4.8 Article

Whole-genome mutational landscape and characterization of noncoding and structural mutations in liver cancer

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 500-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3547

关键词

-

资金

  1. RIKEN President's Fund
  2. JSPS [25134717, 25670375, 23114001, 15H04814]
  3. Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund
  4. Takeda Science Foundation
  5. Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  6. CREST from the Japan Science and Technology Agency
  7. National Cancer Center Research and Development Funds [26-A-5]
  8. National Cancer Center Biobank - National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan
  9. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K08987, 26430196, 25670375, 26114721, 26293308, 15H04814, 15H05912] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver cancer, which is most often associated with virus infection, is prevalent worldwide, and its underlying etiology and genomic structure are heterogeneous. Here we provide a whole-genome landscape of somatic alterations in 300 liver cancers from Japanese individuals. Our comprehensive analysis identified point mutations, structural variations (STVs), and virus integrations, in noncoding and coding regions. We discovered mutational signatures related to liver carcinogenesis and recurrently mutated coding and noncoding regions, such as long intergenic noncoding RNA genes (NEAT1 and MALAT1), promoters, CTCF-binding sites, and regulatory regions. STV analysis found a significant association with replication timing and identified known (CDKN2A, CCND1, APC, and TERT) and new (ASH1L, NCOR1, and MACROD2) cancer-related genes that were recurrently affected by STVs, leading to altered expression. These results emphasize the value of whole-genome sequencing analysis in discovering cancer driver mutations and understanding comprehensive molecular profiles of liver cancer, especially with regard to STVs and noncoding mutations.

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