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.

In situ single-cell analysis identifies heterogeneity for PIK3CA mutation and HER2 amplification in HER2-positive breast cancer

Abstract

Detection of minor, genetically distinct subpopulations within tumors is a key challenge in cancer genomics. Here we report STAR-FISH (specific-to-allele PCR–FISH), a novel method for the combined detection of single-nucleotide and copy number alterations in single cells in intact archived tissues. Using this method, we assessed the clinical impact of changes in the frequency and topology of PIK3CA mutation and HER2 (ERBB2) amplification within HER2-positive breast cancer during neoadjuvant therapy. We found that these two genetic events are not always present in the same cells. Chemotherapy selects for PIK3CA-mutant cells, a minor subpopulation in nearly all treatment-naive samples, and modulates genetic diversity within tumors. Treatment-associated changes in the spatial distribution of cellular genetic diversity correlated with poor long-term outcome following adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab. Our findings support the use of in situ single cell–based methods in cancer genomics and imply that chemotherapy before HER2-targeted therapy may promote treatment resistance.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Outline of the STAR-FISH method and its validation.
Figure 2: STAR-FISH analysis of breast cancer.
Figure 3: Changes in intratumoral heterogeneity and patient outcomes.
Figure 4: Probable course of tumor evolution based on the co-occurrence of PIK3CA mutation and HER2 amplification.
Figure 5: Intratumoral topology.

References

  1. Marusyk, A., Almendro, V. & Polyak, K. Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 323–334 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yap, T.A., Gerlinger, M., Futreal, P.A., Pusztai, L. & Swanton, C. Intratumor heterogeneity: seeing the wood for the trees. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 127ps10 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Navin, N. et al. Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 90–94 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Navin, N.E. Cancer genomics: one cell at a time. Genome Biol. 15, 452–464 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagasra, O. Protocols for the in situ PCR-amplification and detection of mRNA and DNA sequences. Nat. Protoc. 2, 2782–2795 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ikeda, S., Takabe, K., Inagaki, M., Funakoshi, N. & Suzuki, K. Detection of gene point mutation in paraffin sections using in situ loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Pathol. Int. 57, 594–599 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebina, M., Martínez, M., Birrer, M.J. & Linnoila, R.I. In situ detection of unexpected patterns of mutant p53 gene expression in non–small cell lung cancers. Oncogene 20, 2579–2586 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Almendro, V. et al. Genetic and phenotypic diversity in breast tumor metastases. Cancer Res. 74, 1338–1348 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bachman, K.E. et al. The PIK3CA gene is mutated with high frequency in human breast cancers. Cancer Biol. Ther. 3, 772–775 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61–70 (2012).

