| Literature DB >> 34900721 |
Kristyna Zavacka1,2, Karla Plevova1,2,3.
Abstract
Chromothripsis represents a mechanism of massive chromosome shattering and reassembly leading to the formation of derivative chromosomes with abnormal functions and expression. It has been observed in many cancer types, importantly, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Due to the associated chromosomal rearrangements, it has a significant impact on the pathophysiology of the disease. Recent studies have suggested that chromothripsis may be more common than initially inferred, especially in CLL cases with adverse clinical outcome. Here, we review the main features of chromothripsis, the challenges of its assessment, and the potential benefit of its detection. We summarize recent findings of chromothripsis occurrence across hematological malignancies and address its causes and consequences in the context of CLL clinical features, as well as chromothripsis-related molecular abnormalities described in published CLL studies. Furthermore, we discuss the use of the current knowledge about genome functions associated with chromothripsis in the optimization of treatment strategies in CLL.Entities:
Keywords: chromothripsis; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; complex chromosomal rearrangements; copy number alterations; genomic array; oncogene amplification; paired-end sequencing; tumor suppressor inactivation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34900721 PMCID: PMC8661134 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.771664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Causes and consequences of chromothripsis. (A) Schematic model of chromosome shattering and reassembly via cth: After chromosome fragmentation, some regions are incorporated (possibly in multiple copies) into a derivative chromosome, whereas other regions can be lost or fused to episomal structures called double-minute chromosomes. (B) The micronuclei hypothesis of the cth origin: Chromosomes that are missegregated during cell division are entrapped in the micronucleus, followed by asynchronous replication compared to the main nucleus. This leads to premature chromosome condensation and shattering. Rejoining of fragments gives rise to the derivative chromosome which can subsequently be reincorporated into the main nucleus. (C) The origin of cth due to breakage-fusion-bridge (BFB) cycles and telomere crisis: Chromosome ends that become unprotected due to telomere shortening are fused into a dicentric chromosome containing two centromeres. In the subsequent cell cycle, this unstable structure is pulled to opposite spindle poles forming an anaphase bridge between the two daughter cells. The rupturing bridge generates two new unprotected chromosomal ends and initiates a new round of the BFB cycle. This repeats until the derivative chromosome becomes stable. (D) Chromosomal ideograms with cth-derived gains (green) and losses (red) observed in the following CLL studies: Stephens et al., 2011 (5); Edelmann et al., 2012 (3); Pei et al., 2012 (16), Bassaganyas et al., 2013 (17); Salaverria et al., 2013 (18); Tan et al., 2015 (19); Parker et al., 2016 (20); Leeksma et al., 2021 (2). The thickness of the highlighted loci corresponds to the number of studies referring to the respective regions affected by cth. Only studies mentioning specific affected areas and distinguishing individual patients were compiled.
Prevalence of chromothripsis in CLL and other hematological malignancies.
| Reference | Clinical characterization of the cohort | Clinical characterization of cth cases | n/N | Cth prevalence | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Stephens et al., 2011 ( | not specified | rapid relapse after alemtuzumab | 1/10 |
| WGS |
| Edelmann et al., 2012 ( | treatment-naïve; samples from the GCLLSG CLL8 trial | poor survival; 74% with unmutated IGHV; 32% with mutated | 19/353 |
| SNP array |
| Salaverria et al., 2015 ( | 26% treatment-naïve | poor survival; 75% with | 8/180 |
| aCGH |
| Puente et al., 2015 ( | treatment-naïve | 26% with mutated | 15/452 |
| SNP array, WGS |
| Parker et al., 2016 ( | 93% treatment-naïve; 84% of samples from the ADMIRE, ARCTIC, UK CLL4, GCLLSG CLL8, and SCSG CLL2O trials | poor outcome; 26% with | 27/1,006 |
| SNP array |
| Burns et al., 2018 ( | 52% treatment-naïve | with | 1/46 |
| WGS |
| Cortés-Ciriano et al., 2020 ( | data from the PCAWG Consortium ( | not specified | 1/86 |
| WGS |
| Leeksma et al., 2021 ( | 86% treatment-naïve; samples from 13 CLL diagnostic centers participating in ERIC | poor survival; all with | 32/2,293 |
| SNP array, aCGH |
| Ramos-Campoy et al., 2021 ( | treatment-naïve; 47% with complex karyotypes | poor outcome, 73% with | 30/340 |
| SNP array, aCGH |
|
| |||||
| Rausch et al., 2012 ( | non-M3 AML; treatment-naïve; adults | poor survival, 89% with mutated | 9/108 |
| SNP array |
| Fontana et al., 2018 ( | 82% | poor outcome; 70% of cases treated with chemotherapy did not respond; 88% with | 26/395 |
| SNP array |
|
| |||||
| Kim et al., 2013 ( | data from the GEO database ( | not specified | 7/393 |
| aCGH |
| Zemanova et al., 2014 ( | treatment-naïve; with complex chromosomal rearrangements (≥3 aberrations) | not specified | 77/157 |
| SNP array |
| Abáigar et al., 2016 ( | treatment-naïve | high-risk MDS; all died within one year; all with mutated | 3/240 |
| aCGH |
|
| |||||
| Zhang et al., 2012 ( | childhood early T cell precursor ALL | 2 cases relapsed 8 and 13 months after diagnosis, 1 case underwent bone marrow transplantation; all died | 3/12 |
| WGS |
| Li et al., 2014 ( | childhood ALL; 56% with sporadic iAMP21, 44% with rob(15;21)c-associated iAMP21 | not specified | 8/9 |
| WGS |
| Ratnaparkhe et al., 2017 ( | childhood ataxia-telangiectasia-related T-ALL | 1 case died 2 years after diagnosis, 1 case died from toxicity, 3 cases still alive (2/3 in remission) | 5/7 |
| WGS |
| Ratnaparkhe et al., 2017 ( | sporadic childhood T-ALL | not specified | 4/92 |
| WGS |
|
| |||||
| Magrangeas et al., 2011 ( | treatment-naïve | 50% with rapid relapse | 10/764 |
| SNP array |
| Stevens-Kroef et al., 2012 ( | 82% treatment-naïve | not specified | 1/28 |
| SNP array |
| Kim et al., 2013 ( | data from the GEO database ( | not specified | 8/391 |
| aCGH |
| Voronina et al., 2020 ( | data from the NCT/DKTK-MASTER platform ( | not specified | 2/6 |
| WGS |
|
| |||||
| Cortés-Ciriano et al., 2020 ( | mature B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; data from the PCAWG Consortium ( | not specified | 19/105 |
| WGS |
*refers to unpublished data discussed with Meijerink et al., partly published in Li et al., 2016 (45).
n, the number of cth cases; N, the total number of cases analyzed in the respective study; GCLLSG, German CLL Study Group; PCAWG, Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes; ERIC, European Research Initiative on CLL; GEO, Gene Expression Omnibus; NCT/DKTK-MASTER, National Center for Tumor Diseases/German Cancer Consortium-Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication; WGS, whole-genome sequencing; SNP array, single-nucleotide polymorphism array; aCGH, array comparative genomic hybridization.