Open Access

Comprehensive identification and characterization of somatic copy number alterations in triple‑negative breast cancer

  • Authors:
    • Zaibing Li
    • Xiao Zhang
    • Chenxin Hou
    • Yuqing Zhou
    • Junli Chen
    • Haoyang Cai
    • Yifeng Ye
    • Jinping Liu
    • Ning Huang
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: December 23, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4950
  • Pages: 522-530
  • Copyright: © Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Triple‑negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for ~15% of all breast cancer diagnoses each year. Patients with TNBC tend to have a higher risk for early relapse and a worse prognosis. TNBC is characterized by extensive somatic copy number alterations (CNAs). However, the DNA CNA profile of TNBC remains to be extensively investigated. The present study assessed the genomic profile of CNAs in 201 TNBC samples, aiming to identify recurrent CNAs that may drive the pathogenesis of TNBC. In total, 123 regions of significant amplification and deletion were detected using the Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer algorithm, and potential driver genes for TNBC were identified. A total of 31 samples exhibited signs of chromothripsis and revealed chromosome pulverization hotspot regions. The present study further determined 199 genomic locations that were significantly enriched for breakpoints, which indicated TNBC‑specific genomic instability regions. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of tumors resulted in three main subgroups that exhibited distinct CNA profiles, which may reveal the heterogeneity of molecular mechanisms in TNBC subgroups. These results will extend the molecular understanding of TNBC and will facilitate the discovery of therapeutic and diagnostic target candidates.

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is defined by a lack of expression of the estrogen receptor (ER), a lack of progesterone receptor (PR) expression and the absence of ERBB2 gene amplification, which encodes human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (1,2). TNBC accounts for ~15% of all breast cancer cases worldwide and represents a heterogeneous group of breast tumors (3-5). Numerous patients with TNBC experience a fast relapse and commonly develop metastases, which results in a poor prognosis (2). Recent advances in genomic profiling technologies have provided significant insights into the pathogenesis of breast cancer, including TNBC (6-9). However, presently, no individualized targeted adjuvants or induction treatments for TNBC are available. Given the lack of recurrent targetable genomic alterations, functional characterization of the TNBC genome to identify genomic driver events is of utmost importance.

Somatic copy number alterations (CNAs) are a universal feature of human cancer (10-12). Compared with any other type of somatic genetic alteration, CNAs alter a greater portion of the cancer genome. In general, CNAs are associated with patient prognoses and therapeutic resistance (13,14). Different cancer types adopt copy number changes in different ways to shape their genomes (15,16). These CNAs can affect the expression of genes and/or influence the regulation of genes in their vicinity (17,18). Furthermore, CNAs serve an important role in the classification of tumor subtypes (9,19,20). However, comprehensive genomic profiling of TNBC remains to be adequately assessed. Given the prevalence of CNAs in cancer, significant progress has been made in understanding the functional impacts of CNAs, as well as the potential driver genes they contain (21,22). These studies provide a rich source of data that allows for performing meta-analysis.

Previously, chromothripsis has been described as a novel mechanism for cancer initiation and progression (23-25). In the classic model, tumorigenesis is an evolutionary process in which the transition of normal cells to neoplastic cells is mediated by the accumulation of somatic mutations. However, the phenomenon of chromothripsis reveals a new paradigm of oncogenic transformation, involving a catastrophic mutational process that is commonly observed in numerous cancer types, such as colorectal cancer, neuroblastoma and acute myeloid leukemia (26-28). Chromothripsis contrasts with the multistep model of cancer development and is characterized by the shattering of one or multiple chromosomes in a single catastrophic event. Subsequently, shattered fragments are randomly stitched together by DNA double-strand break repair to form a derivative chromosome (29-31). This process can lead to the simultaneous acquisition of multiple tumor-promoting lesions. For example, it may result in a large number of structural genome variations, including duplications, deletions, inversions and translocations. In addition, it may give rise to the amplification of oncogenes or the inactivation of tumor suppressors, which serve an important role in oncogenesis. To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive evaluation of chromothripsis in TNBC has not yet been performed.

The present study collected 201 TNBC samples from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) (32) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) (33) databases to perform a meta-analysis of genomic CNAs. Statistically significant recurrent CNAs were identified and the distribution of CNA breakpoints along the cancer genome was examined. By employing the Genomic Identification of Significant Targets In Cancer (GISTIC) algorithm, a total of 123 regions of DNA amplification and deletion were obtained (34). In these regions, a number of potential driver genes for TNBC were revealed. For deletion of the chro-mothripsis phenomenon, the typical chromothripsis pattern was identified based on CNA data, and 31 samples with signs of chromothripsis were detected (35-37). Further analysis for chromothripsis regions was performed, which revealed the chromosome pulverization hotspots in TNBC. Furthermore, unsupervised hierarchical clustering of TNBC samples demonstrated three different clusters that corresponded to the tumors with specific CNA profiles (38). The present results extended characterization of the CNA landscape of TNBC genomes and provided novel insight into the phenomenon of chromothripsis. Thus, the present findings provide information that improves understanding of the mechanisms of TNBC development and may improve targeted therapies.

Materials and methods

Sample collection and CNA calling

All samples included in the present study were obtained from the NCBI GEO (32) and TCGA databases (33). The selection criteria were as follows: i) The patient was diagnosed with primary breast cancer, and patients with distant metastasis were excluded; ii) all samples were hybridized using Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 platform to facilitate data integration; and iii) patients were histologically confirmed as ER-, PR- and HER2-negative, or the study clearly stated that patients were diagnosed with TNBC.

To identify somatic CNAs, raw signal intensity files were downloaded from the GEO website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) for re-analysis. The R package aroma. affymetrix (https://aroma-project.org/; version 3.2.0) using the CRMAv.2 method (39) was employed for data processing. To call CNA segments, HapMap (40) data were used as a control. The data annotation was based on human reference genome assembly hg19/GRCh37 (41), and the circular binary segmentation algorithm (42) was performed to segment copy number data. Next, the CNA calling cut-off values for amplifications and deletions were set to 0.2 and -0.2, respectively. To avoid gender bias, the X and Y chromosomes were excluded. TCGA data portal (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/) was used for downloading the genomic array data (level 3) and clinical information. Visual inspection was used for data quality control, and samples of poor quality were excluded from further analyses. A total of 201 TNBC cases were collected and are presented in Table SI. The samples were collected between October 2011 and August 2018.

Identification of significant recurrent targets

The GISTIC algorithm (34) was used for the identification of peak regions that were significantly amplified or deleted in all samples. The parameters used to run GISTIC 2.0 were as follows: i) The false discovery rate q-value was set to <0.05; ii) the arm peel method (34) was used to reduce data noise; iii) the confidence level used to calculate the region containing a driver was set to >0.95; iv) the 'Extreme’ method (34) was applied for reducing marker-level to the gene-level copy number data; and v) the log2 ratios for calling gains and losses were set to >0.2 and <-0.2, respectively. In total, 719 known cancer consensus genes were downloaded from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database (43).

Chromothripsis screening

Chromothripsis-like patterns were detected using the CTLPScanner web server (http://cgma.scu.edu.cn/CTLPScanner/) (35). The pattern of oscillating copy number changes and localized clustering of breakpoints was screened based on segmented array data. The parameters and thresholds for the screening were as follows: i) Copy number status switch times ≥20; ii) log10 of likelihood ratio ≥10; iii) minimum segment size of 10 Kb; and iv) signal value difference between two adjacent segments ≥0.4. For visualization of results, signal intensity for calling genomic gains and losses were set to 0.2 and -0.2, respectively.

Detection of chromosomal breakpoints

In the present study, both boundaries of each CNA were defined as chromosomal breakpoints. A stringent definition of CNA breakpoints was used to reduce the bias caused by technical noise. If the alteration of log2 signal intensity between two adjacent genomic segments was >0.4, the related genomic position was considered to be a breakpoint (44,45). CNAs <10 Kb were ignored. Breakpoints located in chromosomal telomeres and centromeres were excluded for further analysis. To generate a simulated distribution of breakpoints, in-house Perl scripts were used to bin the genome and randomly shuffle the positions of breakpoints 10,000 times. Common fragile sites (CFSs) and non-fragile regions of the human genome were extracted from previous studies (46-48). All the genome coordinates were converted from genome assembly hg18/NCBI36 to hg19/GRCh37 by the LiftOver tool (41). Furthermore, the copy number based unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed based on the Euclidean distance following Ward's method.

Results

CNA profile in TNBC

In total, 98 and 103 TNBC samples were collected from the GEO and TCGA databases, respectively. The genome-wide frequency plot of CNAs is presented in Fig. 1. The CNAs were of varying sizes, ranging from whole chromosome arms to small focal amplifications and deletions. The mean number of CNAs per tumor was 414, with deletions outnumbering amplifications at ~1.7:1. From the high-resolution CNA data, it was observed that the most common gains of the entire chromosome arms included 1q, 8q, 10p and 12p, and losses of 5q, 8p and 17p. Other less frequently affected chromosomes included 9p and 20q gains and 13q, 14q and 15q losses. The most frequent focal gains were narrowed down to 3q and 19q. Focal losses were identified most often in 3q and 12q. Notably, this profile may reveal TNBC-specific CNAs that have rarely been reported, such as 9p gain and 5q, 12q loss.

The present study identified statistically significant recurrent focal CNAs and potential cancer driver genes by GISTIC 2.0 (34). Using this algorithm, 49 and 74 amplification and deletion peaks were identified, respectively (q<0.05). The annotation of these peaks revealed 993 targeted coding genes. The significantly amplified or deleted genomic regions as well as identified genes are presented in Table SII. There were 33 regions of interest that contained only one candidate driver gene. The aberration score from GISTIC is presented in Fig. 2, in addition to some of the peaks containing only one candidate gene.

Identification of chromothripsis events

Using the CTLPScanner algorithm (35), a total of 31 chromothripsis cases were identified from 201 TNBC samples, with an incidence of ~15% (Table SIII). Since the overall chromothripsis incidence in various cancer types is ~5%, TNBC has a relatively high chromothripsis incidence compared with most other tumor types, including other subtypes of breast cancer (23,36). Pulverization regions were identified in various sizes ranging from dozens of Mb to the entire chromosome arm. Fig. 3 presents examples of identified chromothripsis cases and pulverized genomic regions. The present study further investigated the number of affected chromosomes per tumor sample, and observed that ~22% (7/31) of chromothripsis cases carried two shattered chromosomes. In other cases, only one chromosome was affected. The most frequently pulverized focal genomic regions in TNBC included 6p, 11p and 17q. At the chromosome level, chromosomes 1, 5 and 12 demonstrated relatively high rates of pulverization. Fig. 4 illustrates the hotspots of chromothripsis across the cancer genome and may reveal a TNBC-specific pattern of chromothripsis. Some of the GISTIC-identified candidate driver genes that were located in the chromothripsis hotspot regions are also presented. Alterations in these genes may further contribute to chromosomal instability and the overall chromothripsis phenotype in TNBC.

Characterization of chromosomal breakpoints

DNA breakage is an important type of cancer-associated genomic aberration, and may cause amplifications, deletions, inversions and translocations. Since array platforms have reduced the ability for detecting inversion and translocation (16,39), the landscape of chromosomal breakage was investigated based on CNA data. In the present study, the genomic start and end of CNAs were defined as breakpoints. These breakpoints may contribute to TNBC initiation and progression. A total of 44,384 CNA breakpoints were identified in 201 TNBC samples. The number of chromosomal breaks per sample ranged between 30 and 709, with a median value of 193. To investigate CNA breakpoint hotspots across the genome, each chromosome was binned into continuous 1 Mb windows, and the density of breakpoints per bin was calculated. Next, the position of CNAs was shuffled 10,000 times and the background distribution of DNA breaks was obtained. The breakpoint-prone genomic regions were identified by comparing the actual value with the background distribution of breakpoints. In total, 199 genomic regions that were significantly enriched for breakpoints of chromosomal rearrangements were identified (Bonferroni corrected P<0.01; Table SIV). To compare these regions with published common fragile sites and non-fragile regions, related data were downloaded from existing literature (46). Among the identified hotspots, only 20 regions (~10%) overlapped with CFS, and the majority of them were located on chromosome 1 (Fig. 4). A total of 25 (~12%) hotspots were located within NFS and were relatively evenly distributed across the genome. Combined, these results possibly reveal the TNBC-specific genomic instability regions.

Subgroup analysis based on CNAs

The full dataset underwent copy number based unsupervised hierarchical clustering. Classification was based on the Euclidean distance following Ward's method, and three main clusters were identified. Results of the cluster analysis are presented as a dendrogram in Fig. 5. Cluster 1 was composed of tumors with extensive arm-level CNAs. The most common alterations include gains of 1q and 8p, and losses of 5q and 8p. These tumors were dominated by frequent CNAs, suggesting an important role of genome instability in the tumorigenesis of this type of TNBC. By contrast, Cluster 2 was characterized by few CNAs, and this cluster may represent M class cancers that were identified in previous studies (38). These DNA copy number stable tumors may be primarily driven by a mutation rather than by CNA. Tumors in Cluster 3 are extraordinarily influenced by small focal alterations rather than by arm-level events, and especially copy number losses. Furthermore, each of these three main clusters can be further decomposed into several smaller sub-clusters.

Discussion

TNBC is characterized by its unique molecular profile, aggressive behavior and lack of targeted therapies. Currently, treatment options for TNBC are limited when compared to that of other types of breast cancer. Previous genomic profiling studies have reported that TNBC is a heterogeneous malignancy involving diverse genomic alterations (5). Genome-wide meta-analysis of CNAs will improve the understanding of the mechanisms responsible for TNBC initiation and progression, and facilitate the detection of more reliable tumor markers and the development of targeted therapy. The present study characterized DNA CNAs in TNBC based on published high-resolution genomic array data. From the overall CNA profile of all samples, several frequent recurrent arm-level alterations were observed, which may contribute to the malignant transformation of TNBC. For the analysis of focal CNA events, the GISTIC algorithm was utilized to discern significant CNAs, and several candidate genes were identified, including both known cancer genes and genes that have not previously been associated with any type of cancer.

Among the identified driver genes, some were known cancer genes and were recorded in the COSMIC database (43). For example CCNE1, CD274, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and JAK2 were located in genomic gain regions, while APOBEC3B, CDKN2A, FAT1 and NOTCH1 were identified in loss regions. Some novel or recently described genes were also detected from the datasets. For example, the VOPP1 WW domain binding protein (VOPP1) gene was identified to be located at the amplified region 7p11.2. It has been reported that VOPP1 is often co-amplified with EGFR or is the breakpoint location for EGFR amplification (49,50). The overexpression of VOPP1 can increase the transcriptional activity of nuclear factor κ B subunit 1 by facilitating its nuclear translocation and associated apoptotic response. VOPP1 overexpression has been observed in several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, head and neck squamous carcinoma and glioma (51-53). A recent study reported that VOPP1 can promote breast cancer development by interacting with the tumor suppressor WW domain containing oxidoreductase (54). These results suggest that VOPP1 may serve an important role in TNBC carcinogenesis and could be exploited to develop therapies for patients with TNBC. Another candidate gene dehydrogenase/reductase 4 like 2 (DHRS4L2) is located in the deletion region of 14q11.2 and is a member of the short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases family. DHRS4L2 produces multiple transcript variants through alternative splicing (55,56). The encoded protein may be an NADPH dependent retinol oxidoreductase. Genomic loss of DHRS4L2 may lead to low expression and has been demonstrated to be associated with risk of diseases (56,57). The DHRS4L2 gene has not yet been reported to be involved in cancer and could be considered a novel candidate gene for TNBC.

Furthermore, the high degree of genomic instability is a hallmark of BRCA1-deficient TNBC. This instability is a prerequisite for the development of large numbers of CNAs, which can affect tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Although the BRCA1 status of tumors in the present cohort was not available, the significant numbers of CNAs in these samples were indicative of genomic instability and presented a specific pattern of TNBC.

The present study extensively analyzed the distribution of the chromothripsis phenomenon in TNBC. Chromothripsis is a single catastrophic event that generates dozens of mutations sufficient to produce a malignancy and is distinct from the progressive accumulation of mutations model of cancer development (23-25). The incidence of chromothripsis is heterogeneous across different cancer types. A total of 31 chromothripsis cases were identified out of 201 TNBC samples, with an incidence rate of ~15%. We previously determined that the incidence of chromothripsis in breast cancer is ~11% (36). Thus, TNBC has a relatively higher incidence of chromothripsis and exhibits increased evidence of genomic instability compared with other breast cancer subtypes. Currently, the underlying mechanisms leading to chromothripsis remain largely unknown, although several hypotheses have been proposed, including the formation of micronuclei (58,59), premature chromosome condensation (60), abortive apoptosis (61,62) and breakage-fusion-bridge cycles (63-65). The present study further evaluated the patterns of chromosomal pulverization based on the results, in order to provide clues to identify the underlying mechanisms of chromothripsis in TNBC. In the present cohort, 22% of chromothripsis cases affected two chromosomes. Chromothripsis involving more than one chromosome can result from several chromosomes in a micronucleus or is the consequence of a process of aborted apoptosis (59). More than one mechanism may be responsible for the chromothripsis events in TNBC. Several chromosomal pulverization hotspots were identified across the genome, which may contain critical genes for genomic instability. The most frequently affected chromosome regions were identified, and these results provide a foundation for further analysis. For example, as presented in Fig. 3, there were two chromothripsis events in chromosome 3 and chromosome 12, respectively. Distinct cancer genes were located in the different pulverization regions, which may reflect different mechanisms that trigger chromothripsis events in these two samples.

The present results of the chromosomal breaks analysis provides detailed characterization of recurrent chromosomal breakpoints and affected genes in the TNBC genome. The points of copy number level shift in somatic CNA profiles indicate underlying chromosomal breaks and genomic locations affected by somatic structural aberrations. Thus, the DNA CNA data generated by high-resolution genomic arrays enabled a systematic search for regions and genes that were affected by CNA-associated breakpoints. These breakpoints may silence tumor suppressor genes or create novel gene fusions with oncogenic potential. Next, simulation experiments were performed in which CNA locations were randomly assigned throughout the genome. The simulation was conducted 10,000 times and 199 recurrent breakpoints were identified that were clustered more than would be expected. These breakpoint-prone regions were compared with known common fragile sites and non-fragile regions of the human genome to reveal TNBC-specific genome instability regions (46).

Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis was performed to generate a comprehensive view of genome-wide copy number changes in TNBC. Three main clusters were identified. Cluster 1 was predominantly represented by tumors with large chromosomal CNAs, while cluster 3 was primarily influenced by small focal alterations. These findings may indicate the different underlying mechanisms that drive tumors in both groups. For example, the large chromosome or chromosome arm-level CNAs are usually caused by aneuploidy or abnormal numbers of chromosome, while focal alterations often cause gene-level mutagenesis (13). Consistent with previous studies, the present study identified another cluster with few CNAs, which may represent the M class cancer that is predominantly driven by mutations rather than by CNAs (38). Since somatic point mutations cannot be detected by genomic arrays, this cluster presented a different CNA pattern compared with the other two clusters. These observations reveal biologically heterogeneous groups of TNBC, which may represent different molecular mechanisms that underlie tumor development. The clustering of these tumor samples will contribute to the classification and clinical decision making of TNBC.

Previously, several studies have focused on genomic alterations in breast cancer. Banerji et al (66) analyzed 103 breast cancer samples of diverse subtypes using whole exome sequencing, which revealed several recurrent somatic mutations and fusion genes that contributed to breast cancer progression, In addition, Kim et al (67) provided profiles of longitudinal TNBC samples during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and revealed that resistant genotypes were pre-existing and adaptively selected by therapy. Using single-cell sequencing, Gao et al (68) identified clonal subpopulations in individual tumors that shared a common evolutionary lineage, and demonstrated that most CNAs were acquired at the earliest stages of tumor evolution. These studies provide valuable knowledge about genomic alterations in TNBC. However, the number of tumor samples, particularly TNBC samples, involved in these studies were limited. The present study focused on TNBC and included a larger numbers of samples that resulted in the generation of significant results.

The present study provides valuable new insights into the mechanisms of genomic instability in TNBC. However, there remain a number of questions that need to be studied for TNBC. For example, whether tumors at different stages or metastatic breast cancers demonstrate significantly distinct CNA profiles, and the biological or clinical significance of the observed differences is unknown. Several other types of breast cancer exist, including inflammatory tumors and HER2-positive tumors. The differences in CNA profiles between the TNBC-subtype and other tumor types needs to be further elucidated. Furthermore, the breast cancer genome evolution during disease progression is not yet fully understood yet. In addition, the existence of intra-tumor heterogeneity makes things more complicated. Therefore, in-depth analysis of these questions will help improve understanding of the etiology of TNBC.

In conclusion, a comprehensive characterization of somatic genomic alterations was performed based on a large cohort of TNBC samples. The current study presented several novel findings for TNBC, including: i) A total of 123 regions of significant amplification and deletion were determined; ii) the incidence of chromothripsis in TNBC was identified as ~15%; ii) the distribution and hotspots of CNA breakpoints were revealed; and iii) three tumor clusters and their CNA patterns were identified. The present findings contribute to an increasingly detailed portrait of genomic features of TNBC and may accelerate the rate of driver gene discovery.

Supplementary Data

Funding

No finding was received.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

ZL and XZ performed the experiments and wrote the original manuscript. CH and YZ performed chromothripsis data analysis and analyzed the results. JC, HC and YY helped conduct the experiments and data analyses. JL and NH conceived and supervised the project, and drafted the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

References

1 

Carey L, Winer E, Viale G, Cameron D and Gianni L: Triple-negative breast cancer: Disease entity or title of convenience? Nature Rev Clin Oncol. 7:683–692. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Foulkes WD, Smith IE and Reis-Filho JS: Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 363:1938–1948. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Vaz-Luis I, Ottesen RA, Hughes ME, Mamet R, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Moy B, Rugo HS, Theriault RL, et al: Outcomes by tumor subtype and treatment pattern in women with small, node-negative breast cancer: A multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol. 32:2142–2150. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y and Pietenpol JA: Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 121:2750–2767. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Metzger-Filho O, Tutt A, de Azambuja E, Saini KS, Viale G, Loi S, Bradbury I, Bliss JM, Azim HA Jr, Ellis P, et al: Dissecting the heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 30:1879–1887. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Burstein MD, Tsimelzon A, Poage GM, Covington KR, Contreras A, Fuqua SA, Savage MI, Osborne CK, Hilsenbeck SG, Chang JC, et al: Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 21:1688–1698. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar :

7 

Chin SF, Teschendorff AE, Marioni JC, Wang Y, Barbosa-Morais NL, Thorne NP, Costa JL, Pinder SE, van de Wiel MA, Green AR, et al: High-resolution aCGH and expression profiling identifies a novel genomic subtype of ER negative breast cancer. Genome Biol. 8:R2152007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Chin K, DeVries S, Fridlyand J, Spellman PT, Roydasgupta R, Kuo WL, Lapuk A, Neve RM, Qian Z, Ryder T, et al: Genomic and transcriptional aberrations linked to breast cancer patho-physiologies. Cancer Cell. 10:529–541. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Melchor L, Honrado E, García MJ, Alvarez S, Palacios J, Osorio A, Nathanson KL and Benítez J: Distinct genomic aberration patterns are found in familial breast cancer associated with different immu-nohistochemical subtypes. Oncogene. 27:3165–3175. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar

10 

Beroukhim R, Mermel CH, Porter D, Wei G, Raychaudhuri S, Donovan J, Barretina J, Boehm JS, Dobson J, Urashima M, et al: The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature. 463:899–905. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Stratton MR, Campbell PJ and Futreal PA: The cancer genome. Nature. 458:719–724. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Hanahan D and Weinberg RA: Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 144:646–674. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Zack TI, Schumacher SE, Carter SL, Cherniack AD, Saksena G, Tabak B, Lawrence MS, Zhsng CZ, Wala J, Mermel CH, et al: Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy number alteration. Nat Genet. 45:1134–1140. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Kim TM, Xi R, Luquette LJ, Park RW, Johnson MD and Park PJ: Functional genomic analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a compendium of 8000 cancer genomes. Genome Res. 23:217–227. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar :

15 

Cai H, Kumar N, Ai N, Gupta S, Rath P and Baudis M: Progenetix: 12 years of oncogenomic data curation. Nucleic Acids Res. 42(Database Issue): D1055–D1062. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar :

16 

Cai H, Gupta S, Rath P, Ai N and Baudis M: arrayMap 2014: An updated cancer genome resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 43(Database Issue): D825–D830. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar :

17 

Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature. 489:519–525. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Xue W, Kitzing T, Roessler S, Zuber J, Krasnitz A, Schultz N, Revill K, Weissmueller S, Rappaport AR, Simon J, et al: A cluster of cooperating tumor-suppressor gene candidates in chromosomal deletions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109:8212–8217. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Stephens PJ, McBride DJ, Lin ML, Varela I, Pleasance ED, Simpson JT, Stebbings LA, Leroy C, Edkins S, Mudie LJ, et al: Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes. Nature. 462:1005–1010. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Rakha EA, Elsheikh SE, Aleskandarany MA, Habashi HO, Green AR, Powe DG, El-Sayed ME, Benhasouna A, Brunet JS, Akslen LA, et al: Triple-negative breast cancer: Distinguishing between basal and nonbasal subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 15:2302–2310. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Waddell N, Arnold J, Cocciardi S, da Silva L, Marsh A, Riley J, Johnstone CN, Orloff M, Assie G, Eng C, et al: Subtypes of familial breast tumours revealed by expression and copy number profiling. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 123:661–677. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Jones C, Ford E, Gillett C, Ryder K, Merrett S, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford LG, Hanby A and Lakhani SR: Molecular cytogenetic identification of subgroups of grade III invasive ductal breast carcinomas with different clinical outcomes. Clin Cancer Res. 10:5988–5997. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Stephens PJ, Greenman CD, Fu B, Yang F, Bignell GR, Mudie LJ, Pleasance ED, Lau KW, Beare D, Stebbings LA, et al: Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell. 144:27–40. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Liu P, Erez A, Nagamani SC, Dhar SU, Kołodziejska KE, Dharmadhikari AV, Cooper ML, Wiszniewska J, Zhang F, Withers MA, et al: Chromosome catastrophes involve replication mechanisms generating complex genomic rearrangements. Cell. 146:889–903. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Korbel JO and Campbell PJ: Criteria for inference of chromothripsis in cancer genomes. Cell. 152:1226–1236. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Kloosterman WP, Hoogstraat M, Paling O, Tavakoli-Yaraki M, Renkens I, Vermaat JS, van Roosmalen MJ, van Lieshout S, Nijman IJ, Roessingh W, et al: Chromothripsis is a common mechanism driving genomic rearrangements in primary and metastatic colorectal cancer. Genome Biol. 12:R1032011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Molenaar JJ, Koster J, Zwijnenburg DA, van Sluis P, Valentijn LJ, van der Ploeg I, Hamdi M, van Nes J, Westerman BA, van Arkel J, et al: Sequencing of neuroblastoma identifies chromothripsis and defects in neuritogenesis genes. Nature. 483:589–593. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Bochtler T, Granzow M, Stölzel F, Kunz C, Mohr B, Kartal-Kaess M, Hinderhofer K, Heilig CE, Kramer M, Thiede C, et al: Marker chromosomes can arise from chro-mothripsis and predict adverse prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 129:1333–1342. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Kloosterman WP, Tavakoli-Yaraki M, van Roosmalen MJ, van Binsbergen E, Renkens I, Duran K, Ballarati L, Vergult S, Giardino D, Hansson K, et al: Constitutional chromothripsis rearrangements involve clustered double-stranded DNA breaks and nonhomologous repair mechanisms. Cell Rep. 1:648–655. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Forment JV, Kaidi A and Jackson SP: Chromothripsis and cancer: Causes and consequences of chromosome shattering. Nat Rev Cancer. 12:663–670. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Rausch T, Jones DT, Zapatka M, Stütz AM, Zichner T, Weischenfeldt J, Jäger N, Remke M, Shih D, Northcott PA, et al: Genome sequencing of pediatric medulloblastoma links catastrophic DNA rearrangements with TP53 mutations. Cell. 14:59–71. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Barrett T, Wilhite SE, Ledoux P, Evangelista C, Kim IF, Tomashevsky M, Marshall KA, Phillippy KH, Sherman PM, Holko M, et al: NCBI GEO: Archive for functional genomics data sets-update. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:Database Issue. D991–D995. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar

33 

Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network; Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KR, Ozenberger BA, Ellrott K, Shmulevich I, Sander C and Stuart JM: The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 45:1113–1120. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Mermel CH, Schumacher SE, Hill B, Meyerson ML, Beroukhim R and Getz G: GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers. Genome Biol. 12:R412011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Yang J, Liu J, Ouyang L, Chen Y, Liu B and Cai H: CTLPScanner: A web server for chromothripsis-like pattern detection. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:W252–W258. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Cai H, Kumar N, Bagheri HC, von Mering C, Robinson MD and Baudis M: Chromothripsis-like patterns are recurring but heterogeneously distributed features in a survey of 22,347 cancer genome screens. BMC Genomics. 15:822014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Yang J, Deng G and Cai H: ChromothripsisDB: A curated database of chromothripsis. Bioinformatics. 32:1433–1435. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Ciriello G, Miller ML, Aksoy BA, Senbabaoglu Y, Schultz N and Sander C: Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat Genet. 45:1127–1133. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Bengtsson H, Wirapati P and Speed TP: A single-array preprocessing method for estimating full-resolution raw copy numbers from all Affymetrix genotyping arrays including GenomeWideSNP 5 & 6. Bioinformatics. 25:2149–2156. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

International HapMap Consortium: The international HapMap project. Nature. 426:789–796. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Rosenbloom KR, Armstrong J, Barber GP, Casper J, Clawson H, Diekhans M, Dreszer TR, Fujita PA, Guruvadoo L, Haeussler M, et al: The UCSC genome browser database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 43(Database Issue): D670–D681. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar :

42 

Olshen AB, Venkatraman ES, Lucito R and Wigler M: Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data. Biostatistics. 5:557–572. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Forbes SA, Beare D, Gunasekaran P, Leung K, Bindal N, Boutselakis H, Ding M, Bamford S, Cole C, Ward S, et al: COSMIC: Exploring the world's knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:Database Issue. D805–D811. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar :

44 

Zheng S, Fu J, Vegesna R, Mao Y, Heathcock LE, Torres-Garcia W, Ezhilarasan R, Wang S, McKenna A, Chin L, et al: A survey of intragenic breakpoints in glioblastoma identifies a distinct subset associated with poor survival. Genes Dev. 27:1462–1472. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

45 

Smida J, Xu H, Zhang Y, Baumhoer D, Ribi S, Kovac M, von Luettichau I, Bielack S, O'Leary VB, Leib-Mösch C, et al: Genome-wide analysis of somatic copy number alterations and chromosomal breakages in osteosarcoma. Int J Cancer. 141:816–828. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Fungtammasan A, Walsh E, Chiaromonte F, Eckert KA and Makova KD: A genome-wide analysis of common fragile sites: What features determine chromosomal instability in the human genome? Genome Res. 22:993–1005. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Durkin SG and Glover TW: Chromosome fragile sites. Annu Rev Genet. 41:169–192. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

48 

Sarni D and Kerem B: The complex nature of fragile site plasticity and its importance in cancer. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 40:131–136. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Eley GD, Reiter JL, Pandita A, Park S, Jenkins RB, Maihle NJ and James CD: A chromosomal region 7p112 transcript map: Its development and application to the study of EGFR amplicons in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 4:86–94. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

50 

Masuda H, Zhang D, Bartholomeusz C, Doihara H, Hortobagyi GN and Ueno NT: Role of epidermal growth factor receptor in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 136:331–345. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Gao C, Pang M, Zhou Z, Long S, Dong D, Yang J, Cao M, Zhang C, Han S and Li L: Epidermal growth factor receptor-coamplified and overexpressed protein (VOPP1) is a putative oncogene in gastric cancer. Clin Exp Med. 15:469–475. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar

52 

Baras A, Yu Y, Filtz M, Kim B and Moskaluk CA: Combined genomic and gene expression microarray profiling identifies ECOP as an upregulated gene in squamous cell carcinomas independent of DNA amplification. Oncogene. 28:2919–2924. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

53 

Baras A and Moskaluk CA: Intracellular localization of GASP/ECOP/VOPP1. J Mol Histol. 41:153–164. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

