Age (years)	Sex	Habit			Histopathological subtype		Tumor Size
			Tobacco smoking	Tobacco chewing	Alcohol consumption	Tumor	Leukoplakia
RADS2	53	M	Y	Y	-	MDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T2
RADS3	41	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS4	32	M	-	Y	Y	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS5	50	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS6	60	M	Y	-	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS7	65	M	Y	-	Y	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T2
RADS8	54	M	Y	-	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS10	65	M	-	Y	Y	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS13	48	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS17	53	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS18	58	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS19	41	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	SEVERE DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS23	45	M	-	Y	Y	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS27	50	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS28	55	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	SEVERE DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS29	36	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS33	45	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	SEVERE DYSPLASIA	T2
RADS34	65	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T3
RADS36	39	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS37	55	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS39	45	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS40	47	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS42	53	M	Y	-	Y	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS43	70	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T4a
RADS45	60	M	Y	Y	-	WDSCC	MODERATE DYSPLASIA	T1
RADS47	65	F	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T4a
RAD52	61	M	-	Y	-	WDSCC	MILD DYSPLASIA	T1

[MDSCC and WDSCC: moderately and well differentiated squamous cell carcinoma;

M—Male; F—Female; Y—Yes]

Mutations in CASP8

At 100x sequencing depth, mutations in CASP8 were identified in 56% of tumor (i.e. 15/27) and 30% of leukoplakia (i.e. 8/27) tissues. Among the 15 patients, 8 had identical CASP8 mutations in both tumor and leukoplakia lesions (located within 2–5 cm of cancer tissue) (Table 2, S1 Data). Remaining 7 patients had somatic mutation in CASP8 in tumor but not in its adjacent leukoplakia tissues (located either within 2–5 cm or beyond 5 cm of cancer tissues) (Table 3). All these 15 mutations were distributed in exons between 2 and 8 which codes for death effector domain (DED), Caspase domain (Peptidase_C14) and linker regions (Fig 1A). CASP8 mutations, reported previously in other HNSCC samples from TCGA cohorts, showed mutations distributed across all domains of the protein (Fig 1B). Although we did not have survival and follow-up history for the patients used in this study, we did observe that mutations in CASP8 in TCGA HNSCC samples showed a significant decrease in overall survival (Log Rank test P Value of 8.927E-04) (Fig 1C) [17, 18]. Among 8 somatic mutations present in both of tumor and adjacent leukoplakia tissues (i.e. located within 2-5cm of tumor site), 3 were non-synonymous, 2 were frame-shift and remaining 3 were stop-gain mutations (Table 2).

Table 2

Presence of mutation in CASP8 in both of cancer and adjacent leukoplakia tissues from same patient (n = 8).

Sample ID	Mutation in both of cancer and adjacent leukoplakia tissues *	Tumor size
RADS 3	L428Q; T>A; nonsynonymous; exon 8	T1
RADS 4	Q225X; C>T; stop gain; exon 4	T4a
RADS5	G310D; G>A; nonsynonymous; exon7	T4a
RADS 10	R417X; C>T; stop gain; exon 7	T4a
RADS27	E204X; G>T; stop gain; exon 4	T4a
RADS28	D200fs; del TATT; frameshift deletion; exon 4	T4a
RADS37	R218Q; G>A; Nonsynonymous; exon 6	T1
RADS47	T258fs; C>CT; frameshift due to insertion, exon 7	T4a

* all leukoplakia tissues were located within 2–5 cm from tumor

Table 3

Presence of mutation in CASP8 in cancer but not in adjacent leukoplakia tissues from same patients (n = 7).

