Karen D Howarth1,2,3, Tashfina Mirza4,5,6, Susanna L Cooke4,5,7, Suet-Feung Chin8, Jessica C Pole4,5,9, Ernest Turro10,11, Matthew D Eldridge8, Raquel Manzano Garcia8, Oscar M Rueda8,12, Chris Boursnell8, Jean E Abraham8,13, Carlos Caldas8,13, Paul A W Edwards14,15,16. 1. Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0XZ, UK. karen.howarth@inivata.com. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. karen.howarth@inivata.com. 3. Present addresses: Inivata Ltd, Babraham Research Park, Cambridge, CB22 3FH, UK. karen.howarth@inivata.com. 4. Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0XZ, UK. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. Present addresses: Francis Crick Institute, Midland Road, London, NW1 1AT, UK. 7. Present addresses: Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Garscube Estate, Bearsden, G61 1QH, UK. 8. Department of Oncology, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and Cancer Centre, Li Ka Shing Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK. 9. Present addresses: Illumina Cambridge, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6GP, UK. 10. Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0PT, UK. 11. Present addresses: Mindich Child Health and Development Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA. 12. Present addresses: MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. 13. Cambridge Breast Cancer Research Unit, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK. 14. Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0XZ, UK. pawe1@cam.ac.uk. 15. Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. pawe1@cam.ac.uk. 16. Department of Oncology, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and Cancer Centre, Li Ka Shing Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK. pawe1@cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NRG1 gene fusions may be clinically actionable, since cancers carrying the fusion transcripts can be sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The NRG1 gene encodes ligands for the HER2(ERBB2)-ERBB3 heterodimeric receptor tyrosine kinase, and the gene fusions are thought to lead to autocrine stimulation of the receptor. The NRG1 fusion expressed in the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-175 serves as a model example of such fusions, showing the proposed autocrine loop and exceptional drug sensitivity. However, its structure has not been properly characterised, its oncogenic activity has not been fully explained, and there is limited data on such fusions in breast cancer. METHODS: We analysed genomic rearrangements and transcripts of NRG1 in MDA-MB-175 and a panel of 571 breast cancers. RESULTS: We found that the MDA-MB-175 fusion-originally reported as a DOC4(TENM4)-NRG1 fusion, lacking the cytoplasmic tail of NRG1-is in reality a double fusion, PPP6R3-TENM4-NRG1, producing multiple transcripts, some of which include the cytoplasmic tail. We hypothesise that many NRG1 fusions may be oncogenic not for lacking the cytoplasmic domain but because they do not encode NRG1's nuclear-localised form. The fusion in MDA-MB-175 is the result of a very complex genomic rearrangement, which we partially characterised, that creates additional expressed gene fusions, RSF1-TENM4, TPCN2-RSF1, and MRPL48-GAB2. We searched for NRG1 rearrangements in 571 breast cancers subjected to genome sequencing and transcriptome sequencing and found four cases (0.7%) with fusions, WRN-NRG1, FAM91A1-NRG1, ARHGEF39-NRG1, and ZNF704-NRG1, all splicing into NRG1 at the same exon as in MDA-MB-175. However, the WRN-NRG1 and ARHGEF39-NRG1 fusions were out of frame. We identified rearrangements of NRG1 in many more (8% of) cases that seemed more likely to inactivate than to create activating fusions, or whose outcome could not be predicted because they were complex, or both. This is not surprising because NRG1 can be pro-apoptotic and is inactivated in some breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the complexity of rearrangements of NRG1 in breast cancers and confirm that some do not activate but inactivate. Careful interpretation of NRG1 rearrangements will therefore be necessary for appropriate patient management.
BACKGROUND: NRG1 gene fusions may be clinically actionable, since cancers carrying the fusion transcripts can be sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The NRG1 gene encodes ligands for the HER2(ERBB2)-ERBB3 heterodimeric receptor tyrosine kinase, and the gene fusions are thought to lead to autocrine stimulation of the receptor. The NRG1 fusion expressed in the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-175 serves as a model example of such fusions, showing the proposed autocrine loop and exceptional drug sensitivity. However, its structure has not been properly characterised, its oncogenic activity has not been fully explained, and there is limited data on such fusions in breast cancer. METHODS: We analysed genomic rearrangements and transcripts of NRG1 in MDA-MB-175 and a panel of 571 breast cancers. RESULTS: We found that the MDA-MB-175 fusion-originally reported as a DOC4(TENM4)-NRG1 fusion, lacking the cytoplasmic tail of NRG1-is in reality a double fusion, PPP6R3-TENM4-NRG1, producing multiple transcripts, some of which include the cytoplasmic tail. We hypothesise that many NRG1 fusions may be oncogenic not for lacking the cytoplasmic domain but because they do not encode NRG1's nuclear-localised form. The fusion in MDA-MB-175 is the result of a very complex genomic rearrangement, which we partially characterised, that creates additional expressed gene fusions, RSF1-TENM4, TPCN2-RSF1, and MRPL48-GAB2. We searched for NRG1 rearrangements in 571 breast cancers subjected to genome sequencing and transcriptome sequencing and found four cases (0.7%) with fusions, WRN-NRG1, FAM91A1-NRG1, ARHGEF39-NRG1, and ZNF704-NRG1, all splicing into NRG1 at the same exon as in MDA-MB-175. However, the WRN-NRG1 and ARHGEF39-NRG1 fusions were out of frame. We identified rearrangements of NRG1 in many more (8% of) cases that seemed more likely to inactivate than to create activating fusions, or whose outcome could not be predicted because they were complex, or both. This is not surprising because NRG1 can be pro-apoptotic and is inactivated in some breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the complexity of rearrangements of NRG1 in breast cancers and confirm that some do not activate but inactivate. Careful interpretation of NRG1 rearrangements will therefore be necessary for appropriate patient management.
