4.8 Article

Punctuated Evolution of Prostate Cancer Genomes

期刊

CELL
卷 153, 期 3, 页码 666-677

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) Large Scale Sequencing Program [U54 HG003067]
  2. Kohlberg Foundation
  3. Starr Cancer Consortium
  4. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  5. US Department of Defense Synergy Awards [PC101020]
  6. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Prostate Cancer SPORE (US National Institutes of Health [NIH]) [P50 CA090381]
  7. US National Cancer Institute, Early Detection Research Network [U01CA111275]
  8. NCI EDRN
  9. US National Cancer Institute [R01 CA125612]
  10. Fondazione Trentina per la Ricerca sui Tumori
  11. Swiss Science Foundation [PASMP3_134379/1]
  12. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32GM007753]
  13. US NIH Director's New Innovator Award [DP2OD002750]
  14. Novartis
  15. [PC094516]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of exonic DNA from prostate cancers has identified recurrently mutated genes, but the spectrum of genome-wide alterations has not been profiled extensively in this disease. We sequenced the genomes of 57 prostate tumors and matched normal tissues to characterize somatic alterations and to study how they accumulate during oncogenesis and progression. By modeling the genesis of genomic rearrangements, we identified abundant DNA translocations and deletions that arise in a highly interdependent manner. This phenomenon, which we term chromoplexy, frequently accounts for the dysregulation of prostate cancer genes and appears to disrupt multiple cancer genes coordinately. Our modeling suggests that chromoplexy may induce considerable genomic derangement over relatively few events in prostate cancer and other neoplasms, supporting a model of punctuated cancer evolution. By characterizing the clonal hierarchy of genomic lesions in prostate tumors, we charted a path of oncogenic events along which chromoplexy may drive prostate carcinogenesis.

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