Review Article | Published:

The evolution of tumour phylogenetics: principles and practice

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 18, pages 213229 (2017) | Download Citation

Abstract

Rapid advances in high-throughput sequencing and a growing realization of the importance of evolutionary theory to cancer genomics have led to a proliferation of phylogenetic studies of tumour progression. These studies have yielded not only new insights but also a plethora of experimental approaches, sometimes reaching conflicting or poorly supported conclusions. Here, we consider this body of work in light of the key computational principles underpinning phylogenetic inference, with the goal of providing practical guidance on the design and analysis of scientifically rigorous tumour phylogeny studies. We survey the range of methods and tools available to the researcher, their key applications, and the various unsolved problems, closing with a perspective on the prospects and broader implications of this field.

Key points

  • Methods for and applications of phylogenetic tree inference have proliferated in studies of cancer genomics.

  • Tumour phylogeny methods have become important tools for making sense of the complexity of emerging tumour genomic data sets, providing new methods for identifying the order and timing of driver mutations. This has led to new insights and controversies about the nature of the evolutionary processes involved in cancer, and has driven novel approaches to prognostic prediction.

  • Tumour phylogeny methods can be broadly partitioned into several classes of study design, with variations in data source, evolutionary model, and inference algorithm in each class.

  • Productive use of tumour phylogeny methods requires a sophisticated understanding of how to align genomic data sources, evolutionary models, and phylogeny algorithms with research questions about tumour evolution.

  • Key problems of the field remain unresolved, including how to make use of various novel and heterogeneous data sources, the development of more sophisticated models and algorithms appropriate to specific mechanisms of tumour evolution, and the generation of methods and standards for statistically rigorous planning and analysis of tumour phylogeny studies.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Constitutional aneuploidy and cancer predisposition caused by biallelic mutations in (BUB1B). Nat. Genet. 36, 1159–1161 (2004).

  2. 2.

    The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194, 23–28 (1976). This is a seminal paper proposing that solid tumours evolve clonally while accumulating mutations from one mitosis to the next via a process of selection of mutant subpopulations from a common progenitor cell.

  3. 3.

    Is breast tumor progression really linear? Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 339–341 (2008).

  4. 4.

    & Using tumour phylogenetics to identify the roots of metastasis in humans. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12, 258–272 (2015).

  5. 5.

    & Evolution of acquired resistance to anti-cancer therapy. J. Theor. Biol. 355, 10–20 (2014).

  6. 6.

    et al. Exploiting evolutionary principles to prolong tumor control in preclinical models of breast cancer. Sci. Transl Med. 8, 327ra24 (2016).

  7. 7.

    , , & Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 924–935 (2006).

  8. 8.

    & Re-evaluating clonal dominance in cancer evolution. Trends Cancer 2, 263–276 (2016).

  9. 9.

    , & New paradigms in clonal evolution: punctuated equilibrium in cancer. J. Pathol. 240, 126–136 (2016).

  10. 10.

    , , & Evolution of the cancer genome. Trends Genet. 28, 155–163 (2012).

  11. 11.

    , , & Advances for studying clonal evolution in cancer. Cancer Lett. 340, 212–219 (2013).

  12. 12.

    , & The mathematics of cancer: integrating quantitative models. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 730–745 (2015).

  13. 13.

    , , & Cancer evolution: mathematical models and computational inference. Syst. Biol. 64, e1–e25 (2015). This is an in-depth review of applications of mathematical models of evolution to many problems in cancer research, including examples of various techniques drawn from phylogenetics, population genetics, stochastic processes, and game theory and related areas.

  14. 14.

    & Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 481, 306–313 (2012).

  15. 15.

    Mutator phenotype may be required for multistage carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 51, 3075–3079 (1991).

  16. 16.

    , , & Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res. 54, 4855–4878 (1994).

  17. 17.

    , , & Genetic instability and darwinian selection in tumours. Trends Cell Biol. 9, M57–M60 (1999).

  18. 18.

    , & RNA editing enzyme APOBEC1 and some of its homologs can act as DNA mutators. Mol. Cell 10, 1247–1253 (2002).

  19. 19.

    et al. The patterns and dynamics of genomic instability in metastatic pancreatic cancer. Nature 467, 1109–1113 (2010).

  20. 20.

    et al. Chromosome instability (CIN): what it is and why it is crucial to cancer evolution. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 32, 325–340 (2013).

