115
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cancer evolution: mathematical models and computational inference.

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cancer is a somatic evolutionary process characterized by the accumulation of mutations, which contribute to tumor growth, clinical progression, immune escape, and drug resistance development. Evolutionary theory can be used to analyze the dynamics of tumor cell populations and to make inference about the evolutionary history of a tumor from molecular data. We review recent approaches to modeling the evolution of cancer, including population dynamics models of tumor initiation and progression, phylogenetic methods to model the evolutionary relationship between tumor subclones, and probabilistic graphical models to describe dependencies among mutations. Evolutionary modeling helps to understand how tumors arise and will also play an increasingly important prognostic role in predicting disease progression and the outcome of medical interventions, such as targeted therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references292

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation

          The hallmarks of cancer comprise six biological capabilities acquired during the multistep development of human tumors. The hallmarks constitute an organizing principle for rationalizing the complexities of neoplastic disease. They include sustaining proliferative signaling, evading growth suppressors, resisting cell death, enabling replicative immortality, inducing angiogenesis, and activating invasion and metastasis. Underlying these hallmarks are genome instability, which generates the genetic diversity that expedites their acquisition, and inflammation, which fosters multiple hallmark functions. Conceptual progress in the last decade has added two emerging hallmarks of potential generality to this list-reprogramming of energy metabolism and evading immune destruction. In addition to cancer cells, tumors exhibit another dimension of complexity: they contain a repertoire of recruited, ostensibly normal cells that contribute to the acquisition of hallmark traits by creating the "tumor microenvironment." Recognition of the widespread applicability of these concepts will increasingly affect the development of new means to treat human cancer. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Hallmarks of Cancer

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations

              To the Editor: Applications of rapidly advancing sequencing technologies exacerbate the need to interpret individual sequence variants. Sequencing of phenotyped clinical subjects will soon become a method of choice in studies of the genetic causes of Mendelian and complex diseases. New exon capture techniques will direct sequencing efforts towards the most informative and easily interpretable protein-coding fraction of the genome. Thus, the demand for computational predictions of the impact of protein sequence variants will continue to grow. Here we present a new method and the corresponding software tool, PolyPhen-2 (http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph2/), which is different from the early tool PolyPhen1 in the set of predictive features, alignment pipeline, and the method of classification (Fig. 1a). PolyPhen-2 uses eight sequence-based and three structure-based predictive features (Supplementary Table 1) which were selected automatically by an iterative greedy algorithm (Supplementary Methods). Majority of these features involve comparison of a property of the wild-type (ancestral, normal) allele and the corresponding property of the mutant (derived, disease-causing) allele, which together define an amino acid replacement. Most informative features characterize how well the two human alleles fit into the pattern of amino acid replacements within the multiple sequence alignment of homologous proteins, how distant the protein harboring the first deviation from the human wild-type allele is from the human protein, and whether the mutant allele originated at a hypermutable site2. The alignment pipeline selects the set of homologous sequences for the analysis using a clustering algorithm and then constructs and refines their multiple alignment (Supplementary Fig. 1). The functional significance of an allele replacement is predicted from its individual features (Supplementary Figs. 2–4) by Naïve Bayes classifier (Supplementary Methods). We used two pairs of datasets to train and test PolyPhen-2. We compiled the first pair, HumDiv, from all 3,155 damaging alleles with known effects on the molecular function causing human Mendelian diseases, present in the UniProt database, together with 6,321 differences between human proteins and their closely related mammalian homologs, assumed to be non-damaging (Supplementary Methods). The second pair, HumVar3, consists of all the 13,032 human disease-causing mutations from UniProt, together with 8,946 human nsSNPs without annotated involvement in disease, which were treated as non-damaging. We found that PolyPhen-2 performance, as presented by its receiver operating characteristic curves, was consistently superior compared to PolyPhen (Fig. 1b) and it also compared favorably with the three other popular prediction tools4–6 (Fig. 1c). For a false positive rate of 20%, PolyPhen-2 achieves the rate of true positive predictions of 92% and 73% on HumDiv and HumVar, respectively (Supplementary Table 2). One reason for a lower accuracy of predictions on HumVar is that nsSNPs assumed to be non-damaging in HumVar contain a sizable fraction of mildly deleterious alleles. In contrast, most of amino acid replacements assumed non-damaging in HumDiv must be close to selective neutrality. Because alleles that are even mildly but unconditionally deleterious cannot be fixed in the evolving lineage, no method based on comparative sequence analysis is ideal for discriminating between drastically and mildly deleterious mutations, which are assigned to the opposite categories in HumVar. Another reason is that HumDiv uses an extra criterion to avoid possible erroneous annotations of damaging mutations. For a mutation, PolyPhen-2 calculates Naïve Bayes posterior probability that this mutation is damaging and reports estimates of false positive (the chance that the mutation is classified as damaging when it is in fact non-damaging) and true positive (the chance that the mutation is classified as damaging when it is indeed damaging) rates. A mutation is also appraised qualitatively, as benign, possibly damaging, or probably damaging (Supplementary Methods). The user can choose between HumDiv- and HumVar-trained PolyPhen-2. Diagnostics of Mendelian diseases requires distinguishing mutations with drastic effects from all the remaining human variation, including abundant mildly deleterious alleles. Thus, HumVar-trained PolyPhen-2 should be used for this task. In contrast, HumDiv-trained PolyPhen-2 should be used for evaluating rare alleles at loci potentially involved in complex phenotypes, dense mapping of regions identified by genome-wide association studies, and analysis of natural selection from sequence data, where even mildly deleterious alleles must be treated as damaging. Supplementary Material 1
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Syst. Biol.
                Systematic biology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1076-836X
                1063-5157
                Jan 2015
                : 64
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB20RE, United Kingdom Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB20RE, United Kingdom niko.beerenwinkel@bsse.ethz.ch.
                [2 ] Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 4058 Basel, Switzerland; European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB20RE, United Kingdom.
                Article
                syu081
                10.1093/sysbio/syu081
                4265145
                25293804
                f0e66a55-5346-4cf6-8adc-9d67b4d49b75
                History

                Cancer,cancer progression,evolution,population genetics,probabilistic graphical models

                Comments

                Comment on this article