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.

A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumor growth

Nature Genetics volume 47, pages 209–216 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

What happens in early, still undetectable human malignancies is unknown because direct observations are impractical. Here we present and validate a 'Big Bang' model, whereby tumors grow predominantly as a single expansion producing numerous intermixed subclones that are not subject to stringent selection and where both public (clonal) and most detectable private (subclonal) alterations arise early during growth. Genomic profiling of 349 individual glands from 15 colorectal tumors showed an absence of selective sweeps, uniformly high intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) and subclone mixing in distant regions, as postulated by our model. We also verified the prediction that most detectable ITH originates from early private alterations and not from later clonal expansions, thus exposing the profile of the primordial tumor. Moreover, some tumors appear 'born to be bad', with subclone mixing indicative of early malignant potential. This new model provides a quantitative framework to interpret tumor growth dynamics and the origins of ITH, with important clinical implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The Big Bang model of tumor growth.
Figure 2: The spatial distribution of ITH shows subclone mixing and the absence of clonal expansions.
Figure 3: Single-gland targeted sequencing confirms the predictions of the Big Bang model and exposes variegation in carcinomas but not adenomas.
Figure 4: Inference on the genomic data verifies that most detectable ITH occurs early during tumor growth.
Figure 5: Schematic of spatiotemporal Big Bang growth dynamics.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

ArrayExpress

BioProject

References

  1. Greaves, M. & Maley, C.C. Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 481, 306–313 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vogelstein, B. et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Basanta, D. & Anderson, A.R.A. Exploiting ecological principles to better understand cancer progression and treatment. Interface Focus 3, 20130020 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fearon, E.R. & Vogelstein, B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61, 759–767 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Siegmund, K.D. et al. Inferring clonal expansion and cancer stem cell dynamics from DNA methylation patterns in colorectal cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4828–4833 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Navin, N. et al. Inferring tumor progression from genomic heterogeneity. Genome Res. 20, 68–80 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerlinger, M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sottoriva, A. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4009–4014 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sottoriva, A., Spiteri, I., Shibata, D., Curtis, C. & Tavaré, S. Single-molecule genomic data delineate patient-specific tumor profiles and cancer stem cell organization. Cancer Res. 73, 41–49 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Korolev, K.S., Avlund, M., Hallatschek, O. & Nelson, D.R. Genetic demixing and evolution in linear stepping stone models. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1691–1718 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Korolev, K.S. et al. Selective sweeps in growing microbial colonies. Phys. Biol. 9, 026008 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McFarland, C.D., Korolev, K.S., Kryukov, G.V., Sunyaev, S.R. & Mirny, L.A. Impact of deleterious passenger mutations on cancer progression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2910–2915 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Humphries, A. et al. Lineage tracing reveals multipotent stem cells maintain human adenomas and the pattern of clonal expansion in tumor evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2490–E2499 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Garcia, S.B., Park, H.S., Novelli, M. & Wright, N.A. Field cancerization, clonality, and epithelial stem cells: the spread of mutated clones in epithelial sheets. J. Pathol. 187, 61–81 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wright, N.A. & Poulsom, R. Top down or bottom up? Competing management structures in the morphogenesis of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 51, 306–308 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwarz, R.F. et al. Phylogenetic quantification of intra-tumour heterogeneity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003535 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barker, N. et al. Crypt stem cells as the cells-of-origin of intestinal cancer. Nature 457, 608–611 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson, K. et al. Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia. Nature 469, 356–361 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Park, S.Y., Gönen, M., Kim, H.J., Michor, F. & Polyak, K. Cellular and genetic diversity in the progression of in situ human breast carcinomas to an invasive phenotype. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 636–644 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Thirlwell, C. et al. Clonality assessment and clonal ordering of individual neoplastic crypts shows polyclonality of colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology 138, 1441–1454 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprouffske, K., Pepper, J.W. & Maley, C.C. Accurate reconstruction of the temporal order of mutations in neoplastic progression. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila.) 4, 1135–1144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez-Garcia, C., Klein, A.M., Simons, B.D. & Winton, D.J. Intestinal stem cell replacement follows a pattern of neutral drift. Science 330, 822–825 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Comen, E., Norton, L. & Massagué, J. Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 369–377 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487, 330–337 (2012).

  25. Nowak, M.A. Evolutionary Dynamics (Harvard University Press, 2006).

  26. Lengauer, C., Kinzler, K.W. & Vogelstein, B. Genetic instability in colorectal cancers. Nature 386, 623–627 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nowak, M.A. et al. The role of chromosomal instability in tumor initiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 16226–16231 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. S Datta, R., Gutteridge, A., Swanton, C., Maley, C.C. & Graham, T.A. Modelling the evolution of genetic instability during tumour progression. Evol. Appl. 6, 20–33 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Almendro, V. et al. Inference of tumor evolution during chemotherapy by computational modeling and in situ analysis of genetic and phenotypic cellular diversity. Cell Rep. 6, 514–527 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yatabe, Y., Tavaré, S. & Shibata, D. Investigating stem cells in human colon by using methylation patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10839–10844 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sottoriva, A. & Tavaré, S. in Proc. COMPSTAT 2010 (eds. Saporta, G. & Lechevallier, Y.) 57–66 (Springer Physica-Verlag HD, 2010).

  32. Marjoram, P. & Tavaré, S. Modern computational approaches for analysing molecular genetic variation data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 759–770 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cleary, A.S., Leonard, T.L., Gestl, S.A. & Gunther, E.J. Tumour cell heterogeneity maintained by cooperating subclones in Wnt-driven mammary cancers. Nature 508, 113–117 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Marusyk, A. et al. Non-cell-autonomous driving of tumour growth supports sub-clonal heterogeneity. Nature 514, 54–58 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Luebeck, E.G. & Moolgavkar, S.H. Multistage carcinogenesis and the incidence of colorectal cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15095–15100 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lawrence, M.S. et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499, 214–218 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Siegmund, K.D., Marjoram, P., Tavaré, S. & Shibata, D. Many colorectal cancers are 'flat' clonal expansions. Cell Cycle 8, 2187–2193 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kostadinov, R.L. et al. NSAIDs modulate clonal evolution in Barrett's esophagus. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003553 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Burrell, R.A. et al. The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501, 338–345 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Baca, S.C. et al. Punctuated evolution of prostate cancer genomes. Cell 153, 666–677 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Heng, H.H.Q. et al. Stochastic cancer progression driven by non-clonal chromosome aberrations. J. Cell. Physiol. 208, 461–472 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenberg, S.M. Evolving responsively: adaptive mutation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 504–515 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Stephens, P.J. et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144, 27–40 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sottoriva, A. et al. Cancer stem cell tumor model reveals invasive morphology and increased phenotypical heterogeneity. Cancer Res. 70, 46–56 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Clevers, H. The cancer stem cell: premises, promises and challenges. Nat. Med. 17, 313–319 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bernards, R. & Weinberg, R.A. Metastasis genes: a progression puzzle. Nature 418, 823 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ramaswamy, S., Ross, K.N., Lander, E.S. & Golub, T.R. A molecular signature of metastasis in primary solid tumors. Nat. Genet. 33, 49–54 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Diaz, L.A. Jr. et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 486, 537–540 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Staaf, J. et al. Normalization of Illumina Infinium whole-genome SNP data improves copy number estimates and allelic intensity ratios. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 409 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Olshen, A.B. et al. Parent-specific copy number in paired tumor-normal studies using circular binary segmentation. Bioinformatics 27, 2038–2046 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Curtis, C. et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486, 346–352 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213–219 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wolff, A.C. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 118–145 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Bozic, I. et al. Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18545–18550 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Michor, F., Iwasa, Y. & Nowak, M.A. Dynamics of cancer progression. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 197–205 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of R. Guzman. This project was supported in part by an award to C.C. from the V Foundation for Cancer Research and by award numbers P30CA014089, R21CA149990 and R21CA151139 from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the US National Institutes of Health. M.F.P. was supported by a grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Andrea Sottoriva, Zhicheng Ma & Christina Curtis

    Present address: Present addresses: Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK (A.S.), Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA (Z.M. and C.C.) and Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA (Z.M. and C.C.).,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Andrea Sottoriva, Zhicheng Ma, Matthew P Salomon, Junsong Zhao, Paul Marjoram, Kimberly Siegmund & Christina Curtis

  2. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Haeyoun Kang, Michael F Press & Darryl Shibata

  3. Department of Pathology, CHA University, Seongnam-si, South Korea

    Haeyoun Kang

  4. Center for Evolution and Cancer, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.,

    Trevor A Graham

  5. Centre for Tumor Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Trevor A Graham

Authors
  1. Andrea Sottoriva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haeyoun Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhicheng Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Trevor A Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew P Salomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junsong Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul Marjoram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kimberly Siegmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michael F Press
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Darryl Shibata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christina Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.S., D.S. and C.C. designed the study, interpreted the data and constructed the model. D.S. provided clinical specimens. Z.M. and D.S. processed the specimens. Z.M. generated sequencing data. P.M. and K.S. contributed data. H.K. and M.F.P. performed FISH. A.S. developed and implemented the computational framework. A.S., M.P.S. and J.Z. analyzed the data with oversight from C.C. A.S., D.S. and C.C. wrote the manuscript with input from T.A.G. D.S. and C.C. oversaw the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Darryl Shibata or Christina Curtis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–14 and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. (PDF 5927 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Supplementary Table 3 (XLSX 52 kb)

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sottoriva, A., Kang, H., Ma, Z. et al. A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumor growth. Nat Genet 47, 209–216 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3214

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3214

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research