Sample ID	Mutation in leukoplakia	Mutation in tumor
$ RADS7	No mutation	R398X; C>T; stop gain; exon 7
$ RADS8	No mutation	I296S; T>G; nonsynonymous; exon 7
* RADS17	No mutation	Q150X; C>T; stop gain; exon 2
* RADS18	No mutation	D293V; A>T; nonsynonymous; exon 7
* RADS23	No mutation	P379L; C>T; nonsynonymous; exon 7
$ RADS36	No mutation	Y160fs; del T; frameshift deletion; exon 2
$ RADS39	No mutation	E434X; G>T; stop gain; exon8

$; leukoplakias were located 5cm away from tumors

*: leukoplakias were located within 2-5cm of tumors

Fig 1

Schematic diagram of distribution of somatic mutations in CASP8 over different exons and protein domains.

A. Somatic mutations (n = 15) were shown at different exons of CASP8 in the studied samples of oral cancer. Twelve green headed lines denote non-synonymous and stop-gain mutations. Three black headed lines denote frame shift mutations. B. Somatic mutations reported in HNSCC samples from TCGA cohorts. C. Overall survival rate of patients with and without CASP8 mutations in HNSCC samples from TCGA cohorts.

No mutated allele at CASP8 was detected in blood DNA indicating that blood DNA was not contaminated with tissue DNA. The frequency of mutated alleles increased progressively from leukoplakia to cancer tissues in 7 patients (Fig 2). In most of the samples, mutation frequency in leukoplakia versus blood and cancer versus leukoplakia were significantly different (p value < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). In few samples, changes in mutated allele frequencies in cancer versus leukoplakia (e.g. RADS3) and leukoplakia versus blood (e.g. RADS27 and RADS47) were not significant.

Fig 2

Wild type and mutated allele frequencies of CASP8 in blood, leukoplakia and tumor tissues of the patients.

Wild type (blue bars) in blood DNA and mutated allele (red bars) frequencies in adjacent (located within 2–5 cm of tumor sites) leukoplakia and cancer tissues were plotted. Both leukoplakia and cancer tissues had identical type of mutation. For each of the plotted samples, mutated allele was found to be absent in blood DNA but present in leukoplakia and tumor tissues. Its frequency increased in cancer compared to adjacent leukoplakia tissue (p <0.05 for seven samples while p>0.05 in one sample).

Novel CASP8 mutations and its functional impact

Amongst the 15 somatic mutations, 5 were reported previously in various cancers described in TCGA data base (http://www.cancer.gov/tcga) [17, 18]. Two of these mutations were reported in HNSCC while others were reported in cancer of cervix uteri, bladder, stomach and colon [17, 18]. These two mutations reported in HNSCC (R398X and R417X) were predicted to have high impact by variant effect prediction tools while the remaining 3 mutations (R218Q, G310D and P379L) were missense and predicted to have deleterious and probably damaging effect by SIFT and Polyphen, respectively [17, 18]. The high impact mutations (R398X and R417X) were stop-gain and one of them, R417X (in RADS10), was also present in both and adjacent leukoplakia tissue. Two other known missense mutations (R218Q and G310D), mentioned previously, were also present in both tumor and adjacent leukoplakia. Remaining 10 mutations, identified in this study are novel. Amongst these novel mutations, 5 mutations (D200fs, E204X, Q225X, T258fs and L428Q) were present in both tumor and adjacent leukoplakia tissues. All these 5 mutations, except one, were loss-of function truncating mutations with either stop-gain or frame-shift effects. Other 5 novel mutations tumors, not identified in adjacent leukoplakia tissues, included missense, frame-shift and stop-gain alterations.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing presence of CASP8 mutation in oral cancer as well as adjacent leukoplakia tissues from same patients. With this small sample size, 56% of the tumors (i.e. 15/27 tumors) had CASP8 mutations which supports the observations reported in other studies [7-10]. Adjacent leukoplakias were located either within 2-5cm or >5cm away from cancer tissues. We observed that some (8/16 i.e. 50%) of the adjacent leukoplakia tissues (located within 2–5 cm of the tumor tissues) had identical somatic mutations like tumor tissues (Table 2). For these tumors, it may be interpreted that CASP8 mutation occurred in an early stage of the lesion, i.e. in a leukoplakia patch, where few cells acquired more mutations in other genes and were transformed into cancer. In a study on cancer model, it was shown that sequential accumulation of mutations (such as three mutations in tumor suppressors or oncogenes) are necessary to develop tumors [19]. In support of this, we hypothesize, that CASP8 mutations in these leukoplakia tissues, may be an early event followed by mutations in other driver genes which help in progression to malignant transformation.

