Hétérogénéïté Génétique
des Cancer du sein
Pr. X Pivot
CHRU Besançon
!"#$#%
&'()%*&'+%
,-%
*&'(%
./%
0-$123%4356%
789"%1-:;$<3<%=2::<%>%?@A:@-%
#"A123#%B-:A%C%DEF%1"G38?#%
789"%1-:;$<3<%=2::<%>%?@A:@-%
#"A123#%B-:A%C%EF%1"G38?#%
0:?"2%#3H@3893<%>%"8"2IJ3<%
EKF%?@A:@-#%
LCDMF%B-:A%74N"O%
789"%23"<#%?P3%1-:Q39?%
B:-%?P$#%#@=5-:@1%%
C%DEF%1"G38?#%
RE%SP:23%T38:A3#%
UF%SP:23%&V:A3#%
RE%'4WX3H%
Pharmacogénétique
PHARE
650 patientes HER2 + sang
Études sein INCa
PHARE
3400 patientes HER2+
SIGNAL
3000 patientes HER2+ sang
6000 patientes HER2- sang
SIGNAL2-ICGC
500 tumeurs HER2+
2000 tumeurs HER2-
Suivi clinique pour 5 ans
Mai 2006
Juillet 2010
Mai 2009
Octobre 2011
Mai 2009
? 2014
Echantillon de sang (optionnel)
Suivi clinique pour 5 ans
Questionnaire épidémiologique SIGNAL
Echantillon de sang +
Tumeur pour SIGNAL2-ICGC-BASIS
00 MONTH 2016 | VOL 000 | N A T URE | 1
ARTICLE doi:10.1038/nature17676
Landscape of somatic mutations in 560
breast cancer whole-genome sequences
Serena Nik-Zainal1,2, Helen Davies1, Johan Staaf3, Manasa Ramakrishna1, Dominik Glodzik1, Xueqing Zou1, Inigo Martincorena1,
Ludmil B. Alexandrov1,4,5, Sancha Martin1, David C. Wedge1, Peter Van Loo1,6, Young Seok Ju1, Marcel Smid7, Arie B. Brinkman8,
Sandro Morganella9, Miriam R. Aure10,11, Ole Christian Lingjærde11,12, Anita Langerød10,11, Markus Ringnér3, Sung-Min Ahn13,
Sandrine Boyault14, Jane E. Brock15, Annegien Broeks16, Adam Butler1, Christine Desmedt17, Luc Dirix18, Serge Dronov1,
Aquila Fatima19, John A. Foekens7, Moritz Gerstung1, Gerrit K. J. Hooijer20, Se Jin Jang21, David R. Jones1, Hyung-Yong Kim22,
Tari A. King23, Savitri Krishnamurthy24, Hee Jin Lee21, Jeong-Yeon Lee25, Yilong Li1, Stuart McLaren1, Andrew Menzies1,
Ville Mustonen1, Sarah O’Meara1, Iris Pauporté26, Xavier Pivot27, Colin A. Purdie28, Keiran Raine1, Kamna Ramakrishnan1,
F. Germán Rodríguez-González7, Gilles Romieu29, Anieta M. Sieuwerts7, Peter T. Simpson30, Rebecca Shepherd1,
Lucy Stebbings1, Olafur A. Stefansson31, Jon Teague1, Stefania Tommasi32, Isabelle Treilleux33, Gert G. Van den Eynden18,34,
Peter Vermeulen 18,34, Anne Vincent-Salomon35, Lucy Yates1, Carlos Caldas36, Laura van’t Veer16, Andrew Tutt37,38,
Stian Knappskog39,40, Benita Kiat Tee Tan41,42, Jos Jonkers16, Åke Borg3, Naoto T. Ueno24, Christos Sotiriou17, Alain Viari43,44,
P. Andrew Futreal1,45, Peter J. Campbell1, Paul N. Span46, Steven Van Laere18, Sunil R. Lakhani30,47, Jorunn E. Eyfjord31,
Alastair M. Thompson28,48, Ewan Birney9, Hendrik G. Stunnenberg8, Marc J. van de Vijver20, John W. M. Martens7,
Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale10,11, Andrea L. Richardson15,19, Gu Kong22, Gilles Thomas44 & Michael R. Stratton1
The mutational theory of cancer proposes that changes in DNA
sequence, termed driver’ mutations, confer proliferative advan-
tage on a cell, leading to outgrowth of a neoplastic clone
1
. Some
driver mutations are inherited in the germline, but most arise in
somatic cells during the lifetime of the cancer patient, together with
many passenger’ mutations not implicated in cancer development
1
.