  13. Berns, K. et al. A functional genetic approach identifies the PI3K pathway as a major determinant of trastuzumab resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell 12, 395–402 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nagata, Y. et al. PTEN activation contributes to tumor inhibition by trastuzumab, and loss of PTEN predicts trastuzumab resistance in patients. Cancer Cell 6, 117–127 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Du, Y., Yin, W. & Lu, J. The predictive role of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss, phosphoinositol-3 (PI3) kinase (PIK3CA) mutation, and PI3K pathway activation in sensitivity to trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 29, 633–642 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rexer, B.N., Chanthaphaychith, S., Dahlman, K.B. & Arteaga, C.L. Direct inhibition of PI3K in combination with dual HER2 inhibitors is required for optimal antitumor activity in HER2+ breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. 16, R9 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rexer, B.N. & Arteaga, C.L. Intrinsic and acquired resistance to HER2-targeted therapies in HER2 gene-amplified breast cancer: mechanisms and clinical implications. Crit. Rev. Oncog. 17, 1–16 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Cizkova, M. et al. PIK3CA mutation impact on survival in breast cancer patients and in ERα, PR and ERBB2-based subgroups. Breast Cancer Res. 14, R28 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cizkova, M. et al. Outcome impact of PIK3CA mutations in HER2-positive breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab. Br. J. Cancer 108, 1807–1809 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Deng, G. et al. Single cell mutational analysis of PIK3CA in circulating tumor cells and metastases in breast cancer reveals heterogeneity, discordance, and mutation persistence in cultured disseminated tumor cells from bone marrow. BMC Cancer 14, 456–467 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dupont Jensen, J. et al. PIK3CA mutations may be discordant between primary and corresponding metastatic disease in breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 667–677 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jurinke, C., van den Boom, D., Cantor, C.R. & Koster, H. Automated genotyping using the DNA MassArray technology. Methods Mol. Biol. 170, 103–116 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sakr, R.A. et al. PI3K pathway activation in high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ—implications for progression to invasive breast carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 2326–2337 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chandarlapaty, S. et al. Frequent mutational activation of the PI3K-AKT pathway in trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6784–6791 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolff, A.C. et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 3997–4013 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K.W. Digital PCR. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9236–9241 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hindson, B.J. et al. High-throughput droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantitation of DNA copy number. Anal. Chem. 83, 8604–8610 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Brunelli, M. et al. Genotypic intratumoral heterogeneity in breast carcinoma with HER2/neu amplification: evaluation according to ASCO/CAP criteria. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 131, 678–682 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glöckner, S., Buurman, H., Kleeberger, W., Lehmann, U. & Kreipe, H. Marked intratumoral heterogeneity of c-myc and cyclinD1 but not of c-erbB2 amplification in breast cancer. Lab. Invest. 82, 1419–1426 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanna, W., Nofech-Mozes, S. & Kahn, H.J. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2/neu in breast cancer—a rare event. Breast J. 13, 122–129 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vance, G.H. et al. Genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing in breast cancer: panel summary and guidelines. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 133, 611–612 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cottu, P.H. et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2/neu expression and its consequences for the management of advanced breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 19, 595–597 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewis, J.T. et al. Analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity and amplification status in breast carcinomas with equivocal (2+) HER-2 immunostaining. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 124, 273–281 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Striebel, J.M., Bhargava, R., Horbinski, C., Surti, U. & Dabbs, D.J. The equivocally amplified HER2 FISH result on breast core biopsy: indications for further sampling do affect patient management. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 129, 383–390 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shin, S.J., Hyjek, E., Early, E. & Knowles, D.M. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER-2/neu in invasive mammary carcinomas using fluorescence in-situ hybridization and tissue microarray. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 14, 279–284 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Seol, H. et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer: its clinicopathological significance. Mod. Pathol. 25, 938–948 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bartlett, A.I. et al. Heterogeneous HER2 gene amplification: impact on patient outcome and a clinically relevant definition. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 136, 266–274 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Andersson, J., Linderholm, B., Bergh, J. & Elmberger, G. HER-2/neu (c-erbB-2) evaluation in primary breast carcinoma by fluorescent in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry with special focus on intratumor heterogeneity and comparison of invasive and in situ components. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 12, 14–20 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ng, C.K. et al. Intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity and alternative driver genetic alterations in breast cancers with heterogeneous HER2 gene amplification. Genome Biol. 16, 107–127 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity (Blackwell, 2004).