Although three other leukoplakia tissues were located within 2–5 cm of the tumor tissues (Table 3), they did not show CASP8 mutations but respective tumor tissues had mutations. This led us to interpret that CASP8 mutations were late stage drivers in these tumors and acquired after precancer stage. It may be interpreted that these mutations, observed in only tumor tissues but not in nearby leukoplakias (within 2–5 cm), may have different oncogenic potential than other CASP8 mutations. Previous report of different levels of oncogenic potential of variants from the same gene has been well elucidated [20]. It is interesting to note that four other tumors had CASP8 mutations but the leukoplakias (located at >5 cm away from tumor tissues) did not have mutation (Table 3). We hypothesized that these cancers and leukoplakia tissues might have grown independently from normal epithelium cells and the tumor acquired CASP8 mutations during progression. So, it may be suggested that a margin of 5 cm around tumor can be regarded as safe margin to avoid leukoplakia patch during onco-surgery [21]. Other issues, such as field of cancerization should be studied using molecular genetic markers to authenticate or negate this model of progression of cancer from existing leukoplakia tissue. Studies on other cancer model also highlighted the importance of studying field of cancerization [22].

We did not find any correlation between occurrence of CASP8 mutation and gradation of dysplastic nature of 8leukoplakia tissues. Five of them were mild, 2 were moderate and 1 was severely dysplastic in histopathological appearances (Tables 1 and 2). Based on the results, we inferred that some molecular changes such as CASP8 mutations may not always get reflected in the histopathological features which are regarded as basis for grading the dysplastic nature of leukoplakia. Fifteen tumors, with CASP8 mutations, were moderate/well differentiated carcinoma and clinically N0 status but had different tumor sizes (such as T1, T2, T3 and T4a) (Tables 1 and 2). These hispathological findings and mutation data together suggest that CASP8 mutation may even occur at initial stage of carcinogenesis.

Using Sanger sequencing method, a study reported absence of CASP8 mutation in oral cancer samples collected from South Indian patients [23]. But another study, using same method on a different cohort from South India, reported that 8% of cancer patients had somatic mutations at CASP8 but none of the oral sub mucous fibrosis samples (one of the oral precancers) showed mutation [11]. It is to be noted that these two studies used Sanger sequencing method which is not suitable to detect low frequency somatic mutation in contrast to NGS method applied in this study (Fig 2).

It was also observed that mutated allele frequencies increased significantly in leukoplakia and adjacent cancer tissues compared to blood DNA from same patients. More interestingly, mutated allele frequencies in most of the tumor tissues were also significantly higher compared to those in adjacent leukoplakia tissues (Fig 2). This suggests that cells with CASP8 mutations might have gained selective advantage during progression from leukoplakia to tumor.

Different types of mutations in CASP8 have been detected in different cancer tissues such as HNSCC [7-10], hepatocellular [24], gastric [25], and colorectal carcinomas [26]. These mutations include missense, nonsense and frame shift mutations which might lead to diversity in tumorigenesis, although experimental evidences are needed. CASP8 is often found to be mutated in different frequencies (10–34%) in HNSCC from different patient populations [7-10] and could be considered as a central player in the extrinsic apoptotic cascade triggered by death receptors stimulation. Here, we found that CASP8 mutation may emerge as a potential signature for progression of oral cancer from leukoplakia. It may be noted that although clinically diagnosed leukoplakia did not show any sign of invasion but these were not free from molecular alteration. So, clinically diagnosed leukoplakia should be included for mutation study and subsequent surgery to prevent progression to malignancy.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-04461

Study of Caspase 8 mutation in oral cancer and adjacent precancer tissues and implication in progression

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Roy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 03 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'This study had ethical approval from Indian Statistical Institute and Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College & Hospital, Kolkata, India.'

a.Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b.Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research."

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was informed.

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

5. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of how participants were recruited, and c) descriptions of where participants were recruited (name of the hospital from which participants were recruited.

6. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

7. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

8. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The goal of the study was to determine whether Caspase 8 mutations were present in early lesions and cancers in the oral cavity. Adjacent leukoplakia and cancers were analyzed from 27 patients. DNA was isolated and sequenced using Next Generation sequencing, however, only mutations in Caspase 8 were assessed here. In this study 30% of leukoplakia and 56% of cancers had mutations in Caspase 8. In 8 cases, the same somatic mutations was observed in the leukoplakia as the cancer. The study is rather limited in sample number but the data largely support the conclusions that are drawn. Several concerns need to be addressed.

Major

1) The authors argue that Caspase 8 is a driver of tumorigenesis in the oral cavity. What is the evidence that this is the case. Previous studies have found that up to 34% of HNSCC carry mutations in Caspase 8. If Caspase 8 is a driver, it must be a driver in only some cancers. Whether Caspase 8 is a driver or not needs to be discussed in more detail.

2) In the Dscussion, the authors argue in Lines 191-194 that more mutations are necessary to drive transformation. If this is correct, is Caspae 8 really a driver. Is it necessary, sufficient, both, or neither.

2) Have any animal models been generated to study the role of Caspae 8 in HNSCC?

3) Need to describe the exclusion criteria for the study.

4) Need to explain specifically why 13 patients were dropped.

5) In the Discussion, the authors state in lines 208-210 that "molecular changes are not always reflected in histopathological features". This statement needs to be clarified or justified. Are they referring to Caspase 8 or other genes?

6) Dr. Liskay and his laboratory staff demonstrated that a field of Apc-deficient cells was critical to the establishment of a tumor in the colon using elegant mouse models (Carcinogenesis 35:237, 2014). In fact, they demonstrated the size of the field is critical. This finding support statement in lines 230-232 in the Discussion.

7) Recent studies have demonstrated that all mutant alleles in cancer drivers are not created equal, e.g., different mutations in KRAS have different degrees of oncogenic potential (Nat Commun 8: 2053, 2017). Seems that this point should be discussed because the authors present information regarding the different mutations observed in Caspase 8.

Minor

1) Tables 1 and 2 could easily be combined into one.

2) Table 3 does not need to restate the shared mutation in columns 3 and 4.

3) The grammar needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This study reports on the investigation if CASP8 mutations which are common in oral cancers, are also present in pre-neoplastic lesions, and as such investigate whether CASP8 mutations are an early event in the transition to oral cancer.

Does figure 1 show the mutations of the patients reported in this report? If so make this clear in the figure caption.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Apr 2020

Editor’s note:

1. Cover letter has been modified

2. Ethical Statement has been updated in Method and submission form

3. Participant consent has been updated in method and submission form

4. Additional information on statistical method has been updated in method

5. Participant recruitment has been elaborated in method

6. Sample size has been explained in method

7. Data availability has been mentioned and uploaded

8. “Data not shown” has been corrected

Reviewers’ note:

We like to thank reviewers for their excellent comments to improve the manuscript. All comments have been addressed.

Response to Reviewers

1) The authors argue that Caspase 8 is a driver of tumorigenesis in the oral cavity. What is the evidence that this is the case. Previous studies have found that up to 34% of HNSCC carry mutations in Caspase 8. If Caspase 8 is a driver, it must be a driver in only some cancers.

Authors’ response: Role of CASP8 has been elucidated in lines 63-67. Since, inactivating mutations of CASP8 gives tumor growth advantage, we do expect to see a higher frequency of mutated gene in cancer.

We have shown that CASP8 may have worked as driver mutation in some of the leukoplakia and tumor tissues (lines 215-224).

2) In the Discussion, the authors argue in Lines 191-194 that more mutations are necessary to drive transformation. If this is correct, is Caspase 8 really a driver. Is it necessary, sufficient, both, or neither.

Authors’ response: In a study by Tomasetti et al, PNAS, 2015(PMID 25535351), the authors showed that sequential accumulation of mutations (that is, three mutations in tumor suppressors or oncogenes) are necessary to develop tumors. Along these lines we hypothesize, that mutations in CASP8 may be an early event in some of the leukoplakias followed by mutations in other driver genes which then lead to tumorigenesis. This is further elaborated in the manuscript for clarity (lines 215-224).

3) Have any animal models been generated to study the role of Caspase 8 in HNSCC?

Authors’ response: We found reports on CASP8-deficient mice models of colorectal cancer but not for HNSCC. But study on cell lines with CASP8 mutation has been reported and mentioned in text (lines 65-67).

4) Need to describe the exclusion criteria for the study.Need to explain specifically why 13 patients were dropped.

Authors’ response: These queries have been mentioned in lines 92-94.

5) In the Discussion, the authors state in lines 208-210 that “molecular changes are not always reflected in histopathological features”. This statement needs to be clarified or justified. Are they referring to Caspase 8 or other genes?

Authors’ comments: The authors here refer to molecular changes such as CASP8 mutations which may not show distinct phenotype change in histopathological features of leukoplakia and may not show direct correlation with grades of lesion severity (Lines 242-251).

6) Dr. Liskay and his laboratory staff demonstrated that a field of Apc-deficient cells was critical to the establishment of a tumor in the colon using elegant mouse models (Carcinogenesis 35:237, 2014). In fact, they demonstrated the size of the field is critical. This finding support statement in lines 230-232 in the Discussion.

Authors’ response: This excellent observation has been mentioned in manuscript with reference (lines 238-241).

7) Recent studies have demonstrated that all mutant alleles in cancer drivers are not created equal, e.g., different mutations in KRAS have different degrees of oncogenic potential (Nat Commun 8: 2053, 2017). Seems that this point should be discussed because the authors present information regarding the different mutations observed in Caspase 8

Authors’ response: This important observation has been mentioned in discussion section (lines 228-231, 366-268).

Minor

1) Tables 1 and 2 could easily be combined into one.

Authors’ response: Table 1 and 2 are combined as per reviewers’ suggestion.

2) Table 3 does not need to restate the shared mutation in columns 3 and 4.

Author’s response: Table is modified as per reviewers’ suggestion.

3) The grammar needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Author’s response: We have re-written many sections of the manuscript to improvise the language.

Reviewer #2: This study reports on the investigation if CASP8 mutations which are common in oral cancers, are also present in pre-neoplastic lesions, and as such investigate whether CASP8 mutations are an early event in the transition to oral cancer.

Does figure 1 show the mutations of the patients reported in this report? If so make this clear in the figure caption.

Author’s response: Yes, mutations shown in Figure 1A were observed in 15 of the tumors included in this study. To compare it with mutation present in other HNSCC patients’ samples of TCGA cohorts, we have included Figure 1B. Figure 1B shows CASP8 mutations reported in a TCGA samples. Figure caption has been changed accordingly.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Apr 2020

Study of Caspase 8 mutation in oral cancer and adjacent precancer tissues and implication in progression

PONE-D-20-04461R1

Dear Dr. Roy,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A comments have been addressed. The writing still needs some editing.

Driver is spelled as diver in Abstract.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

22 May 2020

PONE-D-20-04461R1

Study of Caspase 8 mutation in oral cancer and adjacent precancer tissues and implication in progression

Dear Dr. Roy:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE