Ku Regulates the Non-Homologous End Joining Pathway Choice of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair in Human Somatic Cells

The repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is critical for the maintenance of genomic integrity and viability for all organisms. Mammals have evolved at least two genetically discrete ways to mediate DNA DSB repair: homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). In mammalian cells, most DSBs are preferentially repaired by NHEJ. Recent work has demonstrated that NHEJ consists of at least two sub-pathways—the main Ku heterodimer-dependent or “classic” NHEJ (C-NHEJ) pathway and an “alternative” NHEJ (A-NHEJ) pathway, which usually generates microhomology-mediated signatures at repair junctions. In our study, recombinant adeno-associated virus knockout vectors were utilized to construct a series of isogenic human somatic cell lines deficient in the core C-NHEJ factors (Ku, DNA-PKcs, XLF, and LIGIV), and the resulting cell lines were characterized for their ability to carry out DNA DSB repair. The absence of DNA-PKcs, XLF, or LIGIV resulted in cell lines that were profoundly impaired in DNA DSB repair activity. Unexpectedly, Ku86-null cells showed wild-type levels of DNA DSB repair activity that was dominated by microhomology joining events indicative of A-NHEJ. Importantly, A-NHEJ DNA DSB repair activity could also be efficiently de-repressed in LIGIV-null and DNA-PKcs-null cells by subsequently reducing the level of Ku70. These studies demonstrate that in human cells C-NHEJ is the major DNA DSB repair pathway and they show that Ku is the critical C-NHEJ factor that regulates DNA NHEJ DSB pathway choice

Medulloblastoma Exome Sequencing Uncovers Subtype-Specific Somatic Mutations

Medulloblastomas are the most common malignant brain tumors in children1. Identifying and understanding the genetic events that drive these tumors is critical for the development of more effective diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic strategies. Recently, our group and others described distinct molecular subtypes of medulloblastoma based on transcriptional and copy number profiles2–5. Here, we utilized whole exome hybrid capture and deep sequencing to identify somatic mutations across the coding regions of 92 primary medulloblastoma/normal pairs. Overall, medulloblastomas exhibit low mutation rates consistent with other pediatric tumors, with a median of 0.35 non-silent mutations per megabase. We identified twelve genes mutated at statistically significant frequencies, including previously known mutated genes in medulloblastoma such as CTNNB1, PTCH1, MLL2, SMARCA4 and TP53. Recurrent somatic mutations were identified in an RNA helicase gene, DDX3X, often concurrent with CTNNB1 mutations, and in the nuclear co-repressor (N-CoR) complex genes GPS2, BCOR, and LDB1, novel findings in medulloblastoma. We show that mutant DDX3X potentiates transactivation of a TCF promoter and enhances cell viability in combination with mutant but not wild type beta-catenin. Together, our study reveals the alteration of Wnt, Hedgehog, histone methyltransferase and now N-CoR pathways across medulloblastomas and within specific subtypes of this disease, and nominates the RNA helicase DDX3X as a component of pathogenic beta-catenin signaling in medulloblastoma

Genome Sequencing of SHH Medulloblastoma Predicts Genotype-Related Response to Smoothened Inhibition

SummarySmoothened (SMO) inhibitors recently entered clinical trials for sonic-hedgehog-driven medulloblastoma (SHH-MB). Clinical response is highly variable. To understand the mechanism(s) of primary resistance and identify pathways cooperating with aberrant SHH signaling, we sequenced and profiled a large cohort of SHH-MBs (n = 133). SHH pathway mutations involved PTCH1 (across all age groups), SUFU (infants, including germline), and SMO (adults). Children >3 years old harbored an excess of downstream MYCN and GLI2 amplifications and frequent TP53 mutations, often in the germline, all of which were rare in infants and adults. Functional assays in different SHH-MB xenograft models demonstrated that SHH-MBs harboring a PTCH1 mutation were responsive to SMO inhibition, whereas tumors harboring an SUFU mutation or MYCN amplification were primarily resistant

A comprehensive assessment of somatic mutation detection in cancer using whole-genome sequencing.

