4.6 Article

Comprehensive Genomic Characterization of Fifteen Early-Onset Lynch-Like Syndrome Colorectal Cancers

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061259

关键词

colorectal cancer; biallelic somatic alteration; early-onset cancer; Lynch-like syndrome; mismatch repair; whole-exome sequencing

类别

资金

  1. Foundation Nelia et Amadeo Barletta contract
  2. Agencia de Gestiod'AjutsUniversitarisi de Recerca -AGAUR(Generalitat de Catalunya) [2019FI_B2_00203]
  3. Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral contract [FJCI-2017-32593]
  4. CIBEREHD
  5. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  6. Foundation Nelia et Amadeo Barletta FNAB, Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria/FEDER [17/00878, 19/01867, 20/00113]
  7. CERCA Program (Generalitat de Catalunya)
  8. Agencia de Gestiod'AjutsUniversitarisi de Recerca (Generalitat de Catalunya) [GRPRE 2017SGR21, GRC 2017SGR653]
  9. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [CA17118]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lynch syndrome is the most prevalent type of hereditary colorectal cancer, characterized by microsatellite instability. Half of the patients with this syndrome carry germline variants in any of the four mismatch repair DNA genes, while the other half, termed Lynch-like syndrome, have unknown causes. Somatic mutations in genes associated with the MMR system may explain the unexplained MSI in some patients.
Simple Summary: The most prevalent type of hereditary colorectal cancer is called Lynch syndrome and it is characterized by a tumor phenotype called microsatellite instability (MSI). This disease is a consequence of germline (inheritable) variants in any of the four mismatch repair (MMR) DNA genes, being their identification essential to ensure their appropriate diagnosis and implementation of preventive measurements. Nevertheless, only 50% of patients with MSI and suspected Lynch syndrome actually carry a germline pathogenic variant in an MMR gene that explains the clinical entity. The remaining 50% are termed Lynch-like syndrome, and their causes remain unknown. In this work, we tried to elucidate the molecular mechanisms that underlie this rare entity in a group of early-onset Lynch-like syndrome colorectal cancer, through whole-exome sequencing of germline and tumor samples. We observed that one-third of these patients have somatic alterations in genes associated with the MMR system and that these could be the mechanism causing their unexplained MSI. Furthermore, we found that patients who showed biallelic somatic alterations also carried germline variants in new candidate genes associated with DNA repair functions and that this could be, partly, the cause of the early onset in this cohort. Lynch-like syndrome (LLS) is an increasingly common clinical challenge with an underlying molecular basis mostly unknown. To shed light onto it, we focused on a very young LLS early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort (diagnosis <= 40 y.o.), performing germline and tumor whole-exome sequencing (WES) of 15 patients, and additionally analyzing their corresponding tumor mutational burden (TMB) and mutational signatures. We identified four cases (27%) with double somatic putative variants in mismatch repair (MMR) core genes, as well as three additional cases (20%) with double MSH3 somatic alterations in tumors with unexplained MSH2/MSH6 loss of expression, and two cases (13%) with POLD1 potential biallelic alterations. Average TMB was significantly higher for LLS cases with double somatic alterations. Lastly, nine predicted deleterious variants in genes involved in the DNA repair functions and/or previously associated with CRC were found in nine probands, four of which also showed MMR biallelic somatic inactivation. In conclusion, we contribute new insights into LLS CRC, postulating MSH3 and POLD1 double somatic alterations as an underlying cause of a microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype, proposing intrinsic biological differences between LLS with and without somatic alterations, and suggesting new predisposing candidate genes in this scenario.

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