  21. 21.

    et al. Spatial and temporal diversity in genomic instability processes defines lung cancer evolution. Science 346, 251–256 (2014). This is a particularly instructive study for critically evaluating the application of phylogenetics to bulk tumour samples, in part because it considers multiple phylogenetic methods and recognizes that some samples yield multiple optimal tree topologies.

  22. 22.

    et al. The genomic landscape and evolution of endometrial carcinoma progression and abdominopelvic metastasis. Nat. Genet. 48, 848–855 (2016).

  23. 23.

    et al. Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers. Cell 149, 979–993 (2012).

  24. 24.

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

  25. 25.

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

  26. 26.

    et al. Signatures of mutation processes in human cancers. Nature 500, 415–421 (2013).

  27. 27.

    & Mutational signatures: the patterns of somatic mutations hidden in cancer genomes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Devel. 24, 52–60 (2014).

  28. 28.

    et al. Tracking the origins and drivers of subclonal metastatic expansion in prostate cancer. Nat. Commun. 6, 6605 (2015).

  29. 29.

    et al. Clonal status of actionable driver events and the timing of mutational processes in cancer evolution. Sci. Transl Med. 7, 283ra54 (2015).

  30. 30.

    et al. Tracking the genomic evolution of esophageal adenocarcinoma through neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Discov. 5, 821–831 (2015).

  31. 31.

    , & WeSME: uncovering mutual exclusivity of cancer drivers and beyond. Bioinformatics (2016).

  32. 32.

    & Mechanisms of therapy-related carcinogenesis. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 943–955 (2005).

  33. 33.

    et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science 343, 189–193 (2014).

  34. 34.

    et al. Clonal evolution of glioblastoma under therapy. Nat. Genet. 48, 768–776 (2016).

  35. 35.

    et al. NSAIDs modulate clonal evolution in Barrett's esophagus. PLoS Genet. 9, e100353 (2013). This is an important investigation for demonstrating the ability of treatment to shape the pre-cancer evolutionary landscape. It provides evidence of a more than order-of-magnitude decrease in mutation rates for patients with Barrett oesophagus who took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus those who did not.

  36. 36.

    & Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).

  37. 37.

    & Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1805, 105–117 (2010).

  38. 38.

    , , , & Cellular and genetic diversity in the progression of in situ human breast carcinomas to an invasive phenotype. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 636–644 (2010).

  39. 39.

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

  40. 40.

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

  41. 41.

    et al. Single-cell genetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer reveals enormous tumor heterogeneity, yet conserved genomic imbalances and gain of MYC during progression. Am. J. Pathol. 181, 1807–1822 (2012).

  42. 42.

    et al. Subclonal genomic architectures of primary and metastatic colorectal cancer based on intratumoral genetic heterogeneity. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 4461–4472 (2015).

  43. 43.

    et al. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a phylogenetic analysis. PLoS Med. 12, e1001789 (2015).

  44. 44.

    , & Inferring mutational timing and reconstructing tumour evolutionary histories. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1855, 264–275 (2015).

  45. 45.

    , & Inferring the origin of metastases from cancer phylogenies. Cancer Res. 75, 4021–4025 (2015).

  46. 46.

    et al. Extremely high genetic diversity in a single tumor points to prevalence of non-Darwinian cell evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6496–E6505 (2015).

  47. 47.

    et al. A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumor growth. Nat. Genet. 47, 209–216 (2015). This study on the evolution of colorectal cancer illustrates the importance of deep evolutionary theory in interpreting genomic data from tumours. It provides evidence that largely selectively neutral mutations can occur, in contrast to one of the two evolutionary principles of Nowell (reference 2) and others: that cancer evolves by a gradual series of genomic aberrations and that there is strong selection for those aberrations that are more favourable to tumour progression.

  48. 48.

    , , , & Identification of neutral tumor evolution across cancer types. Nat. Genet. 48, 238–244 (2016).

  49. 49.

    et al. Acquired resistance and clonal evolution in melanoma during BRAF inhibitor therapy. Cancer Discov. 4, 80–93 (2014).

  50. 50.

    et al. Subclonal diversification of primary breast cancer revealed by multiregion sequencing. Nat. Med. 21, 751–759 (2015).

  51. 51.

    , , , & EXPANDS: expanding ploidy and allele frequency on nested subpopulations. Bioinformatics 30, 50–60 (2014).

  52. 52.

    et al. Convergent loss of PTEN leads to clinical resistance to a PI(3)Kα inhibitor. Nature 518, 240–244 (2015).

  53. 53.

    et al. Divergent clonal selection dominates medulloblastoma at recurrence. Nature 529, 351–357 (2016).

  54. 54.

    et al. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature 481, 506–510 (2012).

  55. 55.

    , & Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. Br. J. Cancer 108, 479–485 (2013).

  56. 56.

    et al. Intra-tumour genetic heterogeneity and poor chemoradiotherapy response in cervical cancer. Br. J. Cancer 104, 361–368 (2011).

  57. 57.

    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).

  58. 58.

    et al. Phylogenetic analysis of multiple FISH markers in oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma suggests that a diverse distribution of copy number changes is associated with poor prognosis. Int. J. Cancer 138, 98–109 (2016).

  59. 59.

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

  60. 60.

    et al. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science 351, 1463–1469 (2016).

  61. 61.

    et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in localized lung adenocarcinomas delineated by multiregion sequencing. Science 346, 256–259 (2014).

  62. 62.

    , & Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 369–377 (2011).

  63. 63.

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

  64. 64.

    et al. Phylogenetic analyses of melanoma reveal complex patterns of metastatic dissemination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10995–11000 (2015).

  65. 65.

    et al. Tracing cell fates in human colorectal tumors from somatic microsatellite mutations: evidence of adenomas with stem cell architecture. Am. J. Pathol. 153, 1189–1200 (1998).

  66. 66.

    et al. Inferring tree models of oncogenesis from comparative genomic hybridization data. J. Comput. Biol. 6, 37–51 (1999). This is the first report to suggest that there might be difficulties with modelling tumour progression as a tree construction problem in phylogenetics.

  67. 67.

    et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 122, 3616–3627 (2013).

  68. 68.

    et al. Early and multiple origins of metastatic lineages within primary tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2140–2145 (2016). This study is an important advance over prior bulk sequencing studies for at least three reasons: it compares different phylogenetic methods and draws inferences only when the methods agree on the tree topology; it combines the SNVs in a manner that does not require the use of variant allele frequencies to infer subclones; and it provides clear evidence that some metastases branch early and in parallel, whereas others have a single late origin, reconciling contradictory conclusions reached by earlier studies.

  69. 69.

    , , & Reconstructing tumor phylogenies from heterogeneous single-cell data. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 5, 407–427 (2007).

  70. 70.

    et al. Distinct evolutionary trajectories of primary high-grade serous ovarian cancers revealed through spatial mutational profiling. J. Pathol. 231, 21–34 (2013).

  71. 71.

    et al. Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 90–94 (2011). This is the seminal paper in developing and demonstrating the biotechnology to perform scSeq in tumours and apply it to phylogenetic inferences of single tumours.

  72. 72.

    Selection and adaptation during metastatic cancer progression. Nature 501, 365–372 (2013).

  73. 73.

    et al. Intratumor DNA methylation heterogeneity reflects clonal evolution in aggressive prostate cancer. Cell Rep. 8, 798–806 (2014). This bulk tumour phylogeny study is of interest because the authors combine CNV data and DNA methylation data, showing a high correlation of inferred inter-sample evolutionary distances between inferences derived from genetic and from epigenetic data.

  74. 74.

    , , & Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 551–564 (2009).

  75. 75.

    & Evolutionary theory of cancer. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1168, 23–51 (2009).

  76. 76.

    et al. Cell lineage analysis of a mouse tumor. Cancer Res. 68, 5924–5931 (2008).

  77. 77.

    , & Passenger mutations as a marker of clonal cell lineages in emerging neoplasia. Semin. Cancer Biol. 20, 294–303 (2010).

  78. 78.

    et al. Cell lineage analysis of acute leukemia relapse uncovers the role of replication-rate heterogeneity and microsatellite instability. Blood 120, 603–612 (2012).

  79. 79.

    , , , & Single-molecule genomic data delineate patient-specific tumor profiles and cancer stem cell organization. Cancer Res. 73, 41–49 (2013).

  80. 80.

    et al. Single-cell exome sequencing reveals single-nucleotide mutation characteristics of a kidney tumor. Cell 148, 886–895 (2012).

  81. 81.

    , , & Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294, 2310–2314 (2001).

  82. 82.

    Inferring Phylogenies (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2004).

  83. 83.

    et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 736–745 (2015).

  84. 84.

    et al. Phylogenetic analysis of multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization data from tumor cell populations. Bioinformatics 29, i189–i198 (2013).

  85. 85.

    et al. Phylogenetic quantification of intra-tumour heterogeneity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003535 (2014). This work provides an important example of a robust cross-platform computational tool for tumour-specific phylogenetic inference, MEDICC, which carries out phylogenetic analysis of multiple samples from a tumour by quantifying intra-tumour heterogeneity while taking into account dependencies between genomic changes.

  86. 86.

    , , & BitPhylogeny: a probabilistic framework for reconstructing intra-tumor phylogenies. Genome Biol. 16, 36 (2015). This study represents an exciting advance in the development and implementation of tumour phylogeny methods for third-party use, developing a full Bayesian model that can be applied to both bulk sequencing data and single-cell data.

  87. 87.

    , & Tree inference for single-cell data. Genome Biol. 17, 96 (2016).

  88. 88.

    , & Topology based data analysis identifies a subgroup of breast cancers with a unique mutational profile and excellent survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7265–7270 (2011).

  89. 89.

    & Using single cell sequencing data to model the evolutionary history of a tumor. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 27 (2014).

  90. 90.

    , & Inferring the paths of somatic evolution in cancer. Bioinformatics 30, 2456–2463 (2014).

  91. 91.

    , & Defining order and timing of mutations during cancer progression: the TO-DAG probabilistic graphical model. Front. Genet. 6, 309 (2015).

  92. 92.

    et al. Clonal cytogenetic progression within intratumorally heterogeneous meningiomas predicts tumor recurrence. Int. J. Oncol. 39, 1601–1608 (2011).

  93. 93.

    & A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61, 759–767 (1990).

  94. 94.

    & Selection, the mutation rate and cancer: ensuring that the tail does not wag the dog. Nat. Med. 5, 11–12 (1999).

  95. 95.

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

  96. 96.

    et al. The clonal evolution of metastases from primary serous epithelial ovarian cancers. Int. J. Cancer 124, 1579–1586 (2009).

  97. 97.

    et al. Single-cell exome sequencing and monoclonal evolution of a JAK2-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm. Cell 148, 873–885 (2012).

  98. 98.

    et al. Genomic characterization of brain metastases reveals branched evolution and potential therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov. 5, 1164–1177 (2015). This is one of the most interesting and instructive bulk tumour phylogeny studies to date because the study design was to investigate the evolution of metastasis across many tumour types, and the sample size (86) is among the largest for the bulk tumour studies carried out thus far.

  99. 99.

    et al. Nonlinear tumor evolution from dysplastic nodules to hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget (2016).

  100. 100.

    et al. Regional and temporal heterogeneity of epithelial ovarian cancer tumor biopsies: implications for therapeutic strategies. Oncotarget (2016).

  101. 101.

    et al. Heterogeneity of genomic evolution and mutational profiles in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 5, 2997 (2014).

  102. 102.

    et al. Single-cell genetic analysis reveals insights into clonal development of prostate cancers and indicates loss of PTEN as a marker of poor prognosis. Am. J. Pathol. 184, 2671–2686 (2014).

  103. 103.

    et al. Distinctive patterns of Her-2/neu, c-myc, and cyclin D1 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization in primary breast cancers. Cytometry 46, 136–149 (2001).

  104. 104.

    et al. Genetic clonal diversity predicts progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Nat. Genet. 38, 468–473 (2006).

  105. 105.

    et al. Pan-cancer analysis of the extent and consequences of intratumor heterogeneity. Nat. Med. 22, 105–113 (2016).

  106. 106.

    et al. Hypermutable DNA chronicles the evolution of human colon cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E1889–E1898 (2014).

  107. 107.

    et al. Colorectal adenoma and cancer divergence: evidence of multilineage progression. Am. J. Pathol. 154, 815–1824 (1999).

  108. 108.

    , & Maximum likelihood estimation of oncogenetic tree models. Biostatistics 5, 545–556 (2004).

  109. 109.

    et al. Inferring a tumor progression model for neuroblastoma from genomic data. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7322–7331 (2005).

  110. 110.

    et al. Learning multiple evolutionary pathways from cross-sectional data. J. Comput. Biol. 12, 584–598 (2005).

  111. 111.

    et al. Mtreemix: a software package for learning and using mixture models of mutagenetic trees. Bioinformatics 21, 2106–2107 (2005).

  112. 112.

    , & New probabilistic network models and algorithms for oncogenesis. J. Comput. Biol. 13, 853–865 (2006).

  113. 113.

    , , & Quantifying cancer progression with conjunctive Bayesian networks. Bioinformatics 25, 2809–2815 (2009).

  114. 114.

    et al. Estimating cancer survival and clinical outcome based on genetic tumor progression scores. Bioinformatics 21, 2438–2446 (2005).

  115. 115.

    , , , & Rtreemix: an R package for estimating evolutionary pathways and genetic progression scores. Bioinformatics 24, 2391–2392 (2008).

  116. 116.

    , & Stability analysis of mixtures of mutagenetic trees. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 165 (2008).

  117. 117.

    et al. A mathematical framework to determine the temporal sequence of somatic genetic events in cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17604–17609 (2010).

  118. 118.

    et al. A mathematical methodology for determining the temporal order of pathway alterations arising during gliomagenesis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002337 (2012).

  119. 119.

    , , , & Inferring clonal evolution of tumors from single nucleotide somatic mutations. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 35 (2014).

  120. 120.

    & Learning oncogenetic networks by reducing to mixed integer linear programming. PLoS ONE 8, e65773 (2013).

  121. 121.

    et al. CAPRI: efficient inference of cancer progression models from cross-sectional data. Bioinformatics 31, 3016–3026 (2015).

  122. 122.

    et al. Distance-based reconstruction of tree models for oncogenesis. J. Comput. Biol. 7, 789–803 (2000).

  123. 123.

    , & Tumor classification using phylogenetic methods on expression data. J. Theor. Biol. 228, 477–496 (2004).

  124. 124.

    , , , & A differentiation-based phylogeny of cancer subtypes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000777 (2010).

  125. 125.

    , , , & Inferring progression models for CGH data. Bioinformatics 25, 2208–2215 (2009).

  126. 126.

    , & Cumulative disease progression models for cross-sectional data: a review and comparison. Biom. J. 54, 617–640 (2012).

  127. 127.

    Identifying restrictions in the order of accumulation of mutations during tumor progression: effects of passengers, evolutionary models, and sampling. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 41 (2015).

  128. 128.

    , & Accurate reconstruction of the temporal order of mutations in neoplastic progression. Cancer Prev. Res. 4, 1135–1144 (2011).

  129. 129.

    , , , & Analysis of the copy number profiles of several tumor samples from the same patient reveals the successive steps in tumorigenesis. Genome Biol. 11, R76 (2010).

  130. 130.

    , & A combinatorial approach for analyzing intra-tumor heterogeneity from high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 30, i78–i86 (2014).

  131. 131.

    , , & Reconstruction of clonal trees and tumor composition from multi-sample sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, i62–i70 (2015).

  132. 132.

    et al. Fast and scalable inference of multi-sample cancer lineages. Genome Biol. 16, 91 (2015).

  133. 133.

    et al. TITAN: inference of copy number architectures in clonal cell populations from tumor whole-genome sequence data. Genome Res. 24, 1881–1893 (2014).

  134. 134.

    et al. Estimation of rearrangement phylogeny for cancer genomes. Genome Res. 22, 346–361 (2012).

  135. 135.

    et al. PhyloWGS: reconstructing subclonal composition and evolution from whole-genome sequencing of tumors. Genome Biol. 16, 35 (2015).

  136. 136.

    , , & Inferring the mutational history of a tumor using multi-state perfect phylogeny mixtures. Cell Syst. 3, 43–53 (2016).

  137. 137.

    , , & Assessing intratumor heterogeneity and tracking longitudinal and spatial clonal evolutionary history by next-generation sequencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E5528–E5537 (2016).

  138. 138.

    et al. SubcloneSeeker: a computational framework for reconstructing tumor clone structure for cancer variant interpretation and prioritization. Genome Biol. 15, 443 (2014).

  139. 139.

    & Applying unmixing to gene expression data for tumor phylogeny inference. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 42 (2010).

  140. 140.

    et al. SciClone: inferring clonal architecture and tracking the spatial and temporal patterns of tumor evolution. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003665 (2014).

  141. 141.

    et al. PyClone: statistical inference of clonal population structure in cancer. Nat. Methods 11, 396–398 (2014).

  142. 142.

    et al. Inferring clonal composition from multiple sections of a breast cancer. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003703 (2014).

  143. 143.

    , , & Subclonal hierarchy inference from somatic mutations: automatic reconstruction of cancer evolutionary trees from multi-region next generation sequencing. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004416 (2015).

  144. 144.

    , , & Clonality inference in multiple tumor samples using phylogeny. Bioinformatics 31, 1349–1356 (2015).

  145. 145.

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

  146. 146.

    et al. Genome evolution during progression to breast cancer. Genome Res. 23, 1097–1106 (2013).

  147. 147.

    et al. Paired exome analysis of Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma. Nat. Genet. 47, 1047–1055 (2015).

  148. 148.

    et al. The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 520, 353–357 (2015).

  149. 149.

    et al. FISHtrees 3.0: tumor phylogenetics using a ploidy probe. PLoS ONE 11, e0158569 (2016).

  150. 150.

    & Accuracy of answers to cell lineage questions depends on single-cell genomics data quality and quantity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004963 (2016).

  151. 151.

    et al. Algorithms to model single gene, single chromosome, and whole genome copy number changes jointly in tumor phylogenetics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003740 (2014).

  152. 152.

    et al. Inferring models of multiscale copy number evolution for single-tumor phylogenetics. Bioinformatics 31, i258–i267 (2015).

  153. 153.

    , , & in Proc. 15th Int. Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics. WABI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 9289 (eds Pop, M. & Touzet, H.) 108–120 (Springer, 2015).

  154. 154.

    & OncoNEM: inferring tumor evolution from single-cell sequencing data. Genome Biol. 17, 69 (2016).

  155. 155.

    & The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406–425 (1987).

  156. 156.

    et al. Clonal evolution in breast cancer revealed by single nucleus genome sequencing. Nature 512, 155–160 (2014).

  157. 157.

    et al. Punctuated copy number evolution and clonal stasis in triple-negative breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 48, 1119–1130 (2016).

  158. 158.

    et al. Rapid growth of a hepatocellular carcinoma and the driving mutations revealed by cell-population genetic analysis of whole-genome data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12042–12047 (2011).

  159. 159.

    , & Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature 396, 643–649 (1998).

  160. 160.

    et al. Tolerance of whole-genome doubling propagates chromosomal instability and accelerates cancer genome evolution. Cancer Discov. 4, 175–185 (2014).

  161. 161.

    & Genome instability: a mechanistic view of its causes and consequences. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 204–217 (2008).

  162. 162.

    & Estimating the order of mutations during tumorigenesis from tumor genome sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 1555–1561 (2012).

  163. 163.

    et al. Methods and challenges in timing chromosomal abnormalities within cancer samples. Bioinformatics 29, 3113–3120 (2013).

  164. 164.

    Approximate Bayesian computation in evolution and ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 379–406 (2010).

  165. 165.

    et al. Genetic reconstruction of individual colorectal tumor histories. Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA 97, 1236–1241 (2000).

  166. 166.

    et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 464, 999–1005 (2010).

  167. 167.

    et al. Genomic architecture and evolution of clear cell renal cell carcinomas defined by multiregion sequencing. Nat. Genet. 46, 225–233 (2014).

  168. 168.

    et al. Tumor cells disseminate early, but immunosurveillance limits metastatic outgrowth, in a mouse model of melanoma. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 2030–2039 (2010).

  169. 169.

    , , & Classifying the progression of ductal carcinoma from single-cell sampled data via integer linear programming: a case study. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 13, 643–655 (2016).

  170. 170.

    & Computers and Intractability (WH Freeman New York, 2002).

  171. 171.

    et al. Clonal expansions in ulcerative colitis identify patients with neoplasia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20871–20876 (2009).

  172. 172.

    et al. A phylogenetic analysis identifies heterogeneity among hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatology 36, 1341–1348 (2002).

  173. 173.

    , & THetA: inferring intra-tumor heterogeneity from high-throughput DNA sequencing data. Genome Biol. 14, R80 (2013).

  174. 174.

    et al. Patterns of somatic mutations in human cancer genomes. Nature 446, 153–158 (2007).

  175. 175.

