4.8 Article

The context-specific role of germline pathogenicity in tumorigenesis

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 53, 期 11, 页码 1577-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-021-00949-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health awards [P30 CA008748, R01 CA227534]
  2. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  3. Fund for Innovation in Cancer Informatics
  4. Cycle for Survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified pathogenic germline variants in cancer predisposition genes in 17,152 patients with cancer, revealing different mechanisms of tumorigenesis based on the penetrance and lineage of the gene variants.
A study of 17,152 patients with cancer identified pathogenic germline variants in cancer predisposition genes. Although tumors showed biallelic inactivation for high-penetrance genes, this was not the case in most patients with pathogenic variants in low-penetrance genes, suggesting alternative routes to tumorigenesis. Human cancers arise from environmental, heritable and somatic factors, but how these mechanisms interact in tumorigenesis is poorly understood. Studying 17,152 prospectively sequenced patients with cancer, we identified pathogenic germline variants in cancer predisposition genes, and assessed their zygosity and co-occurring somatic alterations in the concomitant tumors. Two major routes to tumorigenesis were apparent. In carriers of pathogenic germline variants in high-penetrance genes (5.1% overall), lineage-dependent patterns of biallelic inactivation led to tumors exhibiting mechanism-specific somatic phenotypes and fewer additional somatic oncogenic drivers. Nevertheless, 27% of cancers in these patients, and most tumors in patients with pathogenic germline variants in lower-penetrance genes, lacked particular hallmarks of tumorigenesis associated with the germline allele. The dependence of tumors on pathogenic germline variants is variable and often dictated by both penetrance and lineage, a finding with implications for clinical management.

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