For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
155
views
60
references
 Top references
cited by
363
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    70
    shares
      315
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy-number alteration

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Determining how somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) promote cancer is an important goal. We characterized SCNA patterns among 4934 cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer dataset. Whole-genome doubling, observed in 37% of cancers, was associated with higher rates of every other type of SCNA, TP53 mutations, CCNE1 amplifications, and alterations of the PPP2R complex. SCNAs that were internal to chromosomes tended to be shorter than telomere-bounded SCNAs, suggesting different mechanisms of generation. Significantly recurrent focal SCNAs were observed in 140 regions, including 102 without known oncogene or tumor suppressor gene targets and 50 with significantly mutated genes. Amplified regions without known oncogenes are enriched for genes involved in epigenetic regulation. When levels of genomic disruption were accounted for, 7% of region pairs anticorrelated, and these tended to encompass genes whose proteins physically interact, suggesting related functions. These results provide insights into mechanisms of generation and functional consequences of cancer SCNAs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

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

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

          Yoav Benjamini, Yosef Hochberg (1995)
          Article 0 comments Cited 23670 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer genes

            Michael S Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Paz Polak … (2013)
            Major international projects are now underway aimed at creating a comprehensive catalog of all genes responsible for the initiation and progression of cancer. These studies involve sequencing of matched tumor–normal samples followed by mathematical analysis to identify those genes in which mutations occur more frequently than expected by random chance. Here, we describe a fundamental problem with cancer genome studies: as the sample size increases, the list of putatively significant genes produced by current analytical methods burgeons into the hundreds. The list includes many implausible genes (such as those encoding olfactory receptors and the muscle protein titin), suggesting extensive false positive findings that overshadow true driver events. Here, we show that this problem stems largely from mutational heterogeneity and provide a novel analytical methodology, MutSigCV, for resolving the problem. We apply MutSigCV to exome sequences from 3,083 tumor-normal pairs and discover extraordinary variation in (i) mutation frequency and spectrum within cancer types, which shed light on mutational processes and disease etiology, and (ii) mutation frequency across the genome, which is strongly correlated with DNA replication timing and also with transcriptional activity. By incorporating mutational heterogeneity into the analyses, MutSigCV is able to eliminate most of the apparent artefactual findings and allow true cancer genes to rise to attention.
            Article 0 comments Cited 967 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients With Luminal B Breast Cancer

              Maggie C. U. Cheang, Stephen Chia, David Voduc … (2009)
              Background Gene expression profiling of breast cancer has identified two biologically distinct estrogen receptor (ER)-positive subtypes of breast cancer: luminal A and luminal B. Luminal B tumors have higher proliferation and poorer prognosis than luminal A tumors. In this study, we developed a clinically practical immunohistochemistry assay to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors and investigated its ability to separate tumors according to breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival. Methods Tumors from a cohort of 357 patients with invasive breast carcinomas were subtyped by gene expression profile. Hormone receptor status, HER2 status, and the Ki67 index (percentage of Ki67-positive cancer nuclei) were determined immunohistochemically. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine the Ki67 cut point to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors. The prognostic value of the immunohistochemical assignment for breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival was investigated with an independent tissue microarray series of 4046 breast cancers by use of Kaplan–Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression. Results Gene expression profiling classified 101 (28%) of the 357 tumors as luminal A and 69 (19%) as luminal B. The best Ki67 index cut point to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors was 13.25%. In an independent cohort of 4046 patients with breast cancer, 2847 had hormone receptor–positive tumors. When HER2 immunohistochemistry and the Ki67 index were used to subtype these 2847 tumors, we classified 1530 (59%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 57% to 61%) as luminal A, 846 (33%, 95% CI = 31% to 34%) as luminal B, and 222 (9%, 95% CI = 7% to 10%) as luminal–HER2 positive. Luminal B and luminal–HER2-positive breast cancers were statistically significantly associated with poor breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival in all adjuvant systemic treatment categories. Of particular relevance are women who received tamoxifen as their sole adjuvant systemic therapy, among whom the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival was 79% (95% CI = 76% to 83%) for luminal A, 64% (95% CI = 59% to 70%) for luminal B, and 57% (95% CI = 47% to 69%) for luminal–HER2 subtypes. Conclusion Expression of ER, progesterone receptor, and HER2 proteins and the Ki67 index appear to distinguish luminal A from luminal B breast cancer subtypes.
              Article 0 comments Cited 686 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-journal-id): 9216904
                Journal ID (pubmed-jr-id): 2419
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Nat Genet
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Nat. Genet.
                Title: Nature genetics
                ISSN (Print): 1061-4036
                ISSN (Electronic): 1546-1718
                Publication date Nihms-submitted: 27 November 2013
                Publication date (Print): October 2013
                Publication date PMC-release: 26 March 2015
                Volume: 45
                Issue: 10
                Pages: 1134-1140
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departments of Cancer Biology and Medical Oncology and The Center for Cancer Genome Discovery, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA
                [2 ]The Broad Institute, 7 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142
                [3 ]Biophysics Program, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
                [4 ]Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
                [5 ]Departments of Medicine and Pathology and Center for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
                [6 ]USC Epigenome Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
                Author notes
                [*,†]

                Authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                Manuscript ID: NIHMS517488
                DOI: 10.1038/ng.2760
                PMC ID: 3966983
                PubMed ID: 24071852
                SO-VID: 22bcd922-22b1-41d5-baa2-3a882930df4c
                License:

                Users may view, print, copy, download and text and data- mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Genetics
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Genetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content315

                See all similar

                Cited by806

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors3,216

                See all reference authors