| Literature DB >> 35637217 |
Cody Ashby1,2, Eileen M Boyle3, Michael A Bauer1,2, Aneta Mikulasova4, Christopher P Wardell1,2, Louis Williams5, Ariel Siegel5, Patrick Blaney5, Marc Braunstein5, David Kaminetsky5, Jonathan Keats6, Francesco Maura7, Ola Landgren7, Brian A Walker8, Faith E Davies5, Gareth J Morgan9.
Abstract
Deciphering genomic architecture is key to identifying novel disease drivers and understanding the mechanisms underlying myeloma initiation and progression. In this work, using the CoMMpass dataset, we show that structural variants (SV) occur in a nonrandom fashion throughout the genome with an increased frequency in the t(4;14), RB1, or TP53 mutated cases and reduced frequency in t(11;14) cases. By mapping sites of chromosomal rearrangements to topologically associated domains and identifying significantly upregulated genes by RNAseq we identify both predicted and novel putative driver genes. These data highlight the heterogeneity of transcriptional dysregulation occurring as a consequence of both the canonical and novel structural variants. Further, it shows that the complex rearrangements chromoplexy, chromothripsis and templated insertions are common in MM with each variant having its own distinct frequency and impact on clinical outcome. Chromothripsis is associated with a significant independent negative impact on clinical outcome in newly diagnosed cases consistent with its use alongside other clinical and genetic risk factors to identify prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35637217 PMCID: PMC9151656 DOI: 10.1038/s41408-022-00673-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Blood Cancer J ISSN: 2044-5385 Impact factor: 9.812
Fig. 1Distribution of SV across the genetic subgroups of NDMM (n = 812).
A Violin plot suggesting t(4;14) have more SVs and t(11;14) fewer SVs. B Violin plot suggesting HRD samples have fewer SVs than nHRD samples. C Violin plot suggesting there are more SV in both monoallelic and biallelic TP53 inactivated cases. D Violin plot suggesting SVs are associated with RB1 alterations. E Plot displaying the number of translocations according to their chromosomal location highlighting hotspots of interest (genes in green).
Fig. 2Complex SV comparison between Presentation and Relapse A.
Gain of complex SV. A t(8;11) at presentation becomes a t(6;8;11) at relapse. B Stable complex SV. A t(3;5;6;15) at presentation is also detected at relapse. C Gain of multiple complex SVs. A relatively simple presentation sample gains multiple complex SVs at relapse including a t(2;7;15), t(1;6;12), and t(1;2;3;4;5;15;17;20).
Fig. 3Expression changes and between cases with TAD-TAD rearrangements defined in RPMI cell lines and those that have none (n = 752).
The x-axis represents the inverse log10 p value using a log-ed scale and the y axis the log2 fold change, A Overall B Focus on the central region. Genes are colored by chromosomes and points are proportional to number of cases.
Fig. 4Impact of chromothripsis on outcome.
A PFS, B OS, C forest plot representing the independent significant variables for PFS. D forest plot representing the independent significant variables for OS.
Fig. 5Result of the Gene Set Enrichment Analysis comparing chromothripsis, chromoplexy and templated insertion.
GSEA analysis suggest some pathway are predominantly upregulated (red) or downregulated (blue) in some subsets.