Publisher Correction: Truncated FGFR2 is a clinically actionable oncogene in multiple cancers.

This paper was originally published under a standard Springer Nature license

XenofilteR: computational deconvolution of mouse and human reads in tumor xenograft sequence data.

BACKGROUND: Mouse xenografts from (patient-derived) tumors (PDX) or tumor cell lines are widely used as models to study various biological and preclinical aspects of cancer. However, analyses of their RNA and DNA profiles are challenging, because they comprise reads not only from the grafted human cancer but also from the murine host. The reads of murine origin result in false positives in mutation analysis of DNA samples and obscure gene expression levels when sequencing RNA. However, currently available algorithms are limited and improvements in accuracy and ease of use are necessary. RESULTS: We developed the R-package XenofilteR, which separates mouse from human sequence reads based on the edit-distance between a sequence read and reference genome. To assess the accuracy of XenofilteR, we generated sequence data by in silico mixing of mouse and human DNA sequence data. These analyses revealed that XenofilteR removes > 99.9% of sequence reads of mouse origin while retaining human sequences. This allowed for mutation analysis of xenograft samples with accurate variant allele frequencies, and retrieved all non-synonymous somatic tumor mutations. CONCLUSIONS: XenofilteR accurately dissects RNA and DNA sequences from mouse and human origin, thereby outperforming currently available tools. XenofilteR is open source and available at https://github.com/PeeperLab/XenofilteR

Replication Fork Stability Confers Chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient Cells

Brca1- and Brca2-deficient cells have reduced capacity to repair DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by homologous recombination (HR) and consequently are hypersensitive to DNA damaging agents, including cisplatin and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Here we show that loss of the MLL3/4 complex protein, PTIP, protects Brca1/2-deficient cells from DNA damage and rescues the lethality of Brca2-deficient embryonic stem cells. However, PTIP deficiency does not restore HR activity at DSBs. Instead, its absence inhibits the recruitment of the MRE11 nuclease to stalled replication forks, which in turn protects nascent DNA strands from extensive degradation. More generally, acquisition of PARPi and cisplatin resistance is associated with replication fork (RF) protection in Brca2-deficient tumor cells that do not develop Brca2 reversion mutations. Disruption of multiple proteins, including PARP1 and CHD4, leads to the same end point of RF protection, highlighting the complexities by which tumor cells evade chemotherapeutic interventions and acquire drug resistance

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Multi-omics analysis reveals distinct non-reversion mechanisms of PARPi resistance in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-deficient mammary tumors

Summary: BRCA1 and BRCA2 both function in DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination (HR). Due to their HR defect, BRCA1/2-deficient cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis), but they eventually acquire resistance. Preclinical studies yielded several PARPi resistance mechanisms that do not involve BRCA1/2 reactivation, but their relevance in the clinic remains elusive. To investigate which BRCA1/2-independent mechanisms drive spontaneous resistance in vivo, we combine molecular profiling with functional analysis of HR of matched PARPi-naive and PARPi-resistant mouse mammary tumors harboring large intragenic deletions that prevent reactivation of BRCA1/2. We observe restoration of HR in 62% of PARPi-resistant BRCA1-deficient tumors but none in the PARPi-resistant BRCA2-deficient tumors. Moreover, we find that 53BP1 loss is the prevalent resistance mechanism in HR-proficient BRCA1-deficient tumors, whereas resistance in BRCA2-deficient tumors is mainly induced by PARG loss. Furthermore, combined multi-omics analysis identifies additional genes and pathways potentially involved in modulating PARPi response

Insertional mutagenesis identifies drivers of a novel oncogenic pathway in invasive lobular breast carcinoma

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common breast cancer subtype and accounts for 8-14% of all cases. Although the majority of human ILCs are characterized by the functional loss of E-cadherin (encoded by CDH1), inactivation of Cdh1 does not predispose mice to develop mammary tumors, implying that mutations in additional genes are required for ILC formation in mice. To identify these genes, we performed an insertional mutagenesis screen using the Sleeping Beauty transposon system in mice with mammary-specific inactivation of Cdh1. These mice developed multiple independent mammary tumors of which the majority resembled human ILC in terms of morphology and gene expression. Recurrent and mutually exclusive transposon insertions were identified in Myh9, Ppp1r12a, Ppp1r12b and Trp53bp2, whose products have been implicated in the regulation of the actin cytoskeleton. Notably, MYH9, PPP1R12B and TP53BP2 were also frequently aberrated in human ILC, highlighting these genes as drivers of a novel oncogenic pathway underlying ILC development

Erratum: Selective Loss of PARG Restores PARylation and Counteracts PARP Inhibitor-Mediated Synthetic Lethality (Cancer Cell (2018) 33(6) (1078–1093.e12), (S1535610818302228), (10.1016/j.ccell.2018.05.008))

(Cancer Cell 33, 1078–1093.e1–e12; June 11, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the red section (>20%) of the pie chart “Triple-negative breast cancers” in Figure 6D was incorrectly labeled; however, the related numbers stated in the Results section are correct. The correct Figure 6 is now shown here and in the online version of the paper. The authors apologize for any confusion this error may have caused