Multiple mutational processes, including endogenous and exoge-
nous mutagen exposures, aberrant DNA editing, replication errors
1
We a n a l y s e d wh o l e - g e n o m e s e q u e n c e s o f 5 6 0 breast cancers to advance understanding of the driver mutations conferring
clonal advantage and the mutational processes generating somatic mutations. We found that 93 protein-coding cancer
genes carried probable driver mutations. Some non-coding regions exhibited high mutation frequencies, but most have
distinctive structural features probably causing elevated mutation rates and do not contain driver mutations. Mutational
signature analysis was extended to genome rearrangements and revealed twelve base substitution and six rearrangement
signatures. Three rearrangement signatures, characterized by tandem duplications or deletions, appear associated with
defective homologous-recombination-based DNA repair: one with deficient BRCA1 function, another with deficient
BRCA1 or BRCA2 function, the cause of the third is unknown. This analysis of all classes of somatic mutation across
exons, introns and intergenic regions highlights the repertoire of cancer genes and mutational processes operating, and
progresses towards a comprehensive account of the somatic genetic basis of breast cancer.
1Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK. 2East Anglian Medical Genetics Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 9NB, UK.
3Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund SE-223 81, Sweden. 4Theoretical Biology and Biophysics (T-6), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM 87545, New Mexico, USA. 5Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA. 6Department of Human Genetics, University of
Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. 7Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015CN,
The Netherlands. 8Radboud University, Department of Molecular Biology, Faculties of Science and Medicine, 6525GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 9European Molecular Biology Laboratory,
European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK. 10Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital,
The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo 0310, Norway. 11K. G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo 0310, Norway. 12Department of
Computer Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 13Gachon Institute of Genome Medicine and Science, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, South Korea. 14Translational Research
Lab, Centre Léon Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec, 69373 Lyon Cedex 08, France. 15Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. 16The Netherlands
Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 17Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Institut Jules Bordet, Bd de Waterloo 121, B-1000
Brussels, Belgium. 18Translational Cancer Research Unit, Center for Oncological Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 19Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. 20Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 21Department of Pathology, Asan
Medical Center, College of Medicine, Ulsan University, Ulsan, South Korea. 22Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, South Korea. 23Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065, USA. 24Morgan Welch Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Program and Clinic, The University of Texas MD Anderson
Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard., Houston, Texas 77030, USA. 25Institute for Bioengineering and Biopharmaceutical Research (IBBR), Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea. 26Institut
National du Cancer, Research Division, Clinical Research Department, 52 avenue Morizet, 92513 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 27University Hospital of Minjoz, INSERM UMR 1098, Bd Fleming,
Besançon 25000, France. 28Pathology Department, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. 29Oncologie Sénologie, ICM Institut Régional du Cancer, Montpellier, France.
30The University of Queensland, UQ Centre for Clinical Research and School of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia. 31Cancer Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, University
of Iceland, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland. 32IRCCS Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy. 33Department of Pathology, Centre Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laënnec, 69373 Lyon Cédex 08, France.
34Department of Pathology, GZA Hospitals Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium. 35Institut Curie, Department of Pathology and INSERM U934, 26 rue d’Ulm, 75248 Paris Cedex 05, France. 36Cancer
Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. 37Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Unit, King’s College London,
London SE1 9RT, UK. 38Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, UK. 39Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, 5020
Bergen, Norway. 40Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway. 41National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, 169610, Singapore. 42Singapore General
Hospital, Outram Road, 169608, Singapore. 43Equipe Erable, INRIA Grenoble-Rhône-Alpes, 655, Avenue de l’Europe, 38330 Montbonnot-Saint Martin, France. 44Synergie Lyon Cancer, Centre
Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laënnec, Lyon Cedex 08, France. 45Department of Genomic Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77230, USA. 46Department of Radiation Oncology,
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525GA, The Netherlands. 47Pathology Queensland, The Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane,
Queensland 4029, Australia. 48Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
2
ARTICLE RESEARCH
A
B
substitutions
indels
rearrangements
copy number aberrations
36%
34%
10% 21%
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08 2.5e+08
0 500
Chr1
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08 2.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08 2.5e+08
0 500
Chr2
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08 2.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08
0 500
Chr3
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08 2.0e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
Chr4
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
Chr5
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
Chr6
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
Chr7
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
Chr8
0.0e+00 5.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.5e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08 1.4e+08
0 500
Chr9
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08 1.4e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08 1.4e+08
0 500
Chr10
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08 1.4e+08
0 500
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08
0 500
Chr11
0.0e+00 2.0e+07 4.0e+07 6.0e+07 8.0e+07 1.0e+08 1.2e+08
0 500
0.0e+002.0e+07 4.0e+076.0e+07 8.0e+071.0e+08 1.2e+08
0 500
Chr12
0.0e+002.0e+07 4.0e+076.0e+07 8.0e+071.0e+08 1.2e+08
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+071e+08
0 500
Chr13
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+071e+08
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+0
71
e+08
0 500
Chr14
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+0
71
e+08
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+0
71
e+08
0 500
Chr15
0e+002e+074e+076e+078e+0
71
e+08
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+0
78
e+07
0 500
Chr16
0e+002e+074e+076e+0
78
e+07
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+0
78
e+07
0 500
Chr17
0e+002e+074e+076e+0
78
e+07
0 500
0e+002e+074e+076e+07
0 500
Chr18
0e+002e+074e+076e+07
0 500
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+075e+076e+07
0 500
Chr19
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+075e+076e+07
0 500
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+075e+0
76
e+07
0 500
Chr20
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+075e+0
76
e+07
0 500
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+07
0 500
Chr21
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+07
0 500
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+0
75
e+07
0 500
Chr22
0e+001e+072e+073e+074e+0
75
e+07
0 500
0.0e+005.0e+07 1.0e+081.5e+08
0 500
Chr23
0.0e+005.0e+07 1.0e+081.5e+08
0 500
C
ER pos
320
ER neg
167
27
46
HER2 pos
560 whole-genome
sequenced breast cancers
Extended Data Figure 1 | Landscape of driver mutations. a, Summary of
subtypes of cohort of 560breast cancers. b, Driver mutations by mutation
type. c, Distribution of rearrangements throughout the genome. Black
line represents background rearrangement density (calculation based on
rearrangement breakpoints in intergenic regions only). Red lines represent
frequency of rearrangement within breast cancer genes.
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
00 MONTH 2016 | VOL 000 | N A T URE | 1
ARTICLE doi:10.1038/nature17676
Landscape of somatic mutations in 560
breast cancer whole-genome sequences
Serena Nik-Zainal1,2, Helen Davies1, Johan Staaf3, Manasa Ramakrishna1, Dominik Glodzik1, Xueqing Zou1, Inigo Martincorena1,
Ludmil B. Alexandrov1,4,5, Sancha Martin1, David C. Wedge1, Peter Van Loo1,6, Young Seok Ju1, Marcel Smid7, Arie B. Brinkman8,
Sandro Morganella9, Miriam R. Aure10,11, Ole Christian Lingjærde11,12, Anita Langerød10,11, Markus Ringnér3, Sung-Min Ahn13,
Sandrine Boyault14, Jane E. Brock15, Annegien Broeks16, Adam Butler1, Christine Desmedt17, Luc Dirix18, Serge Dronov1,
Aquila Fatima19, John A. Foekens7, Moritz Gerstung1, Gerrit K. J. Hooijer20, Se Jin Jang21, David R. Jones1, Hyung-Yong Kim22,
Tari A. King23, Savitri Krishnamurthy24, Hee Jin Lee21, Jeong-Yeon Lee25, Yilong Li1, Stuart McLaren1, Andrew Menzies1,
Ville Mustonen1, Sarah O’Meara1, Iris Paupor26, Xavier Pivot27, Colin A. Purdie28, Keiran Raine1, Kamna Ramakrishnan1,
F. Germán Rodríguez-Gonlez7, Gilles Romieu29, Anieta M. Sieuwerts7, Peter T. Simpson30, Rebecca Shepherd1,
Lucy Stebbings1, Olafur A. Stefansson31, Jon Teague1, Stefania Tommasi32, Isabelle Treilleux33, Gert G. Van den Eynden18,34,
Peter Vermeul e n 18,34, Anne Vincent-Salomon35, Lucy Yates1, Carlos Caldas36, Laura van’t Vee r 16, Andrew Tutt37,38,
Stian Knappskog39,40, Benita Kiat Tee Tan41,42, Jos Jonkers16, Åke Borg3, Naoto T. Ueno24, Christos Sotiriou17, Alain Viari43,44,
P. Andrew Futreal1,45, Peter J. Campbell1, Paul N. Span46, Steven Van Laere18, Sunil R. Lakhani30,47, Jorunn E. Eyfjord31,
Alastair M. Thompson28,48, Ewan Birney9, Hendrik G. Stunnenberg8, Marc J. van de Vijver20, John W. M. Martens7,
Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale10,11, Andrea L. Richardson15,19, Gu Kong22, Gilles Thomas44 & Michael R. Stratton1
The mutational theory of cancer proposes that changes in DNA
sequence, termed ‘driver’ mutations, confer proliferative advan-
tage on a cell, leading to outgrowth of a neoplastic clone
1
. Some
driver mutations are inherited in the germline, but most arise in
somatic cells during the lifetime of the cancer patient, together with
many ‘passenger’ mutations not implicated in cancer development
1
.
Multiple mutational processes, including endogenous and exoge-
nous mutagen exposures, aberrant DNA editing, replication errors
1
We a n a l y s e d w h o l e - g e n o m e s e q u e n c e s o f 5 6 0 breast cancers to advance understanding of the driver mutations conferring
clonal advantage and the mutational processes generating somatic mutations. We found that 93 protein-coding cancer
genes carried probable driver mutations. Some non-coding regions exhibited high mutation frequencies, but most have
distinctive structural features probably causing elevated mutation rates and do not contain driver mutations. Mutational
signature analysis was extended to genome rearrangements and revealed twelve base substitution and six rearrangement
signatures. Three rearrangement signatures, characterized by tandem duplications or deletions, appear associated with
defective homologous-recombination-based DNA repair: one with deficient BRCA1 function, another with deficient
BRCA1 or BRCA2 function, the cause of the third is unknown. This analysis of all classes of somatic mutation across
exons, introns and intergenic regions highlights the repertoire of cancer genes and mutational processes operating, and
progresses towards a comprehensive account of the somatic genetic basis of breast cancer.
1Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK. 2East Anglian Medical Genetics Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 9NB, UK.
3Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund SE-223 81, Sweden. 4Theoretical Biology and Biophysics (T-6), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM 87545, New Mexico, USA. 5Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA. 6Department of Human Genetics, University of
Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. 7Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015CN,
The Netherlands. 8Radboud University, Department of Molecular Biology, Faculties of Science and Medicine, 6525GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 9European Molecular Biology Laboratory,
European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK. 10Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital,
The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo 0310, Norway. 11K. G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo 0310, Norway. 12Department of
Computer Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 13Gachon Institute of Genome Medicine and Science, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, South Korea. 14Translational Research
Lab, Centre Léon Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec, 69373 Lyon Cedex 08, France. 15Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. 16The Netherlands
Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 17Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Institut Jules Bordet, Bd de Waterloo 121, B-1000
Brussels, Belgium. 18Translational Cancer Research Unit, Center for Oncological Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 19Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. 20Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 21Department of Pathology, Asan
Medical Center, College of Medicine, Ulsan University, Ulsan, South Korea. 22Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, South Korea. 23Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065, USA. 24Morgan Welch Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Program and Clinic, The University of Texas MD Anderson
Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard., Houston, Texas 77030, USA. 25Institute for Bioengineering and Biopharmaceutical Research (IBBR), Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea. 26Institut
National du Cancer, Research Division, Clinical Research Department, 52 avenue Morizet, 92513 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 27University Hospital of Minjoz, INSERM UMR 1098, Bd Fleming,
Besançon 25000, France. 28Pathology Department, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. 29Oncologie Sénologie, ICM Institut Régional du Cancer, Montpellier, France.
30The University of Queensland, UQ Centre for Clinical Research and School of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia. 31Cancer Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, University
of Iceland, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland. 32IRCCS Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy. 33Department of Pathology, Centre Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laënnec, 69373 Lyon Cédex 08, France.
34Department of Pathology, GZA Hospitals Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium. 35Institut Curie, Department of Pathology and INSERM U934, 26 rue d’Ulm, 75248 Paris Cedex 05, France. 36Cancer
Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. 37Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Unit, King’s College London,
London SE1 9RT, UK. 38Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, UK. 39Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, 5020
Bergen, Norway. 40Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway. 41National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, 169610, Singapore. 42Singapore General
Hospital, Outram Road, 169608, Singapore. 43Equipe Erable, INRIA Grenoble-Rhône-Alpes, 655, Avenue de l’Europe, 38330 Montbonnot-Saint Martin, France. 44Synergie Lyon Cancer, Centre
Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laënnec, Lyon Cedex 08, France. 45Department of Genomic Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77230, USA. 46Department of Radiation Oncology,
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525GA, The Netherlands. 47Pathology Queensland, The Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane,
Queensland 4029, Australia. 48Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
2
2 | NATURE | VOL 000 | 00 MONTH 2016
ARTICLE
RESEARCH
and defective DNA maintenance, are responsible for generating
these mutations1–3.
Over the past five decades, several waves of technology have advanced
the characterization of mutations in cancer genomes. Karyotype
analysis revealed rearranged chromosomes and copy number
alterations. Subsequently, loss of heterozygosity analysis, hybridization
of cancer-derived DNA to microarrays and other approaches provided
higher resolution insights into copy number changes
4–8
. Recently, DNA
sequencing has enabled systematic characterization of the full reper-
toire of mutation types including base substitutions, small insertions/
deletions, rearrangements and copy number changes9–13, yielding
substantial insights into the mutated cancer genes and mutational
processes operative in human cancer.
As for many cancer classes, most currently available breast cancer
genome sequences target protein-coding exons
8,11–15
. Consequently,
there has been limited consideration of mutations in untranslated,
intronic and intergenic regions, leaving central questions pertaining
to the molecular pathogenesis of the disease unresolved. First, the role
of activating driver rearrangements16–18 forming chimaeric (fusion)
genes/proteins or relocating genes adjacent to new regulatory regions
as observed in haematological and other malignancies
19
. Second, the
role of driver substitutions and indels in non-coding regions of the
genome20,21. Common inherited variants conferring susceptibility to
human disease are generally in non-coding regulatory regions and
the possibility that similar mechanisms operate somatically in cancer
was highlighted by the discovery of somatic driver substitutions in the
TERT gene promoter
22,23
. Third, which mutational processes generate
the somatic mutations found in breast cancer2,24. Addressing this
question has been constrained because exome sequences do not inform
on genome rearrangements and capture relatively few base substitu-
tion mutations, thus limiting statistical power to extract the mutational
signatures imprinted on the genome by these processes24,25.
Here we analyse whole-genome sequences of 560cases in order to
address these and other questions and to pave the way to a compre-
hensive understanding of the origins and consequences of somatic
mutations in breast cancer.
Cancer genes and driver mutations
The whole genomes of 560 breast cancers and non-neoplastic
tissue from each individual (556 female and 4 male) were
sequenced (Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1).
We detected 3,479,652somatic base substitutions, 371,993small indels
and 77,695rearrangements, with substantial variation in the number
of each between individual samples (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Table 3).
Trans cript ome s equ ence, m icroRNA expre ssion , array- bas ed c opy num-
ber and DNA methylation data were obtained from subsets of cases.
To identify new cancer genes, we combined somatic substitutions
and indels in protein-coding exons with data from other series12–15,26,
constituting a total of 1,332breast cancers, and searched for mutation
clustering in each gene beyond that expected by chance. Five cancer
genes were found for which evidence was previously absent or equivocal
(MED23, FOXP1, MLLT4, XBP1, ZFP36L1), or for which the muta-
tions indicate the gene acts in breast cancer in a recessive rather than in
a dominant fashion, as previously reported in other cancer types (see
Supplementary Methods section 7.4 for detailed descriptions). From
published reports on all cancer types (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/census),
Enrichment
log P value
010–10
020406080100
Fraction of samples
with driver
ER positive ER negative
5,000
80,000
1,200
20
Substitutions
Indels
Rearrangements
Driver mutations
Fraction of samples
with driver
020406080
TP53
PIK3CA
MYC
CCND1
PTEN
ERBB2
ZNF703/FGFR1
GATA 3
RB1
MAP3K1
MAP2K4
ZNF217
CDH1
MLL3
ARID1B
CDKN2A
MLLT 4
AKT1
FBXW7
ARID1A
CCND3
CBFB
MDM2
CCNE1
CDKN2B
NCOR1
SF3B1
SPEN
TBX3
IGF1R
BRCA2
NF1
PIK3R1
EGFR
KRAS
ESR1
FOXA1
MED23
CDK6
NOTCH2
AKT2
BRCA1
CTCF
KDM6A
SETD2
CREBBP
DNMT3A
FOXP1
MLL2
RUNX1
USP9X
XBP1
PDGFRA
AT R
ERBB3
FGFR2
PA LB2
RHOA
SMAD4
AT M
ATRX
AXIN1
BCOR
CDKN1B
CUX1
GNAS
MLH1
NOTCH1
PHF6
SMARCA4
STAG2
ZFP36L1
APC
CASP8
CBLB
CNOT3
ECT2L
MEN1
MSH2
NRAS
PBRM1
PMS2
STK11
TET2
ASXL1
BRAF
BUB1B
CIC
ERCC4
HRAS
NF2
PRDM1
PREX2
ER positive ER negative
**
b
a
100
Figure 1 | Cohort and catalogue of somatic mutations in 560breast
cancers. a, Catalogue of base substitutions, insertions/deletions,
rearrangements and driver mutations in 560breast cancers (sorted by
total substitution burden). Indel axis limited to 5,000(*). b, Complete list
of curated driver genes sorted by frequency (descending). Fraction of ER-
positive (left, total 366) and ER-negative (right, total 194) samples carrying
a mutation in the relevant driver gene presented in grey. log10 P value of
enrichment of each driver gene towards the ER-positive or ER-negative
cohort is provided in black. Highlighted in green are genes for which there
is new or further evidence supporting these as novel breast cancer genes.
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
2 | NATURE | VOL 000 | 00 MONTH 2016
ARTICLE
RESEARCH
and defective DNA maintenance, are responsible for generating
these mutations1–3.
Over the past five decades, several waves of technology have advanced
the characterization of mutations in cancer genomes. Karyotype
analysis revealed rearranged chromosomes and copy number
alterations. Subsequently, loss of heterozygosity analysis, hybridization
of cancer-derived DNA to microarrays and other approaches provided
higher resolution insights into copy number changes
4–8
. Recently, DNA
sequencing has enabled systematic characterization of the full reper-
toire of mutation types including base substitutions, small insertions/
deletions, rearrangements and copy number changes9–13, yielding
substantial insights into the mutated cancer genes and mutational
processes operative in human cancer.
As for many cancer classes, most currently available breast cancer
genome sequences target protein-coding exons
8,11–15
. Consequently,
there has been limited consideration of mutations in untranslated,
intronic and intergenic regions, leaving central questions pertaining
to the molecular pathogenesis of the disease unresolved. First, the role
of activating driver rearrangements16–18 forming chimaeric (fusion)
genes/proteins or relocating genes adjacent to new regulatory regions
as observed in haematological and other malignancies
19
. Second, the
role of driver substitutions and indels in non-coding regions of the
genome20,21. Common inherited variants conferring susceptibility to
human disease are generally in non-coding regulatory regions and
the possibility that similar mechanisms operate somatically in cancer
was highlighted by the discovery of somatic driver substitutions in the
TERT gene promoter
22,23
. Third, which mutational processes generate
the somatic mutations found in breast cancer2,24. Addressing this
question has been constrained because exome sequences do not inform
on genome rearrangements and capture relatively few base substitu-
tion mutations, thus limiting statistical power to extract the mutational
signatures imprinted on the genome by these processes24,25.
Here we analyse whole-genome sequences of 560cases in order to
address these and other questions and to pave the way to a compre-
hensive understanding of the origins and consequences of somatic
mutations in breast cancer.
Cancer genes and driver mutations
The whole genomes of 560 breast cancers and non-neoplastic
tissue from each individual (556 female and 4 male) were
sequenced (Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1).
We detected 3,479,652somatic base substitutions, 371,993small indels
and 77,695rearrangements, with substantial variation in the number
of each between individual samples (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Table 3).
Trans criptom e s equenc e, mi croRNA e xpressi on, array-b ased copy num -
ber and DNA methylation data were obtained from subsets of cases.
To identify new cancer genes, we combined somatic substitutions
and indels in protein-coding exons with data from other series12–15,26,
constituting a total of 1,332breast cancers, and searched for mutation
clustering in each gene beyond that expected by chance. Five cancer
genes were found for which evidence was previously absent or equivocal
(MED23, FOXP1, MLLT4, XBP1, ZFP36L1), or for which the muta-
tions indicate the gene acts in breast cancer in a recessive rather than in
a dominant fashion, as previously reported in other cancer types (see
Supplementary Methods section 7.4 for detailed descriptions). From
published reports on all cancer types (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/census),
Enrichment
log P value
010–10
020406080100
Fraction of samples
with driver
ER positive ER negative
5,000
80,000
1,200
20
Substitutions
Indels
Rearrangements
Driver mutations
Fraction of samples
with driver
020406080
TP53
PIK3CA
MYC
CCND1
PTEN
ERBB2
ZNF703/FGFR1
GATA 3
RB1
MAP3K1
MAP2K4
ZNF217
CDH1
MLL3
ARID1B
CDKN2A
MLLT 4
AKT1
FBXW7
ARID1A
CCND3
CBFB
MDM2
CCNE1
CDKN2B
NCOR1
SF3B1
SPEN
TBX3
IGF1R
BRCA2
NF1
PIK3R1
EGFR
KRAS
ESR1
FOXA1
MED23
CDK6
NOTCH2
AKT2
BRCA1
CTCF
KDM6A
SETD2
CREBBP
DNMT3A
FOXP1
MLL2
RUNX1
USP9X
XBP1
PDGFRA
AT R
ERBB3
FGFR2
PA LB2
RHOA
SMAD4
AT M
ATRX
AXIN1
BCOR
CDKN1B
CUX1
GNAS
MLH1
NOTCH1
PHF6
SMARCA4
STAG2
ZFP36L1
APC
CASP8
CBLB
CNOT3
ECT2L
MEN1
MSH2
NRAS
PBRM1
PMS2
STK11
TET2
ASXL1
BRAF
BUB1B
CIC
ERCC4
HRAS
NF2
PRDM1
PREX2
ER positive ER negative
**
b
a
100
Figure 1 | Cohort and catalogue of somatic mutations in 560breast
cancers. a, Catalogue of base substitutions, insertions/deletions,
rearrangements and driver mutations in 560breast cancers (sorted by
total substitution burden). Indel axis limited to 5,000(*). b, Complete list
of curated driver genes sorted by frequency (descending). Fraction of ER-
positive (left, total 366) and ER-negative (right, total 194) samples carrying
a mutation in the relevant driver gene presented in grey. log10 P value of
enrichment of each driver gene towards the ER-positive or ER-negative
cohort is provided in black. Highlighted in green are genes for which there
is new or further evidence supporting these as novel breast cancer genes.
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
1 / 14 100%
La catégorie de ce document est-elle correcte?
Merci pour votre participation!

Faire une suggestion

Avez-vous trouvé des erreurs dans l'interface ou les textes ? Ou savez-vous comment améliorer l'interface utilisateur de StudyLib ? N'hésitez pas à envoyer vos suggestions. C'est très important pour nous!