  41. Martins, F.C. et al. Evolutionary pathways in BRCA1-associated breast tumors. Cancer Discov. 2, 503–511 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hanker, A.B. et al. Mutant PIK3CA accelerates HER2-driven transgenic mammary tumors and induces resistance to combinations of anti-HER2 therapies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14372–14377 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hartigan, J.A. & Wong, M. A K-means clustering algorithm. Appl. Stat. 28, 100–108 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Samuels, Y. et al. Mutant PIK3CA promotes cell growth and invasion of human cancer cells. Cancer Cell 7, 561–573 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Thomas, R.K. et al. High-throughput oncogene mutation profiling in human cancer. Nat. Genet. 39, 347–351 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Grundberg, I. et al. In situ mutation detection and visualization of intratumor heterogeneity for cancer research and diagnostics. Oncotarget 4, 2407–2418 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Chang, Y.F., Imam, J.S. & Wilkinson, M.F. The nonsense-mediated decay RNA surveillance pathway. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 76, 51–74 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee, J.H. et al. Highly multiplexed subcellular RNA sequencing in situ. Science 343, 1360–1363 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Giesen, C. et al. Highly multiplexed imaging of tumor tissues with subcellular resolution by mass cytometry. Nat. Methods 11, 417–422 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hammond, M.E. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 134, 907–922 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wolff, A.C. et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 138, 241–256 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Frey, U.H., Bachmann, H.S., Peters, J. & Siffert, W. PCR-amplification of GC-rich regions: 'slowdown PCR'. Nat. Protoc. 3, 1312–1317 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Duprez, R. et al. Immunophenotypic and genomic characterization of papillary carcinomas of the breast. J. Pathol. 226, 427–441 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Chapman & Hall, 1993).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Winer, I. Krop, B. Vogelstein and members of the Polyak and Michor laboratories for their critical reading of the manuscript and useful discussions. We thank A. Marusyk and D. Tabassum for their help with the xenograft assays, R. Witwicki for help with data processing, L. Cameron in the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Confocal Microscopy center for her technical support, A. Richardson (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) for providing slides from a human breast tumor with known status for the PIK3CA mutation encoding p.His1047Arg, and H. Russness and I. Rye (Oslo University Hospital) for providing the BAC probe for HER2. This work was supported by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Physical Sciences–Oncology Center (U54CA143798 to F.M.), the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO; M.J.), the Swiss National Science Foundation (M.J.), the American Cancer Society (CRP-07-234-06-COUN to C.L.A.) and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (K.P.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.J. developed the STAR-FISH method and performed the experiments and data analyses. V.A. assisted with image acquisition and analyses. L.L. performed mathematical modeling and data analysis. S.Y.P. provided tumor samples. Y.K. and C.P. performed the digital PCR experiment and data analysis. R.A.S., B.W., T.A.K., S.C. and J.S.R.-F. provided patient samples and performed the Sequenom MassARRAY experiment. A.B.H. and C.L.A. provided data and tissues from transgenic models of HER2-positive breast cancer. K.P. and F.M. supervised the study. All authors helped to design the study and write the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Franziska Michor or Kornelia Polyak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 STAR-FISH primer design and testing.

(a) Primers designed to have a single mismatch at the 3′ end efficiently discriminate between wild-type and mutant alleles as the presence of a double mismatch at the 3′ end significantly inhibits primer annealing and the efficiency of the PCR reaction; green, wild-type nucleotide; red, mutant nucleotide; blue, mismatched nucleotide. (bd) Testing the sensitivity of mutation-specific STAR-FISH primers by performing PCR using defined mixtures of genomic DNA from cell lines with known mutation status. Total of 10 ng of genomic DNA was used for each PCR reaction; separate reactions were performed using WT and MUT primers. Full-length gels are presented in Supplementary Figure 2. (b) PIK3CA His1047Arg–specific PCR. MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells are PIK3CA wild type (WT), whereas SUM-185PE cells are homozygous for PIK3CA His1047Arg mutation (MUT). (c) PIK3CA E542K–specific PCR. The BT-483 cell line is homozygous for PIK3CA E542K mutation. (d) TP53 R175H–specific PCR. MDA-MB-231 cells are wild-type, whereas AU565 cells are homozygous for the TP53 R175H mutation. (eg) Testing the specificity of PIK3CA His1047Arg (e), PIK3CA E542K (f) and TP53 (g) mutation-specific STAR-FISH primers by performing in situ PCR using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections of xenografts or histogel samples derived from breast cancer cells. (e) Upper panel, only wild-type (WT) primers were used in the first round of in situ PCR reactions, and both wild-type (WT) and mutant (MUT) primers were used in the second round of PCR. (f,g) Both WT and MUT primers were used in both rounds of PCR. Scale bar, 75 μm.