54 

Bonin F, Taouis K, Azorin P, Petitalot A, Tariq Z, Nola S, Bouteille N, Tury S, Vacher S, Bièche I, et al: VOPP1 promotes breast tumorigenesis by interacting with the tumor suppressor WWOX. BMC Biol. 16:1092018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

55 

Zhang Q, Li Y, Liu G, Xu X, Song X, Liang B, Li R, Xie J, Du M, Xiao L, et al: Alternative transcription initiation and splicing variants of the DHRS4 gene cluster. Biosci Rep. 29:47–56. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar

56 

Su ZJ, Zhang QX, Liu GF, Song XH, Li Q, Wang RJ, Chen HB, Xu XY, Sui XX and Huang DY: Bioinformatic analysis of the human DHRS4 gene cluster and a proposed mechanism for its transcriptional regulation. BMC Mol Biol. 11:432010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

57 

Su Z, Liu G, Song X, Liang B, Chang X and Huang D: CpG island evolution in the mammalian DHRS4 gene cluster and its role in the regulation of gene transcription. Genet Mol Res. 15:2016. View Article : Google Scholar

58 

Crasta K, Ganem NJ, Dagher R, Lantermann AB, Ivanova EV, Pan Y, Nezi L, Protopopov A, Chowdhury D and Pellman D: DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis. Nature. 482:53–58. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

59 

Zhang CZ, Spektor A, Cornils H, Francis JM, Jackson EK, Liu S, Meyerson M and Pellman D: Chromothripsis from DNA damage in micronuclei. Nature. 522:179–184. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

60 

Meyerson M and Pellman D: Cancer genomes evolve by pulverizing single chromosomes. Cell. 144:9–10. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

61 

Tubio JM and Estivill X: Cancer: When catastrophe strikes a cell. Nature. 470:476–477. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

62 

Ichim G, Lopez J, Ahmed SU, Muthalagu N, Giampazolias E, Delgado ME, Haller M, Riley JS, Mason SM, Athineos D, et al: Limited mitochondrial permeabilization causes DNA damage and genomic instability in the absence of cell death. Mol Cell. 57:860–872. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

63 

Nones K, Waddell N, Wayte N, Patch AM, Bailey P, Newell F, Holmes O, Fink JL, Quinn MCJ, Tang YH, et al: Genomic catastrophes frequently arise in esophageal adenocarcinoma and drive tumorigenesis. Nat Commun. 5:52242014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

64 

Sorzano CO, Pascual-Montano A, Sánchez de Diego A, Martínez-A C and van Wely KH: Chromothripsis: Breakage-fusion-bridge over and over again. Cell Cycle. 12:2016–2023. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

65 

Li Y, Schwab C, Ryan S, Papaemmanuil E, Robinson HM, Jacobs P, Moorman AV, Dyer S, Borrow J, Griffiths M, et al: Constitutional and somatic rearrangement of chromosome 21 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nature. 508:98–102. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

66 

Banerji S, Cibulskis K, Rangel-Escareno C, Brown KK, Carter SL, Frederick AM, Lawrence MS, Sivachenko AY, Sougnez C, Zou L, et al: Sequence analysis of mutations and translocations across breast cancer subtypes. Nature. 486:405–459. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

67 

Kim C, Gao R, Sei E, Brandt R, Hartman J, Hatschek T, Crosetto N, Foukakis T and Navin NE: Chemoresistance evolution in triple-negative breast cancer delineated by single-cell sequencing. Cell. 173:879–893.e13. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

68 

Gao R, Davis A, McDonald TO, Sei E, Shi X, Wang Y, Tsai PC, Casasent A, Waters J, Zhang H, et al: Punctuated copy number evolution and clonal stasis in triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Genet. 48:1119–1130. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

February-2020
Volume 56 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1019-6439
Online ISSN:1791-2423

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Li Z, Zhang X, Hou C, Zhou Y, Chen J, Cai H, Ye Y, Liu J and Huang N: Comprehensive identification and characterization of somatic copy number alterations in triple‑negative breast cancer. Int J Oncol 56: 522-530, 2020.
APA
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Hou, C., Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Cai, H. ... Huang, N. (2020). Comprehensive identification and characterization of somatic copy number alterations in triple‑negative breast cancer. International Journal of Oncology, 56, 522-530. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4950
MLA
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Hou, C., Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Cai, H., Ye, Y., Liu, J., Huang, N."Comprehensive identification and characterization of somatic copy number alterations in triple‑negative breast cancer". International Journal of Oncology 56.2 (2020): 522-530.
Chicago
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Hou, C., Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Cai, H., Ye, Y., Liu, J., Huang, N."Comprehensive identification and characterization of somatic copy number alterations in triple‑negative breast cancer". International Journal of Oncology 56, no. 2 (2020): 522-530. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4950