    & Metastasis as an evolutionary process. Science 352, 169–175 (2016).

  176. 176.

    et al. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science 348, 880–886 (2015).

  177. 177.

    , & Inference of tumor phylogenies from genomic assays on heterogeneous samples. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012, 797812 (2012).

  178. 178.

    & Estimating an oncogenetic tree when false negatives and positives are present. Math. Biosci. 176, 219–236 (2002).

  179. 179.

    et al. TRONCO: an R package for the inference of cancer progression models from heterogeneous genomic data. Bioinformatics 32, 1911–1913 (2016).

  180. 180.

    et al. Algorithmic methods to infer the evolutionary trajectories in cancer progression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E4025–E4034 (2016).

  181. 181.

    , , & Expectation-maximization method for reconstructing tumor phylogenies from single-cell data. Comput. Syst. Bioinformatics Conf. 2006, 371–380 (2006).

  182. 182.

    et al. Single cell mutational profiling and clonal phylogeny in cancer. Genome Res. 23, 2115–2125 (2013).

  183. 183.

    et al. Analysis of the genetic phylogeny of multifocal prostate cancer identifies multiple independent clonal expansions in neoplastic and morphologically normal prostate tissue. Nat. Genet. 47, 367–372 (2015).

  184. 184.

    et al. Intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity in Wilms tumor: clonal evolution and clinical implications. EBioMedicine 9, 120–129 (2016).

  185. 185.

    et al. Single-cell sequencing reveals variants in ARID1A, GPRC5A and MLL2 driving self-renewal of human bladder cancer stem cells. Eur. Oncol. 71, 8–12 (2017).

  186. 186.

    et al. Most human non-GCIMP glioblastoma subtypes evolve from a common proneural-like recursor glioma. Cancer Cell 26, 288–300 (2014).

  187. 187.

    et al. EGFRvIII mutations can emerge as late and heterogenous events in glioblastoma development and promote angiogenesis through Src activation. Neuro Oncol. 18, 1644–1655 (2016).

  188. 188.

    et al. Evolution of human BCR–ABL1 lymphoblastic leukaemia-initiating cells. Nature 469, 362–367 (2011).

  189. 189.

    et al. Subclonal phylogenetic structures in cancer revealed by ultra-deep sequencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13081–13086 (2008).

  190. 190.

    et al. Paired exome analysis reveals clonal evolution and potential therapeutic targets in urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Res. 76, 5894–5906 (2016).

  191. 191.

    et al. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature 518, 422–426 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine (part of the US National Institutes of Health) and by a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Health (grant number 4100070287). The Pennsylvania Department of Health specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations or conclusions.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences and Computational Biology Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217, USA.

    • Russell Schwartz
  2. Computational Biology Branch, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.

    • Alejandro A. Schäffer

Authors

  1. Search for Russell Schwartz in:

  2. Search for Alejandro A. Schäffer in:

Competing interests

R.S. currently receives research funding from UPMC Enterprises, a division of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. A.A.S. declares no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell Schwartz.

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information S1 (table)

    This Table provides more detailed information on all tools mentioned in Table 1 as well as a few other tools of historical significance to the field or of potential value to readers of this review.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary information S2 (table)

    This table provides more detailed information on all case studies mentioned in Table 2, some other case studies that are important to the field and are cited in the main text and a handful of other, related studies that were not cited in the main text but are nonetheless notable in the context of this review.

Glossary

Selection

An evolutionary process in which one population (or subclone, in the context of cancer) is favoured for growth or survival over another.

Cancer progression

A change of cancer from a less serious to a more serious state, typically in a manner recognizable by pathologists.

Metastasis

A progression in which cancer cells spread to a location in the body that is physically distant from the primary tumour site.

Subclones

Subpopulations of cells in a tumour; the cells in each subclone are almost or completely genetically identical for all measured cancer-related variants.

Hypermutability

An elevated mitotic mutation rate, relative to that in healthy cells; this is often specific to a given mutation type (for example, a single nucleotide variant or a copy number variant).

Intra-tumour heterogeneity

Variation in the genomes of different cells in the same tumour.

Tumour self-seeding

A process by which descendants of cells that escaped the primary tumour re-enter circulation and return to the primary site.

Mathematical model

A formal mathematical abstraction of a physical or biological process, such as a set of evolutionary mechanisms.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.170

Further reading