4.7 Article

Combined copy number and mutation analysis identifies oncogenic pathways associated with transformation of follicular lymphoma

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 83-91

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2016.175

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lymphoma Research Foundation Follicular Lymphoma initiative
  2. Lymphoma SPORE [P50CA136411-01-(NCI)]
  3. University of Nebraska Foundation
  4. NCRR [1S10RR027754-01, 5P20RR016469, RR018788-08]
  5. National Institute for General Medical Science (NIGMS) [8P20GM103427, GM103471-09]
  6. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [P30CA033572]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is typically an indolent disease, but 30-40% of FL cases transform into an aggressive lymphoma (tFL) with a poor prognosis. To identify the genetic changes that drive this transformation, we sequenced the exomes of 12 cases with paired FL and tFL biopsies and identified 45 recurrently mutated genes in the FL-tFL data set and 39 in the tFL cases. We selected 496 genes of potential importance in transformation and sequenced them in 23 additional tFL cases. Integration of the mutation data with copy-number abnormality (CNA) data provided complementary information. We found recurrent mutations of miR-142, which has not been previously been reported to be mutated in FL/tFL. The genes most frequently mutated in tFL included KMT2D (MLL2), CREBBP, EZH2, BCL2 and MEF2B. Many recurrently mutated genes are involved in epigenetic regulation, the Janus-activated kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) or the nuclear factor-kappa B pathways, immune surveillance and cell cycle regulation or are TFs involved in B-cell development. Of particular interest are mutations and CNAs affecting S1P-activated pathways through S1PR1 or S1PR2, which likely regulate lymphoma cell migration and survival outside of follicles. Our custom gene enrichment panel provides high depth of coverage for the study of clonal evolution or divergence.

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

4.7
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