As whole-genome sequencing for cancer genome analysis becomes a clinical tool, a full understanding of the variables affecting sequencing analysis output is required. Here using tumour-normal sample pairs from two different types of cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and medulloblastoma, we conduct a benchmarking exercise within the context of the International Cancer Genome Consortium. We compare sequencing methods, analysis pipelines and validation methods. We show that using PCR-free methods and increasing sequencing depth to ∼ 100 × shows benefits, as long as the tumour:control coverage ratio remains balanced. We observe widely varying mutation call rates and low concordance among analysis pipelines, reflecting the artefact-prone nature of the raw data and lack of standards for dealing with the artefacts. However, we show that, using the benchmark mutation set we have created, many issues are in fact easy to remedy and have an immediate positive impact on mutation detection accuracy.We thank the DKFZ Genomics and Proteomics Core Facility and the OICR Genome Technologies Platform for provision of sequencing services. Financial support was provided by the consortium projects READNA under grant agreement FP7 Health-F4-2008-201418, ESGI under grant agreement 262055, GEUVADIS under grant agreement 261123 of the European Commission Framework Programme 7, ICGC-CLL through the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) and the Generalitat de Catalunya. Additional financial support was provided by the PedBrain Tumor Project contributing to the International Cancer Genome Consortium, funded by German Cancer Aid (109252) and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grants #01KU1201A, MedSys #0315416C and NGFNplus #01GS0883; the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research to PCB and JDM through funding provided by the Government of Ontario, Ministry of Research and Innovation; Genome Canada; the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Prostate Cancer Canada with funding from the Movember Foundation (PCB). PCB was also supported by a Terry Fox Research Institute New Investigator Award, a CIHR New Investigator Award and a Genome Canada Large-Scale Applied Project Contract. The Synergie Lyon Cancer platform has received support from the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa) and from the ABS4NGS ANR project (ANR-11-BINF-0001-06). The ICGC RIKEN study was supported partially by RIKEN President’s Fund 2011, and the supercomputing resource for the RIKEN study was provided by the Human Genome Center, University of Tokyo. MDE, LB, AGL and CLA were supported by Cancer Research UK, the University of Cambridge and Hutchison-Whampoa Limited. SD is supported by the Torres Quevedo subprogram (MI CINN) under grant agreement PTQ-12-05391. EH is supported by the Research Council of Norway under grant agreements 221580 and 218241 and by the Norwegian Cancer Society under grant agreement 71220-PR-2006-0433. Very special thanks go to Jennifer Jennings for administrating the activity of the ICGC Verification Working Group and Anna Borrell for administrative support.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1000

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

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts

Mechismo: predicting the mechanistic impact of mutations and modifications on molecular interactions

Systematic interrogation of mutation or protein modification data is important to identify sites with functional consequences and to deduce global consequences from large data sets. Mechismo (mechismo.russellab.org) enables simultaneous consideration of thousands of 3D structures and biomolecular interactions to predict rapidly mechanistic consequences for mutations and modifications. As useful functional information often only comes from homologous proteins, we benchmarked the accuracy of predictions as a function of protein/structure sequence similarity, which permits the use of relatively weak sequence similarities with an appropriate confidence measure. For protein–protein, protein–nucleic acid and a subset of protein–chemical interactions, we also developed and benchmarked a measure of whether modifications are likely to enhance or diminish the interactions, which can assist the detection of modifications with specific effects. Analysis of high-throughput sequencing data shows that the approach can identify interesting differences between cancers, and application to proteomics data finds potential mechanistic insights for how post-translational modifications can alter biomolecular interactions

Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies

<div><p>The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina’s HiSeq2000, Life Technologies’ SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics’ technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies’ platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes.</p></div