4.6 Article

Cancer type-dependent genetic interactions between cancer driver alterations indicate plasticity of epistasis across cell types

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/msb.20156102

关键词

cancer; epistasis; evolution; genetic interaction networks; tissue specificity

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Juan de la Cierva program (MINECO)
  3. European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant (IR-DC) [GA616434]
  4. Plan Nacional Grant (MINECO) [BFU2011-26206]
  5. AGAUR [SGR 112]
  6. EMBO Young Investigator Program (MINECO)
  7. EU Framework 7 project 4DCellFate [277899]
  8. EMBL-CRG Systems Biology Program
  9. Severo Ochoa Program
  10. AXA Research Fund
  11. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancers, like many diseases, are normally caused by combinations of genetic alterations rather than by changes affecting single genes. It is well established that the genetic alterations that drive cancer often interact epistatically, having greater or weaker consequences in combination than expected from their individual effects. In a stringent statistical analysis of data from > 3,000 tumors, we find that the co-occurrence and mutual exclusivity relationships between cancer driver alterations change quite extensively in different types of cancer. This cannot be accounted for by variation in tumor heterogeneity or unrecognized cancer subtypes. Rather, it suggests that how genomic alterations interact cooperatively or partially redundantly to driver cancer changes in different types of cancers. This re-wiring of epistasis across cell types is likely to be a basic feature of genetic architecture, with important implications for understanding the evolution of multicellularity and human genetic diseases. In addition, if this plasticity of epistasis across cell types is also true for synthetic lethal interactions, a synthetic lethal strategy to kill cancer cells may frequently work in one type of cancer but prove ineffective in another.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据