| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jiang, X., et al.
(författare)
-
Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (r(g) = 0.57, p = 4.6 x 10(-8)), breast and ovarian cancer (r(g) = 0.24, p = 7 x 10(-5)), breast and lung cancer (r(g) = 0.18, p = 1.5 x 10(-6)) and breast and colorectal cancer (r(g) = 0.15, p = 1.1 x 10(-4)). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Abe, O, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials
- 2005
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 365:9472, s. 1687-1717
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Quinquennial overviews (1985-2000) of the randomised trials in early breast cancer have assessed the 5-year and 10-year effects of various systemic adjuvant therapies on breast cancer recurrence and survival. Here, we report the 10-year and 15-year effects. Methods Collaborative meta-analyses were undertaken of 194 unconfounded randomised trials of adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy that began by 1995. Many trials involved CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil), anthracycline-based combinations such as FAC (fluorouracil, doxombicin, cyclophosphamide) or FEC (fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide), tamoxifen, or ovarian suppression: none involved taxanes, trastuzumab, raloxifene, or modem aromatase inhibitors. Findings Allocation to about 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy (eg, with FAC or FEC) reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by about 38% (SE 5) for women younger than 50 years of age when diagnosed and by about 20% (SE 4) for those of age 50-69 years when diagnosed, largely irrespective of the use of tamoxifen and of oestrogen receptor (ER) status, nodal status, or other tumour characteristics. Such regimens are significantly (2p=0 . 0001 for recurrence, 2p<0 . 00001 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than CMF chemotherapy. Few women of age 70 years or older entered these chemotherapy trials. For ER-positive disease only, allocation to about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by 31% (SE 3), largely irrespective of the use of chemotherapy and of age (<50, 50-69, &GE; 70 years), progesterone receptor status, or other tumour characteristics. 5 years is significantly (2p<0 . 00001 for recurrence, 2p=0 . 01 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than just 1-2 years of tamoxifen. For ER-positive tumours, the annual breast cancer mortality rates are similar during years 0-4 and 5-14, as are the proportional reductions in them by 5 years of tamoxifen, so the cumulative reduction in mortality is more than twice as big at 15 years as at 5 years after diagnosis. These results combine six meta-analyses: anthracycline-based versus no chemotherapy (8000 women); CMF-based versus no chemotherapy (14 000); anthracycline-based versus CMF-based chemotherapy (14 000); about 5 years of tamoxifen versus none (15 000); about 1-2 years of tamoxifen versus none (33 000); and about 5 years versus 1-2 years of tamoxifen (18 000). Finally, allocation to ovarian ablation or suppression (8000 women) also significantly reduces breast cancer mortality, but appears to do so only in the absence of other systemic treatments. For middle-aged women with ER-positive disease (the commonest type of breast cancer), the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the next 15 years would be approximately halved by 6 months of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (with a combination such as FAC or FEC) followed by 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. For, if mortality reductions of 38% (age <50 years) and 20% (age 50-69 years) from such chemotherapy were followed by a further reduction of 31% from tamoxifen in the risks that remain, the final mortality reductions would be 57% and 45%, respectively (and, the trial results could well have been somewhat stronger if there had been full compliance with the allocated treatments). Overall survival would be comparably improved, since these treatments have relatively small effects on mortality from the aggregate of all other causes. Interpretation Some of the widely practicable adjuvant drug treatments that were being tested in the 1980s, which substantially reduced 5-year recurrence rates (but had somewhat less effect on 5-year mortality rates), also substantially reduce 15-year mortality rates. Further improvements in long-term survival could well be available from newer drugs, or better use of older drugs.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
