Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Strands of evidence about cancer evolution

DNA damage can cause mutations due to failure of DNA repair and errors during DNA replication. Tracking the strand of the DNA double helix on which damage occurs has shed light on processes that affect tumour evolution.
  1. Trevor A. Graham

    1. Trevor A. Graham is at the Centre for Cancer Genomics and Computational Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Sarah E. McClelland

    1. Sarah E. McClelland is at the Centre for Cancer Genomics and Computational Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

How a cancer evolves and how mutations are generated are highly intertwined processes, and both are nearly impossible to observe directly. Instead, we are usually restricted to making inferences about them using data from a single snapshot in time after a cancer has formed. Writing in Nature, Aitken et al.1 show that, for a cell that has undergone DNA damage, such a snapshot provides remarkably rich information when the two DNA strands that form the double helix are considered independently.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Nature 583, 207-209 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01815-6

References

  1. Aitken, S. J. et al. Nature 583, 265–270 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Strick, T. R. & Portman, J. R. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 4093–4102 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rheinbay, E. et al. Nature 578, 102–111 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Verna, L., Whysner, J. & Williams, G. M. Pharmacol. Ther. 71, 57–81 (1996).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glover, T. W. & Stein, C. K. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 41, 882–890 (1987).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Waisertreiger, I., Popovich, K., Block, M., Anderson, K. R. & Barlow, J. H. Oncogene 39, 1260–1272 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pich, O. et al. Nature Genet. 51, 1732–1740 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links