| Literature DB >> 32654393 |
Satoru Kyo1, Seiya Sato1, Kentaro Nakayama1.
Abstract
The human endometrium is an essential component in human reproduction that has the unique characteristic of undergoing cyclic regeneration during each menstrual cycle. Vigorous regeneration after shedding may be sustained by stem/progenitor cells, for which molecular markers have not been fully identified. Although clonality analysis using X chromosome inactivation patterns has shown that normal human endometrial glands are composed of a monoclonal cell population, whether clonal expansion is derived from stem/progenitor cells remains unclear. Remarkable advances in next-generation sequencing technology over the past decade have enabled somatic mutations to be detected in not only cancers, but also normal solid tissues. Unexpectedly frequent cancer-associated mutations have been detected in a variety of normal tissues, and recent studies have clarified the mutational landscape of normal human endometrium. In epithelial glandular cells, representative cancer-associated mutations are frequently observed in an age-dependent manner, presumably leading to growth advantage. However, the extremely high mutation loads attributed to DNA mismatch repair deficiency and POLE mutations, as well as structural and copy number alterations, are specific to endometrial cancer, not to normal epithelial cells. The malignant conversion of normal epithelial cells requires these additional genetic hits, which are presumably accumulated during aging, and may therefore be a rare life event. These discoveries could be expected to shed light on the physiology and pathogenesis of the human endometrium and urge caution against the application of genetic screening for the early detection of endometrial cancer.Entities:
Keywords: endometrial cancer; endometriosis; mutation; next-generation sequencing; normal endometrium
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32654393 PMCID: PMC7541016 DOI: 10.1111/cas.14571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Sci ISSN: 1347-9032 Impact factor: 6.716
FIGURE 1Clonality analysis of human endometrial glands. A, The principle of the clonality assay for androgen receptor (AR) gene is illustrated. Endometrial glands were individually isolated with microscopic manipulation as shown in the photograph. DNA from each gland was digested with HhaI, followed by PCR to amplify the CAG repeats in the AR gene. After digestion with HhaI, the DNA yielded single PCR bands (shown as red circles) derived from either paternal or maternal alleles, suggesting that glandular cells are monoclonal. DNA from each patient's white blood cells (WBC) were used as controls for the polyclonal population. B, Uterine sections of a female hemizygous transgenic mouse carrying an X‐linked green fluorescent protein transgene. Left: Histological view of endometrium. Right: Fluorescence microscopy shows endometrial glands composed of either fluorescent (A) or nonfluorescent (B) cells. (Adapted with alterations and permission from reference 9)
Proposed markers for endometrial epithelial stem cells
| SP | LRC | SSEA‐1 | SOX9 | Nuclear β‐catenin | LGR5 | N‐cadherin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Localization in a gland | Not defined | Luminal | Basalis, Luminal | Basalis | Basalis | Luminal (but controversial) | Basalis |
| Glandular structure in 3D culture | + | − | + | + | − | − | + |
| Reconstitution of glandular structure in mice | + | − | − | − | − | + | − |
| Notes | Reconstruction in mice, but rarely with epithelial tissues | Co‐localizes with SSEA‐1 and nuclear β‐catenin | Weak endometrial reconstitution in mice | ||||
| Representative studies | 14, 15 | 21, 22 | 16, 18 | 16 | 16 | 18, 19, 20 | 17 |
Abbreviations: LGR5, leucine‐rich repeat‐containing G‐protein‐coupled receptor 5; LRC, label‐retaining cell; SOX9, sex‐determining region Y (SRY)‐box 9 protein; SP, side population; SSEA‐1, stage‐specific monoclonal antigen‐1
FIGURE 2Oncoplot of driver mutations and distribution across individual patients by whole‐exome sequencing. The results of the references 6 (A) and 8 (B) are summarized, with some alterations. The listed genes (shown in the vertical columns) differed between the 2 studies; patient numbers are shown in the horizontal rows. N and E indicate normal endometrial and endometriosis samples, respectively. Paired samples were analyzed in 5 patients (patients 1 to 5) (A). The frequency (%) of patients with mutations are shown beside the plot for each gene. (Adapted from alterations and permission from references and )
Summary results of studies reporting somatic mutations in normal endometrial epithelium
| Study | Sample size | Patient age (y) | Detection method | Sample collection | Mutation burden | Mutation frequency (MAF or VAF) | Driver mutations or representative mutations detected | Percentage of patients with driver mutations | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suda et al (2018) | N = 11 (discovery cohort) | 40‐57 (median: 47) | Whole‐exome sequencing | Laser‐captured microdissection | NA (72‐536 base substitutions [median: 128]) in individuals of 13 endometriotic and 11 normal endometrial patients | Roughly 0.1‐0.4 |
| 10/11 (91%) | The mutation profiles were discordant between paired endometriotic and endometrial samples. The number of mutations was similar, but the MAFs were much higher in the endometriotic samples |
| N = 29 (validation cohort) | 38‐52 (median: 45) | Target‐gene sequencing (covering 84 genes) | Laser‐captured microdissection | NA | Roughly 0‐0.5 |
| 49 of 71 (69%) glands examined | The MAFs of driver mutations were near 0.5, suggesting clonal expansion within a gland | |
| N = 109 (glands from 3 patients: 51, 39, 19 in each patient) | 38, 47, 49 | Target‐gene sequencing (covering 84 genes) | Manual collection under microscope | 82 mutations and indels in 109 glands | Close to 0.5 |
| 65 of 109 glands (26 of 51, 29/39, 10/19, in each patient) | Single gland analysis revealed gland‐to‐gland genomic variation | |
| Lac et al (2019) | N = 110 | 21‐61 (median: 37) | Target‐gene sequencing (covering 33 genes) and immunohistochemistry for PTEN and ARID1A | Macrodissection | NA | 0.008‐0.119 |
| 59/110 (54%) (loss of PTEN expression was not correlated with sequencing results, but judged as having mutation) | The mutations increased with aging by 5% per year |
| Moore et al (2020) | N = 28 | 19‐81 (median: 39) | Whole‐exome sequencing | Laser‐captured microdissection | 225‐2890 base substitutions (mean: 1324) and 3‐243 indels (mean: 85) in individuals | 0‐1.0 (with a peak between 0.3 and 0.5) |
| 25/28 (89%) | A linear accumulation of 29 base substitutions per gland per year. The median VAFs were similar between glands with or without driver mutations. Overall, 14% of women carried driver mutations in all glands examined. Phylogenetically closely related glands were likely to be located in close proximity |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; MAF, mutant allele frequency; VAF, variant allele frequency.
FIGURE 3Proposed consequence of somatic mutations in normal endometrial glands. Stem/progenitor cells in normal endometrial glands, possibly located in the stratum basalis, may clonally expand with or without somatic mutations in cancer‐ or noncancer‐associated genes. Both populations, probably the former in favor, may have a growth advantage, forming clonal colonization. Additional genetic hits, including POLE mutation, mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, and/or copy number alterations (CNAs), facilitate malignant conversion. Similarly, endometriosis may arise via clonal evolution, possibly in the population with KRAS mutation. AEH, Atypical endometrial hyperplasia; CA, cancer‐associated mutation; EIN, Endometrial intraepithelial lesion; MT, mutation