There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer, a highly aggressive tumour type with uniformly poor prognosis,
exemplifies the classically held view of stepwise cancer development. The current
model of tumorigenesis, based on analyses of precursor lesions, termed pancreatic
intraepithelial neoplasm (PanINs) lesions, makes two predictions: first, that pancreatic
cancer develops through a particular sequence of genetic alterations (KRAS, followed
by CDKN2A, then TP53 and SMAD4); and second, that the evolutionary trajectory of pancreatic
cancer progression is gradual because each alteration is acquired independently. A
shortcoming of this model is that clonally expanded precursor lesions do not always
belong to the tumour lineage, indicating that the evolutionary trajectory of the tumour
lineage and precursor lesions can be divergent. This prevailing model of tumorigenesis
has contributed to the clinical notion that pancreatic cancer evolves slowly and presents
at a late stage. However, the propensity for this disease to rapidly metastasize and
the inability to improve patient outcomes, despite efforts aimed at early detection,
suggest that pancreatic cancer progression is not gradual. Here, using newly developed
informatics tools, we tracked changes in DNA copy number and their associated rearrangements
in tumour-enriched genomes and found that pancreatic cancer tumorigenesis is neither
gradual nor follows the accepted mutation order. Two-thirds of tumours harbour complex
rearrangement patterns associated with mitotic errors, consistent with punctuated
equilibrium as the principal evolutionary trajectory. In a subset of cases, the consequence
of such errors is the simultaneous, rather than sequential, knockout of canonical
preneoplastic genetic drivers that are likely to set-off invasive cancer growth. These
findings challenge the current progression model of pancreatic cancer and provide
insights into the mutational processes that give rise to these aggressive tumours.
Changes in gene dosage are a major driver of cancer, engineered from a finite, but increasingly well annotated, repertoire of mutational mechanisms 1 . This can potentially generate correlated copy number alterations across hundreds of linked genes, as exemplified by the 2% of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with recurrent amplification of megabase regions of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) 2,3 . We used genomic, cytogenetic and transcriptional analysis, coupled with novel bioinformatic approaches, to reconstruct the evolution of iAMP21 ALL. We find that individuals born with the rare constitutional Robertsonian translocation between chromosomes 15 and 21, rob(15;21)(q10;q10)c, have ~2700-fold increased risk of developing iAMP21 ALL compared to the general population. In such cases, amplification is initiated by a chromothripsis event involving both sister chromatids of the Robertsonian chromosome, a novel mechanism for cancer predisposition. In sporadic iAMP21, breakage-fusion-bridge cycles are typically the initiating event, often followed by chromothripsis. In both sporadic and rob(15;21)c-associated iAMP21, the final stages frequently involve duplications of the entire abnormal chromosome. The end-product is a derivative of chromosome 21 or the rob(15;21)c chromosome with gene dosage optimised for leukemic potential, showing constrained copy number levels over multiple linked genes. Thus, dicentric chromosomes may be an important precipitant of chromothripsis, as we show rob(15;21)c to be constitutionally dicentric and breakage-fusion-bridge cycles generate dicentric chromosomes somatically. Furthermore, our data illustrate that several cancer-specific mutational processes, applied sequentially, can co-ordinate to fashion copy number profiles over large genomic scales, incrementally refining the fitness benefits of aggregated gene dosage changes.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.