Characterising Somatic Mutations in Cancer Genome by Means of Next‐generation Sequencing

Mei Ling Chong, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Chee Seng Ku, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Mengchu Wu, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Richie Soong, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Published online: February 2012

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0023379

Cancer genome sequencing studies have identified tens of thousands of somatic mutations in various human cancers to date. This data has started to generate new insights into mutation patterns and their differences between various cancers. Further, the mutation patterns have also helped to elucidate mechanism involved in generating mutations in cancer genome such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)‐repair processes and mutagen exposures. With the introduction of next‐generation sequencing technologies, cancer genome sequencing has evolved from a targeted sequencing approach to whole‐exome sequencing and whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) approaches. However, each sequencing approach has its strengths and limitations. It is widely anticipated that WGS would eventually replace targeted and exome sequencing. WGS offers a unique advantage to study structural variants or rearrangements and fusion genes in a single experiment, in addition to point mutations. However, currently the WGS is still prohibitively expensive for a large number of samples. Despite these technological advances, several challenges still remain, such as discerning driver mutations from benign mutations and collection of high‐quality primary tumour tissues to minimise tissue heterogeneity. Ultimately, a comprehensive delineation of the somatic mutations in the cancer genome would require WGS of a large number of samples from various cancer types and subtypes. Congruent to this goal, the International Cancer Genome Consortium was initiated and upon completion of the project, its data is expected to further enhance our knowledge and understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying cancer development.

Key Concepts:

  • Several sequencing approaches are available to decipher the somatic mutation profile of cancer genome, including targeted sequencing, whole‐exome sequencing (WES) and whole‐genome sequencing (WGS).
  • Targeted sequencing is a hypothesis‐driven approach where candidate genes were often selected based on knowledge of previously reported mutated genes or their related functions in cancer development, such as the kinome or phosphatome.
  • The ability to study different cancers and their subtypes in a comparatively higher throughput to exome and WGS is an important advantage of the targeted sequencing approach.
  • The introduction of multiple commercial exome enrichment kits has circumvented the technical challenges in isolating the entire exome for sequencing.
  • Although WES interrogates only approximately 1–2% of the entire human genome, the several hundred somatic mutations identified in WES studies have already prohibited all of them to be examined by follow‐up studies in larger sample series.
  • The advances of NGS technologies and rapidly declining sequencing cost have enabled the completion of a number of WGS studies for various cancers.
  • The patterns of somatic mutations provided by WGS are useful in elucidating the mechanisms of generating the mutations in cancer genome such as DNA‐repair processes and differences in mutagen exposure.
  • A further advantage over the other two sequencing approaches of WGS is its ability to identify structural rearrangements.
  • Although WES and WGS approaches have now been shown to be technically feasible, several challenges still remain.
  • Delineating patterns of somatic mutations in the cancer genome require a comprehensive interrogation of cancer genomes (entire genome, exome or a large number of candidate genes) in series of up to hundreds of samples.

Keywords: somatic mutation; targeted sequencing; whole‐exome sequencing; whole‐genome sequencing; next‐generation sequencing; cancer genome; single nucleotide variation; copy number variation; structural rearrangement; fusion gene

