4.8 Article

Mutations driving CLL and their evolution in progression and relapse

期刊

NATURE
卷 526, 期 7574, 页码 525-U132

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature15395

关键词

-

资金

  1. ACS
  2. ASH
  3. Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award for Medical Scientists
  4. NIH Big Data to Knowledge initiative (BD2K) [1K01ES025431-01]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [279307]
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P23499-N23]
  7. FWF NFN [S11407-N23 RiSE]
  8. German Jose Carreras Leukemia Foundation [R06/03v]
  9. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [KFO 286, SFB 1074]
  10. Else Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung [2010_Kolleg24, 2012_A146]
  11. Virtual Helmholtz Institute [VH-VI-404]
  12. CLL Global Research Foundation (Alliance)
  13. Blavatnik Family Foundation
  14. AACR
  15. NIH/NCI [1R01CA182461-02, 1R01CA184922-01, 1U10CA180861-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Which genetic alterations drive tumorigenesis and how they evolve over the course of disease and therapy are central questions in cancer biology. Here we identify 44 recurrently mutated genes and 11 recurrent somatic copy number variations through whole-exome sequencing of 538 chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and matched germline DNA samples, 278 of which were collected in a prospective clinical trial. These include previously unrecognized putative cancer drivers (RPS15, IKZF3), and collectively identify RNA processing and export, MYC activity, and MAPK signalling as central pathways involved in CLL. Clonality analysis of this large data set further enabled reconstruction of temporal relationships between driver events. Direct comparison between matched pre-treatment and relapse samples from 59 patients demonstrated highly frequent clonal evolution. Thus, large sequencing data sets of clinically informative samples enable the discovery of novel genes associated with cancer, the network of relationships between the driver events, and their impact on disease relapse and clinical outcome.

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

4.8
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