4.8 Article

Genomic consequences of aberrant DNA repair mechanisms stratify ovarian cancer histotypes

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 856-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3849

关键词

-

资金

  1. BC Cancer Foundation
  2. OvCaRe
  3. Gray Family Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma Research Resource
  4. Terry Fox Research Institute New Investigator grant
  5. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Impact grant
  6. Reseau de Recherche sur le Cancer
  7. Fonds de Recherche Quebec Sante
  8. Canadian Tumour Repository Network
  9. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant
  10. Discovery Frontiers: Advancing Big Data Science in Genomics Research program [RGPGR/448167-2013]
  11. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  12. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  13. Genome Canada
  14. Canada Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the whole-genome point mutation and structural variation patterns of 133 tumors (59 high-grade serous (HGSC), 35 clear cell (CCOC), 29 endometrioid (ENOC), and 10 adult granulosa cell (GCT)) as a substrate for class discovery in ovarian cancer. Ab initio clustering of integrated point mutation and structural variation signatures identified seven subgroups both between and within histotypes. Prevalence of foldback inversions identified a prognostically significant HGSC group associated with inferior survival. This finding was recapitulated in two independent cohorts (n = 576 cases), transcending BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation and gene expression features of HGSC. CCOC cancers grouped according to APOBEC deamination (26%) and age-related mutational signatures (40%). ENOCs were divided by cases with microsatellite instability (28%), with a distinct mismatch-repair mutation signature. Taken together, our work establishes the potency of the somatic genome, reflective of diverse DNA repair deficiencies, to stratify ovarian cancers into distinct biological strata within the major histotypes.

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