Genomic Diversity among Drug Sensitive and Multidrug Resistant Isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with Identical DNA Fingerprints

complex (MTBC), the causative agent of tuberculosis (TB), is characterized by low sequence diversity making this bacterium one of the classical examples of a genetically monomorphic pathogen. Because of this limited DNA sequence variation, routine genotyping of clinical MTBC isolates for epidemiological purposes relies on highly discriminatory DNA fingerprinting methods based on mobile and repetitive genetic elements. According to the standard view, isolates exhibiting the same fingerprinting pattern are considered direct progeny of the same bacterial clone, and most likely reflect ongoing transmission or disease relapse within individual patients.We generated 23.9 million (K-1) and 33.0 million (K-2) paired 50 bp purity filtered reads corresponding to a mean coverage of 483.5 fold and 656.1 fold respectively. Compared with the laboratory strain H37Rv both Beijing isolates shared 1,209 SNPs. The two Beijing isolates differed by 130 SNPs and one large deletion. The susceptible isolate had 55 specific SNPs, while the MDR variant had 75 specific SNPs, including the five known resistance-conferring mutations. isolates exhibiting identical DNA fingerprinting patterns can harbour substantial genomic diversity. Because this heterogeneity is not captured by traditional genotyping of MTBC, some aspects of the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis could be missed or misinterpreted. Furthermore, a valid differentiation between disease relapse and exogenous reinfection might be impossible using standard genotyping tools if the overall diversity of circulating clones is limited. These findings have important implications for clinical trials of new anti-tuberculosis drugs

Prevalence of and factors associated with MDR Neisseria gonorrhoeae in England and Wales between 2004 and 2015: analysis of annual cross-sectional surveillance surveys.

Objectives: To describe trends in prevalence, susceptibility profile and risk factors for MDR Neisseria gonorrhoeae (MDR-NG) in England and Wales. Methods: Isolates from 16 242 gonorrhoea episodes at sexual health clinics within the Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobials Surveillance Programme (GRASP) underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. MDR-NG was defined as resistance to ceftriaxone, cefixime or azithromycin, plus at least two of penicillin, ciprofloxacin and spectinomycin. Trends in resistance are presented for 2004-15; prevalence and logistic regression analyses for MDR-NG cover the period of the most recent treatment guideline (ceftriaxone plus azithromycin), 2011-15. Results: Between 2004 and 2015, the proportion of N. gonorrhoeae isolates fully susceptible to all antimicrobial classes fell from 80% to 46%, with the proportion resistant to multiple (two or more) classes increasing from 7.3% to 17.5%. In 2011-15, 3.5% of isolates were MDR-NG, most of which were resistant to cefixime (100% in 2011, decreasing to 36.9% in 2015) and/or azithromycin (4.2% in 2011, increasing to 84.3% in 2015). After excluding azithromycin-resistant isolates, modal azithromycin MICs were higher in MDR versus non-MDR isolates (0.5 versus 0.125 mg/L), with similar results for ceftriaxone (modal MICs 0.03 versus ≤0.002 mg/L). After adjustment for confounders, MDR-NG was more common among isolates from heterosexual men, although absolute differences in prevalence were small [4.6% versus 3.3% (MSM) and 2.5% (women)]. Conclusions: N. gonorrhoeae is becoming less susceptible to available antimicrobials. Since 2011, a minority of isolates were MDR-NG; however, MICs of azithromycin or ceftriaxone (first-line therapies) for many of these were elevated. These findings highlight the importance of continued antimicrobial stewardship for gonorrhoea

Processed pseudogenes acquired somatically during cancer development.