Authors: Christoph Heining; Peter Horak; Sebastian Uhrig; Paula L Codo; Barbara Klink; Barbara Hutter; Martina Fröhlich; David Bonekamp; Daniela Richter; Katja Steiger; Roland Penzel; Volker Endris; Karl Roland Ehrenberg; Stephanie Frank; Kortine Kleinheinz; Umut H Toprak; Matthias Schlesner; Ranadip Mandal; Lothar Schulz; Helmut Lambertz; Sebastian Fetscher; Michael Bitzer; Nisar P Malek; Marius Horger; Nathalia A Giese; Oliver Strobel; Thilo Hackert; Christoph Springfeld; Lars Feuerbach; Frank Bergmann; Evelin Schröck; Christof von Kalle; Wilko Weichert; Claudia Scholl; Claudia R Ball; Albrecht Stenzinger; Benedikt Brors; Stefan Fröhling; Hanno Glimm Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: M R Jones; H Lim; Y Shen; E Pleasance; C Ch'ng; C Reisle; S Leelakumari; C Zhao; S Yip; J Ho; E Zhong; T Ng; D Ionescu; D F Schaeffer; A J Mungall; K L Mungall; Y Zhao; R A Moore; Y Ma; S Chia; C Ho; D J Renouf; K Gelmon; S J M Jones; M A Marra; J Laskin Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Paola D Vermeer; Lisa A Einwalter; Thomas O Moninger; Tatiana Rokhlina; Jeffrey A Kern; Joseph Zabner; Michael J Welsh Journal: Nature Date: 2003-03-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Li Ding; Matthew J Ellis; Shunqiang Li; David E Larson; Ken Chen; John W Wallis; Christopher C Harris; Michael D McLellan; Robert S Fulton; Lucinda L Fulton; Rachel M Abbott; Jeremy Hoog; David J Dooling; Daniel C Koboldt; Heather Schmidt; Joelle Kalicki; Qunyuan Zhang; Lei Chen; Ling Lin; Michael C Wendl; Joshua F McMichael; Vincent J Magrini; Lisa Cook; Sean D McGrath; Tammi L Vickery; Elizabeth Appelbaum; Katherine Deschryver; Sherri Davies; Therese Guintoli; Li Lin; Robert Crowder; Yu Tao; Jacqueline E Snider; Scott M Smith; Adam F Dukes; Gabriel E Sanderson; Craig S Pohl; Kim D Delehaunty; Catrina C Fronick; Kimberley A Pape; Jerry S Reed; Jody S Robinson; Jennifer S Hodges; William Schierding; Nathan D Dees; Dong Shen; Devin P Locke; Madeline E Wiechert; James M Eldred; Josh B Peck; Benjamin J Oberkfell; Justin T Lolofie; Feiyu Du; Amy E Hawkins; Michelle D O'Laughlin; Kelly E Bernard; Mark Cunningham; Glendoria Elliott; Mark D Mason; Dominic M Thompson; Jennifer L Ivanovich; Paul J Goodfellow; Charles M Perou; George M Weinstock; Rebecca Aft; Mark Watson; Timothy J Ley; Richard K Wilson; Elaine R Mardis Journal: Nature Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Huai-En Huang; Suet-Feung Chin; Christophe Ginestier; Valérie-Jeanne Bardou; José Adélaïde; N Gopalakrishna Iyer; Maria J Garcia; Jessica C Pole; Grace M Callagy; Stephen M Hewitt; William J Gullick; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Carlos Caldas; Max Chaffanet; Daniel Birnbaum; Paul A W Edwards Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Alison M Schram; Igor Odintsov; Madelyn Espinosa-Cotton; Inna Khodos; Whitney J Sisso; Marissa S Mattar; Allan J W Lui; Morana Vojnic; Sara H Shameem; Thrusha Chauhan; Jean Torrisi; Jim Ford; Marie N O'Connor; Cecile A W Geuijen; Ron C J Schackmann; Jeroen J Lammerts van Bueren; Ernesto Wasserman; Elisa de Stanchina; Eileen M O'Reilly; Marc Ladanyi; Alexander Drilon; Romel Somwar Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 38.272