 References
    Agrawal N, Frederick MJ, Pickering CR et al. (2011) Exome sequencing of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma reveals inactivating mutations in NOTCH1. Science 333: 1154–1157.
    Berger MF, Lawrence MS, Demichelis F et al. (2011) The genomic complexity of primary human prostate cancer. Nature 470: 214–220.
    Campbell PJ, Stephens PJ, Pleasance ED et al. (2008) Identification of somatically acquired rearrangements in cancer using genome‐wide massively parallel paired‐end sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics 40: 722–729.
    Chapman MA, Lawrence MS, Keats JJ et al. (2011) Initial genome sequencing and analysis of multiple myeloma. Nature 471: 467–472.
    Clark MJ, Chen R, Lam HY et al. (2011) Performance comparison of exome DNA sequencing technologies. Nature Biotechnology 29: 908–914.
    Dalgliesh GL, Furge K, Greenman C et al. (2010) Systematic sequencing of renal carcinoma reveals inactivation of histone modifying genes. Nature 463: 360–363.
    Ding L, Ellis MJ, Li S et al. (2010) Genome remodelling in a basal‐like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 464: 999–1005.
    Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA et al. (2008) Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 455: 1069–1075.
    Fabbri G, Rasi S, Rossi D et al. (2011) Analysis of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia coding genome: role of Notch1 mutational activation. Journal of Experimental Medicine 208: 1389–1401.
    Greenman C, Stephens P, Smith R et al. (2007) Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature 446: 153–158.
    Gui Y, Guo G, Huang Y et al. (2011) Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling genes in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Nature Genetics 43: 875–878.
    Hainaut P, Olivier M and Pfeifer GP (2001) TP53 mutation spectrum in lung cancers and mutagenic signature of components of tobacco smoke: lessons from the IARC TP53 mutation database. Mutagenesis 16: 551–553.
    Hudson TJ, Anderson W, Artez A et al. (2010) International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464: 993–998.
    Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW et al. (2008) Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 321: 1801–1806.
    Kan Z, Jaiswal BS, Stinson J et al. (2010) Diverse somatic mutation patterns and pathway alterations in human cancers. Nature 466: 869–873.
    Lee W, Jiang Z, Liu J et al. (2010) The mutation spectrum revealed by paired genome sequences from a lung cancer patient. Nature 465: 473–477.
    Ley TJ, Mardis ER, Ding L et al. (2008) DNA sequencing of a cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukaemia genome. Nature 456: 66–72.
    Li M, Zhao H, Zhang X et al. (2011) Inactivating mutations of the chromatin remodeling gene arid2 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature Genetics 43: 828–829.
    Link DC, Schuettpelz LG, Shen D et al. (2011) Identification of a novel TP53 cancer susceptibility mutation through whole‐genome sequencing of a patient with therapy‐related AML. Journal of American Medical Association 305: 1568–1576.
    Machida K, Cheng KT, Sung VM et al. (2004) Hepatitis C virus induces a mutator phenotype: enhanced mutations of immunoglobulin and protooncogenes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 4262–4267.
    Makinen N, Mehine M, Tolvanen J et al. (2011) MED12, the mediator complex subunit 12 gene, is mutated at high frequency in uterine leiomyomas. Science 334: 252–255.
    Mardis ER, Ding L, Dooling DJ et al. (2009) Recurring mutations found by sequencing an acute myeloid leukemia genome. New England Journal of Medicine 361: 1058–1066.
    Meyerson M, Gabriel S and Getz G (2010) Advances in understanding cancer genomes through second‐generation sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics 11: 685–696.
    Mitelman F, Johansson B and Mertens F (2004) Fusion genes and rearranged genes as a linear function of chromosome aberrations in cancer. Nature Genetics 36: 331–334.
    Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC et al. (2004) EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304: 1497–1500.
    Parla JS, Iossifov I, Grabill I et al. (2011) A comparative analysis of exome capture. Genome Biology 12: R97.
    Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X et al. (2008) An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 321: 1807–1812.
    Pasqualucci L, Trifonov V, Fabbri G et al. (2011) Analysis of the coding genome of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. Nature Genetics 43: 830–837.