Cancer evolves by mutation, with somatic reactivation of retrotransposons being one such mutational process. Germline retrotransposition can cause processed pseudogenes, but whether this occurs somatically has not been evaluated. Here we screen sequencing data from 660 cancer samples for somatically acquired pseudogenes. We find 42 events in 17 samples, especially non-small cell lung cancer (5/27) and colorectal cancer (2/11). Genomic features mirror those of germline LINE element retrotranspositions, with frequent target-site duplications (67%), consensus TTTTAA sites at insertion points, inverted rearrangements (21%), 5' truncation (74%) and polyA tails (88%). Transcriptional consequences include expression of pseudogenes from UTRs or introns of target genes. In addition, a somatic pseudogene that integrated into the promoter and first exon of the tumour suppressor gene, MGA, abrogated expression from that allele. Thus, formation of processed pseudogenes represents a new class of mutation occurring during cancer development, with potentially diverse functional consequences depending on genomic context

The life history of 21 breast cancers.

Cancer evolves dynamically as clonal expansions supersede one another driven by shifting selective pressures, mutational processes, and disrupted cancer genes. These processes mark the genome, such that a cancer's life history is encrypted in the somatic mutations present. We developed algorithms to decipher this narrative and applied them to 21 breast cancers. Mutational processes evolve across a cancer's lifespan, with many emerging late but contributing extensive genetic variation. Subclonal diversification is prominent, and most mutations are found in just a fraction of tumor cells. Every tumor has a dominant subclonal lineage, representing more than 50% of tumor cells. Minimal expansion of these subclones occurs until many hundreds to thousands of mutations have accumulated, implying the existence of long-lived, quiescent cell lineages capable of substantial proliferation upon acquisition of enabling genomic changes. Expansion of the dominant subclone to an appreciable mass may therefore represent the final rate-limiting step in a breast cancer's development, triggering diagnosis

Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers

All cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed "kataegis," was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed

Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers.

All cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed "kataegis," was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed

Processed pseudogenes acquired somatically during cancer development

Cancer evolves by mutation, with somatic reactivation of retrotransposons being one such mutational process. Germline retrotransposition can cause processed pseudogenes, but whether this occurs somatically has not been evaluated. Here we screen sequencing data from 660 cancer samples for somatically acquired pseudogenes. We find 42 events in 17 samples, especially non-small cell lung cancer (5/27) and colorectal cancer (2/11). Genomic features mirror those of germline LINE element retrotranspositions, with frequent target-site duplications (67%), consensus TTTTAA sites at insertion points, inverted rearrangements (21%), 5′ truncation (74%) and polyA tails (88%). Transcriptional consequences include expression of pseudogenes from UTRs or introns of target genes. In addition, a somatic pseudogene that integrated into the promoter and first exon of the tumour suppressor gene, MGA, abrogated expression from that allele. Thus, formation of processed pseudogenes represents a new class of mutation occurring during cancer development, with potentially diverse functional consequences depending on genomic context

Processed pseudogenes acquired somatically during cancer development

Cancer evolves by mutation, with somatic reactivation of retrotransposons being one such mutational process. Germline retrotransposition can cause processed pseudogenes, but whether this occurs somatically has not been evaluated. Here we screen sequencing data from 660 cancer samples for somatically acquired pseudogenes. We find 42 events in 17 samples, especially non-small cell lung cancer (5/27) and colorectal cancer (2/11). Genomic features mirror those of germline LINE element retrotranspositions, with frequent target-site duplications (67%), consensus TTTTAA sites at insertion points, inverted rearrangements (21%), 5′ truncation (74%) and polyA tails (88%). Transcriptional consequences include expression of pseudogenes from UTRs or introns of target genes. In addition, a somatic pseudogene that integrated into the promoter and first exon of the tumour suppressor gene, MGA, abrogated expression from that allele. Thus, formation of processed pseudogenes represents a new class of mutation occurring during cancer development, with potentially diverse functional consequences depending on genomic context. Germline pseudogenes have an important role in human evolution. Here, the authors analyse sequencing data from 660 cancer samples and find evidence for the formation of somatically acquired pseudogenes, a new class of mutation, which may contribute to cancer development

Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer.

All cancers are caused by somatic mutations; however, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single cancer class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, 'kataegis', is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer, with potential implications for understanding of cancer aetiology, prevention and therapy