4.7 Article

Genome-wide somatic mutation analysis via Hawk-Seq™ reveals mutation profiles associated with chemical mutagens

Journal

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 9, Pages 2689-2701

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02541-3

Keywords

Mutational signatures; Next generation sequencing; Somatic mutation; Genotoxicity tests; Mutagenesis; Cancer genomics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is difficult to identify mutagen-induced genome-wide somatic mutations using next generation sequencing; hence, mutagenic features of each mutagen and their roles in cancer development require further elucidation. We described Hawk-Seq (TM), a highly accurate genome sequencing method and the optimal conditions, for using it to construct libraries that would enable the accurate (c.a. 1 error/10(7)-10(8) bp) and efficient survey of genome-wide mutations. Genomic mutations in gpt delta mice or Salmonella typhimurium TA100 exposed to methylnitrosourea (MNU), ethylnitrosourea (ENU), diethylnitrosamine (DEN), benzo[a]pyrene (BP), and aristolochic acid (AA) were profiled using Hawk-Seq (TM) to analyse positions, substitution patterns, or frequencies. The resultant vast mutation data provided high-resolution mutational signatures, including for minor mutational fractions (e.g. G:C>A:T by AA), which enabled the clarification of the mutagenic features of all mutagens. The 96-type mutational signatures of MNU, AA, and BP indicate their partial similarity to signature 11, 22, and 4 or 29, respectively. Meanwhile, signatures attributable to ENU and DEN were highly similar to each other, but not to signature 11, suggesting that the mechanisms of these agents differed from those of typical alkylating agents. Thus, Hawk-Seq (TM) can clarify genome-wide chemical mutagenicity profiles at extraordinary resolutions, thereby providing insight into mutagen mechanisms and their roles in cancer development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available