55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Constitutional and somatic rearrangement of chromosome 21 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

      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

          Changes in gene dosage are a major driver of cancer, engineered from a finite, but increasingly well annotated, repertoire of mutational mechanisms 1 . This can potentially generate correlated copy number alterations across hundreds of linked genes, as exemplified by the 2% of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with recurrent amplification of megabase regions of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) 2, 3 . We used genomic, cytogenetic and transcriptional analysis, coupled with novel bioinformatic approaches, to reconstruct the evolution of iAMP21 ALL. We find that individuals born with the rare constitutional Robertsonian translocation between chromosomes 15 and 21, rob(15;21)(q10;q10)c, have ~2700-fold increased risk of developing iAMP21 ALL compared to the general population. In such cases, amplification is initiated by a chromothripsis event involving both sister chromatids of the Robertsonian chromosome, a novel mechanism for cancer predisposition. In sporadic iAMP21, breakage-fusion-bridge cycles are typically the initiating event, often followed by chromothripsis. In both sporadic and rob(15;21)c-associated iAMP21, the final stages frequently involve duplications of the entire abnormal chromosome. The end-product is a derivative of chromosome 21 or the rob(15;21)c chromosome with gene dosage optimised for leukemic potential, showing constrained copy number levels over multiple linked genes. Thus, dicentric chromosomes may be an important precipitant of chromothripsis, as we show rob(15;21)c to be constitutionally dicentric and breakage-fusion-bridge cycles generate dicentric chromosomes somatically. Furthermore, our data illustrate that several cancer-specific mutational processes, applied sequentially, can co-ordinate to fashion copy number profiles over large genomic scales, incrementally refining the fitness benefits of aggregated gene dosage changes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

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

          Genome sequencing of pediatric medulloblastoma links catastrophic DNA rearrangements with TP53 mutations.

          Genomic rearrangements are thought to occur progressively during tumor development. Recent findings, however, suggest an alternative mechanism, involving massive chromosome rearrangements in a one-step catastrophic event termed chromothripsis. We report the whole-genome sequencing-based analysis of a Sonic-Hedgehog medulloblastoma (SHH-MB) brain tumor from a patient with a germline TP53 mutation (Li-Fraumeni syndrome), uncovering massive, complex chromosome rearrangements. Integrating TP53 status with microarray and deep sequencing-based DNA rearrangement data in additional patients reveals a striking association between TP53 mutation and chromothripsis in SHH-MBs. Analysis of additional tumor entities substantiates a link between TP53 mutation and chromothripsis, and indicates a context-specific role for p53 in catastrophic DNA rearrangements. Among these, we observed a strong association between somatic TP53 mutations and chromothripsis in acute myeloid leukemia. These findings connect p53 status and chromothripsis in specific tumor types, providing a genetic basis for understanding particularly aggressive subtypes of cancer. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Functional genomic analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a compendium of 8000 cancer genomes

            A large database of copy number profiles from cancer genomes can facilitate the identification of recurrent chromosomal alterations that often contain key cancer-related genes. It can also be used to explore low-prevalence genomic events such as chromothripsis. In this study, we report an analysis of 8227 human cancer copy number profiles obtained from 107 array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies. Our analysis reveals similarity of chromosomal arm-level alterations among developmentally related tumor types as well as a number of co-occurring pairs of arm-level alterations. Recurrent (“pan-lineage”) focal alterations identified across diverse tumor types show an enrichment of known cancer-related genes and genes with relevant functions in cancer-associated phenotypes (e.g., kinase and cell cycle). Tumor type-specific (“lineage-restricted”) alterations and their enriched functional categories were also identified. Furthermore, we developed an algorithm for detecting regions in which the copy number oscillates rapidly between fixed levels, indicative of chromothripsis. We observed these massive genomic rearrangements in 1%–2% of the samples with variable tumor type-specific incidence rates. Taken together, our comprehensive view of copy number alterations provides a framework for understanding the functional significance of various genomic alterations in cancer genomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimates of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities detectable in unselected newborns using moderate levels of banding.

              Data on structural chromosome abnormalities identified during prenatal diagnosis were used to estimate the number of such abnormalities that would be detectable in an unselected series of newborns using moderate levels of banding (400 to 500 bands). These estimates were compared with the rates detected in nonbanded surveys of newborns. Between 1976 and 1990 prenatal diagnosis using banding techniques was carried out in our laboratory on 14,677 women aged 35 and over. Among these, we detected 112 structural rearrangements, 32 unbalanced and 80 balanced. These figures were adjusted by two methods to give an estimate of the frequency of structural abnormalities in the newborn. Our data suggest that the use of moderate levels of banding increases the frequency of unbalanced structural abnormalities from 0.052 to 0.061% and of balanced structural abnormalities from 0.212 to 0.522%. Thus, the total number of chromosome abnormalities detectable in the newborn is increased from 0.60% in unbanded preparations to 0.92% in banded preparations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                0410462
                6011
                Nature
                Nature
                Nature
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                4 February 2014
                23 March 2014
                3 April 2014
                03 October 2014
                : 508
                : 7494
                : 98-102
                Affiliations
                [(1) ]Cancer Genome Project, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK
                [(2) ]Leukaemia Research Cytogenetics Group, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [(3) ]West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [(4) ]Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Salisbury, UK
                [(5) ]School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [(6) ]Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
                [(7) ]Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
                [(8) ]Sheffield Diagnostic Genetics Service, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
                [(9) ]Cytogenetics Laboratory, Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [(10) ]Oncology Cytogenetics, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [(11) ]Regional Cytogenetics Unit, Genetic Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, UK
                [(12) ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [(13) ]Genetics Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute, and Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), Porto University, Portugal
                [(14) ]Laboratoire d’hématologie, Génétique des Hémopathies, Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse, France
                [(15) ]Center for Human Genetics, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [(16) ]Department of Electrical Engineering - ESAT, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [(17) ]Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                Author notes
                Addresses for correspondence: Professor Christine J Harrison, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Level 5, Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 191 2821320 Fax: +44 (0) 191 2821326 christine.harrison@ 123456newcastle.ac.uk Dr Peter J Campbell, Cancer Genome Project, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton CB10 1SA, Cambridgeshire, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 1223 494745 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 494809 pc8@ 123456sanger.ac.uk

                AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS C.J.H. and P.J.C. designed the study; Y.L. carried out and interpreted the sequencing and associated analysis, assisted by E.P. and P.J.S.; C.S. and S.R. coordinated the study; C.S. carried out the FISH analyses and interpreted the FISH and SNP6.0 results; S.R. carried out the initial sequence analysis and associated validation; B.Y. assisted with the analysis of SNP6.0 data; C.S. and H.R. interpreted the cytogenetic findings; O.J., B.R., and M.M. performed laboratory analyses; P.J., M.G., P.T., N.B., N.T. and L.G. provided data on incidence of rob(15;21)c cases; P.J., F.R., N.H., A.C., N.B., N.T., M.T., S.D., J.B., N.D. and P.V. provided rob(15;21)c cases and associated clinical and genetic data to be included in the study; A.V.M. and R.McN provided the incidence data and calculated the relative risk values; P.S. and V.R. provided data interpretation; J.C. and P.V.L. ran copy number analyses and co-ordinated analysis of publicly available solid tumour cancer data; M.R.S. contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the sequencing studies. P.J.C. and C.J.H. assimilated the data and wrote the manuscript, with support from all authors.

                Article
                EMS56469
                10.1038/nature13115
                3976272
                24670643
                b7967f94-d4e6-45c2-b9ff-f07f56b94575
                History
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article