    Pfeifer GP and Hainaut P (2011) Next‐generation sequencing: emerging lessons on the origins of human cancer. Current Opinion in Oncology 23: 62–68.
    Pleasance ED, Cheetham RK, Stephens PJ et al. (2010a) A comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from a human cancer genome. Nature 463: 191–196.
    Pleasance ED, Stephens PJ, O'Meara S et al. (2010b) A small‐cell lung cancer genome with complex signatures of tobacco exposure. Nature 463: 184–190.
    Prickett TD, Agrawal NS, Wei X et al. (2009) Analysis of the tyrosine kinome in melanoma reveals recurrent mutations in ERBB4. Nature Genetics 41: 1127–1132.
    Puente XS, Pinyol M, Quesada V et al. (2011) Whole‐genome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Nature 475: 101–105.
    Robison K (2010) Application of second‐generation sequencing to cancer genomics. Brief Bioinformatics 11: 524–534.
    Samuels Y, Wang Z, Bardelli A et al. (2004) High frequency of mutations of the PIK3CA gene in human cancers. Science 304: 554.
    Schweiger MR, Kerick M, Timmermann B et al. (2011) The power of NGS technologies to delineate the genome organization in cancer: from mutations to structural variations and epigenetic alterations. Cancer and Metastasis Review 30: 199–210.
    Shah SP, Morin RD, Khattra J et al. (2009) Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution. Nature 461: 809–813.
    Sjoblom T, Jones S, Wood LD et al. (2006) The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314: 268–274.
    Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M et al. (2007) Identification of the transforming EML4‐ALK fusion gene in non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Nature 448: 561–566.
    Stephens PJ, McBride DJ, Lin ML et al. (2009) Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature 462: 1005–1010.
    Stransky N, Egloff AM, Tward AM et al. (2011) The mutational landscape of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Science 333: 1157–1160.
    Stratton MR (2011) Exploring the genomes of cancer cells: progress and promise. Science 331: 1553–1558.
    Sulonen AM, Ellonen P, Almusa H et al. (2011) Comparison of solution‐based exome capture methods for next generation sequencing. Genome Biology 12: R94.
    Tiacci E, Trifonov V, Schiavoni G et al. (2011) BRAF mutations in hairy‐cell leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine 364: 2305–2315.
    Tomlins SA, Laxman B, Dhanasekaran SM et al. (2007) Distinct classes of chromosomal rearrangements create oncogenic ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nature 448: 595–599.
    Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S et al. (2005) Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 310: 644–648.
    Totoki Y, Tatsuno K, Yamamoto S et al. (2011) High‐resolution characterization of a hepatocellular carcinoma genome. Nature Genetics 43: 464–469.
    Varela I, Tarpey P, Raine K et al. (2011) Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of the SWI/SNF complex gene PBRM1 in renal carcinoma. Nature 469: 539–542.
    Wang J, Mullighan CG, Easton J et al. (2011a) CREST maps somatic structural variation in cancer genomes with base‐pair resolution. Nature Methods 8: 652–654.
    Wang K, Kan J, Yuen ST et al. (2011b) Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of ARID1A in molecular subtypes of gastric cancer. Nature Genetics 43: 1219–1223.
    Wei X, Walia V, Lin JC et al. (2011) Exome sequencing identifies GRIN2A as frequently mutated in melanoma. Nature Genetics 43: 442–446.
    Wood LD, Parsons DW, Jones S et al. (2007) The genomic landscapes of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 318: 1108–1113.
    Yan XJ, Xu J, Gu ZH et al. (2011) Exome sequencing identifies somatic mutations of DNA methyltransferase gene DNMT3A in acute monocytic leukemia. Nature Genetics 43: 309–315.
 Further Reading
    Chin L, Andersen JN and Futreal PA (2011) Cancer genomics: from discovery science to personalized medicine. Nature Medicine 17: 297–303.
    Macconaill LE and Garraway LA (2010) Clinical implications of the cancer genome. Journal of Clinical Oncology 28: 5219–5228.
    Taylor BS and Ladanyi M (2011) Clinical cancer genomics: how soon is now? Journal of Pathology 223: 318–326.

Related Sub-Topics:

Cancer Genetics | Techniques and Tools in Clinical Genetics
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Characterising Somatic Mutations in Cancer Genome by Means of Next‐generation Sequencing
 
How to Cite close
Chong, Mei Ling, Ku, Chee Seng, Wu, Mengchu, and Soong, Richie(Feb 2012) Characterising Somatic Mutations in Cancer Genome by Means of Next‐generation Sequencing. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0023379]