4.8 Article

Mapping the Hallmarks of Lung Adenocarcinoma with Massively Parallel Sequencing

期刊

CELL
卷 150, 期 6, 页码 1107-1120

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.029

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI [T32 CA9216]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health
  3. American Cancer Society
  4. National Lung Cancer Partnership
  5. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Lung Cancer SPORE [P50 CA090578]
  6. NIGMS [T32GM07753]
  7. German Ministry of Science and Education (BMBF) [01GS08100]
  8. Max Planck Society [M.I.F.A.NEUR8061]
  9. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB832 (TP6), TH1386/3-1]
  10. EU-Framework Programme CURELUNG [HEALTH-F2-2010-258677]
  11. American Association for Cancer Research [SU2C-AACR-IR60109]
  12. Behrens-Weise Foundation
  13. National Human Genome Research Institute
  14. National Cancer Institute
  15. Uniting Against Lung Cancer, the Lung Cancer Research Foundation
  16. American Lung Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung adenocarcinoma, the most common subtype of non-small cell lung cancer, is responsible for more than 500,000 deaths per year worldwide. Here, we report exome and genome sequences of 183 lung adenocarcinoma tumor/normal DNA pairs. These analyses revealed a mean exonic somatic mutation rate of 12.0 events/megabase and identified the majority of genes previously reported as significantly mutated in lung adenocarcinoma. In addition, we identified statistically recurrent somatic mutations in the splicing factor gene U2AF1 and truncating mutations affecting RBM10 and ARID1A. Analysis of nucleotide context-specific mutation signatures grouped the sample set into distinct clusters that correlated with smoking history and alterations of reported lung adenocarcinoma genes. Whole-genome sequence analysis revealed frequent structural rearrangements, including in-frame exonic alterations within EGFR and SIK2 kinases. The candidate genes identified in this study are attractive targets for biological characterization and therapeutic targeting of lung adenocarcinoma.

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