Supplementary Figure 2 Uncropped agarose gels of Figure 1b and Supplementary Figure 1b–d.

PCR using defined mixtures of genomic DNA from cell lines with known mutation status. A total of 10 ng of genomic DNA was used per PCR reaction; separate reactions were performed using WT and MUT primers. (a) PIK3CA His1047Arg–specific PCR. MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells are PIK3CA wild type (WT), whereas T-47D cells are heterozygous and SUM-185PE cells are homozygous for the PIK3CA His1047Arg mutation (MUT). WT and MUT PCR reactions were loaded in the same well. Upper band, mutant amplicon; lower band, wild-type amplicon. (b) PIK3CA His1047Arg–specific PCR. MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells are PIK3CA wild type (WT), whereas SUM-185PE cells are homozygous for PIK3CA His1047Arg mutation (MUT). (c) PIK3CA E542K–specific PCR. The BT-483 cell line is homozygous for PIK3CA E542K mutation. (d) TP53 R175H–specific PCR. MDA-MB-231 cells are wild-type, whereas AU565 cells are homozygous for the TP53 R175H mutation.

Supplementary Figure 3 Comparison of STAR-FISH, FACS and immunofluorescence.

(a) Upper panel, PIK3CA His1047Arg–specific STAR-FISH on a xenograft sample obtained by co-injecting MDA-MB-231_mCherry (PIK3CA WT) and SUM-185PE_GFP (PIK3CA His1047Arg MUT) cell lines. Arrows point to mutant cells with red STAR-FISH signal. Lower panel, the same xenograft stained with antibody to GFP to detect SUM-185PE_GFP cells. Scale bar, 75 μm. (b) FACS analysis of a freshly dissociated mixed MDA-MB-231_mCherry and SUM-185PE_GFP cell line xenograft. (c) Comparison of replicates of mutation detection by STAR-FISH, FACS and immunofluorescence. The observed differences are not significant (ns; ANOVA test, two-tailed t test). Error bars, s.d. (d) Numerical summary of the results obtained by the different methods applied to the same xenograft.

Supplementary Figure 4 Comparison of STAR-FISH with MassARRAY.

(a) Comparison of the percentages of mutant cells detected by MassARRAY and STAR-FISH in a cohort of patient samples with adjacent invasive (IDC) and in situ (DCIS) components (analyzed separately). Green color indicates accordance between the compared methods. (b) Mutant cell percentages detected by STAR-FISH and MassARRAY. Linear regression line and correlation P < 0.0001 (****). (c) STAR-FISH on a single patient sample. Despite a high extracellular autofluorescence background in the DCIS component (upper panel), the STAR-FISH signal can easily be detected. Scale bar, 75 μm.

Supplementary Figure 5 Schematic depiction of the treatment of the patient cohort analyzed.

Timeline and details of tumor sample collection and details of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment (patient number in parentheses).

Supplementary Figure 6 Frequency of cell types excluded from overall analyses.

(a,b) The frequency of cells with HER2/CEP17 ratio ≤ 2.2 and no WT or MUT signal (HER2noAmp) (a) and cells without any detectable signal (NA) (b) per each tumor area analyzed (n = 183). The percentage of HER2noAmp and NA cells is variable in different areas of the same tumor, and the distribution is random. The horizontal line in the middle of each box is the median value. The edges of each box are the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data. The lower (upper) whiskers are the maximum (minimum) between the minimum (maximum) value and the 25th (75th) percentile + 1.5 × IQR. (c) Immunohistochemical quantification of the smooth muscle actin (SMA) stromal marker in tumor samples with the highest and lowest frequencies of HER2noAmp cells. To account for variability in total cell numbers per sample, the SMA staining area was normalized to 350 cells. Error bars, s.d. (d) The effect of including taxanes in the neoadjuvant regimen on HER2noAmp cells. Taxane treatment has been shown to increase stromal cell content in post-treatment samples. Thus, if HERnoAmp cells were all stromal cells, an increase in frequency should be observed in the post-treatment samples from patients receiving paclitaxel therapy, but no significant changes were observed. The horizontal line in the middle of each box is the median value. The edges of each box are the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data. The lower (upper) whiskers are the maximum (minimum) between the minimum (maximum) value and the 25th (75th) percentile + 1.5 × IQR. (e) The percentage of NA cells in normal breast tissue is lower than in cancer tissue. The horizontal line in the middle of each box is the median value. The edges of each box are the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data. The lower (upper) whiskers are the maximum (minimum) between the minimum (maximum) value and the 25th (75th) percentile + 1.5 × IQR. (f) Distribution of nuclei size in tumors and normal tissue. Dashed lines represent the distribution limits for the normal tissue and denote the long tails of the tumor nuclei size distribution.

Supplementary Figure 7 Frequency of cell types before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Colors indicate the relative frequency of each cell type within tumors. Each plot represents an individual case before and after treatment, whereas each bar corresponds to one area of the tumor. The y-axis indicates cell frequency (%).

Supplementary Figure 8 Overall changes in the frequency of types and diversity indices due to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

(a) Frequency of each of the five cell types analyzed. Each mark represents a mean value for an individual patient. Circles and triangles indicate pre- and post-chemotherapy samples, respectively. Colors correspond to cell types, as in Supplementary Figure 2. Differences between pre- and post-treatment for each cell type was tested with unpaired two-tailed t tests: MUT, ***P = 0.0003, MUT + AMP, **P = 0.0018; AMP, *P = 0.0272; WT + AMP, **P = 0.0046. Error bars, s.d. (b) Overall frequency of cells with HER2 amplification irrespective of PIK3CA mutation status in all tumor areas analyzed. Unpaired two-tailed t-test P value = 0.0006. The horizontal line in the middle of each box is the median value. The edges of each box are the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data. The lower (upper) whiskers are the maximum (minimum) between the minimum (maximum) value and the 25th (75th) percentile + 1.5 × IQR. (c,d) Simpson’s index of intratumoral heterogeneity before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Error bars represent two times the standard error obtained from 1,000 bootstrap samples. Simpson’s index was calculated on the basis of the counts of the five cell types by combining all measured areas of each sample (across-species comparison) (c) or across different areas of the same tumor (across-area comparison) (d). Confidence intervals were obtained using nonparametric bootstrap resampling methods. The global difference in diversity before and after treatment for all 22 patients was evaluated using paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests, P value = 0.063 (across species) and 0.156 (across areas).

Supplementary Figure 9 Validation of STAR-FISH–based PIK3CA His1047Arg mutation frequency in a patient cohort for HER2-positive breast tumors by droplet digital PCR.

(a) The order of the slides used for assay comparison. Note the three consecutive slides used for DNA extraction for digital PCR and the location of the slides used for STAR-FISH analysis. (b) Comparison of the percentages of mutant cells detected by digital PCR and STAR-FISH. Green color indicates concordance between the two methods. Two outliers are marked by open circle. (c) Mutant cell percentage detected by STAR-FISH and digital PCR. The linear regression line was plotted with exclusion of the two outliers. ****P < 0.0001. (d) The tumor cell content for the outlier samples is lower than 20% (open circles).

Supplementary Figure 10 The effect of combining targeted therapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy on intratumoral heterogeneity.

The distribution of diversity indices changes in groups of patients who received cytotoxic drugs (Ctx alone) and a combination of chemotherapy and trastuzumab. The y-axis indicates the proportion of patients in a given treatment group.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–10, Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Supplementary Note. (PDF 1837 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janiszewska, M., Liu, L., Almendro, V. et al. In situ single-cell analysis identifies heterogeneity for PIK3CA mutation and HER2 amplification in HER2-positive breast cancer. Nat Genet 47, 1212–1219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3391

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3391

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer