Higher-order chromatin structure is important for the regulation of genes by distal regulatory sequences1,2. Structural variants (SVs) that alter three-dimensional (3D) genome organization can lead to enhancer–promoter rewiring and human disease, particularly in the context of cancer3. However, only a small minority of SVs are associated with altered gene expression4,5, and it remains unclear why certain SVs lead to changes in distal gene expression and others do not. To address these questions, we used a combination of genomic profiling and genome engineering to identify sites of recurrent changes in 3D genome structure in cancer and determine the effects of specific rearrangements on oncogene activation. By analysing Hi-C data from 92 cancer cell lines and patient samples, we identified loci affected by recurrent alterations to 3D genome structure, including oncogenes such as MYC, TERT and CCND1. By using CRISPR–Cas9 genome engineering to generate de novo SVs, we show that oncogene activity can be predicted by using ‘activity-by-contact’ models that consider partner region chromatin contacts and enhancer activity. However, activity-by-contact models are only predictive of specific subsets of genes in the genome, suggesting that different classes of genes engage in distinct modes of regulation by distal regulatory elements. These results indicate that SVs that alter 3D genome organization are widespread in cancer genomes and begin to illustrate predictive rules for the consequences of SVs on oncogene activation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All data generated as part of this study is available through the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database with accession number GSE147123.
All code used as part of this study is available through GitHub (https://github.com/dixonlab/).
Dekker, J. & Mirny, L. The 3D genome as moderator of chromosomal communication. Cell 164, 1110–1121 (2016).
Yu, M. & Ren, B. The three-dimensional organization of mammalian genomes. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 33, 265–289 (2017).
Spielmann, M., Lupianez, D. G. & Mundlos, S. Structural variation in the 3D genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 453–467 (2018).
Ghavi-Helm, Y. et al. Highly rearranged chromosomes reveal uncoupling between genome topology and gene expression. Nat. Genet. 51, 1272–1282 (2019).
Akdemir, K. C. et al. Disruption of chromatin folding domains by somatic genomic rearrangements in human cancer. Nat. Genet. 52, 294–305 (2020).
Levine, M., Cattoglio, C. & Tjian, R. Looping back to leap forward: transcription enters a new era. Cell 157, 13–25 (2014).
Leder, P. et al. Translocations among antibody genes in human cancer. Science 222, 765–771 (1983).
Taub, R. et al. Translocation of the c-myc gene into the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus in human Burkitt lymphoma and murine plasmacytoma cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 79, 7837–7841 (1982).
Weischenfeldt, J. et al. Pan-cancer analysis of somatic copy-number alterations implicates IRS4 and IGF2 in enhancer hijacking. Nat. Genet. 49, 65–74 (2017).
Northcott, P. A. et al. Enhancer hijacking activates GFI1 family oncogenes in medulloblastoma. Nature 511, 428–434 (2014).
Peifer, M. et al. Telomerase activation by genomic rearrangements in high-risk neuroblastoma. Nature 526, 700–704 (2015).
Groschel, S. et al. A single oncogenic enhancer rearrangement causes concomitant EVI1 and GATA2 deregulation in leukemia. Cell 157, 369–381 (2014).
Hnisz, D. et al. Activation of proto-oncogenes by disruption of chromosome neighborhoods. Science 351, 1454–1458 (2016).
Wang, X. et al. Genome-wide detection of enhancer-hijacking events from chromatin interaction data in rearranged genomes. Nat. Methods 18, 661–668 (2021).
Flavahan, W. A. et al. Insulator dysfunction and oncogene activation in IDH mutant gliomas. Nature 529, 110–114 (2016).
Flavahan, W. A. et al. Altered chromosomal topology drives oncogenic programs in SDH-deficient GISTs. Nature 575, 229–233 (2019).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Integrative detection and analysis of structural variation in cancer genomes. Nat. Genet. 50, 1388–1398 (2018).
Barutcu, A. R. et al. RUNX1 contributes to higher-order chromatin organization and gene regulation in breast cancer cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1859, 1389–1397 (2016).
Harewood, L. et al. Hi-C as a tool for precise detection and characterisation of chromosomal rearrangements and copy number variation in human tumours. Genome Biol. 18, 125 (2017).
Rao, S. S. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014).
Wang, Z. et al. The properties of genome conformation and spatial gene interaction and regulation networks of normal and malignant human cell types. PLoS One 8, e58793 (2013).
Taberlay, P. C. et al. Three-dimensional disorganization of the cancer genome occurs coincident with long-range genetic and epigenetic alterations. Genome Res. 26, 719–731 (2016).
Guo, Y. et al. CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162, 900–910 (2015).
Akdemir, K. C. et al. Somatic mutation distributions in cancer genomes vary with three-dimensional chromatin structure. Nat. Genet. 52, 1178–1188 (2020).
Consortium, E. P. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).
Burton, J. N. et al. Chromosome-scale scaffolding of de novo genome assemblies based on chromatin interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1119–1125 (2013).
Engreitz, J. M., Agarwala, V. & Mirny, L. A. Three-dimensional genome architecture influences partner selection for chromosomal translocations in human disease. PLoS One 7, e44196 (2012).
Naumova, N. et al. Organization of the mitotic chromosome. Science 342, 948–953 (2013).
Seaman, L. et al. Nucleome analysis reveals structure-function relationships for colon cancer. Mol. Cancer Res. 15, 821–830 (2017).
Marcotte, R. et al. Functional genomic landscape of human breast cancer drivers, vulnerabilities, and resistance. Cell 164, 293–309 (2016).
Ngoc, P. C. T. et al. Identification of novel lncRNAs regulated by the TAL1 complex in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 32, 2138–2151 (2018).
Harenza, J. L. et al. Transcriptomic profiling of 39 commonly-used neuroblastoma cell lines. Sci. Data 4, 170033 (2017).
Korbel, J. O. & Campbell, P. J. Criteria for inference of chromothripsis in cancer genomes. Cell 152, 1226–1236 (2013).
Baca, S. C. et al. Punctuated evolution of prostate cancer genomes. Cell 153, 666–677 (2013).
Cortes-Ciriano, I. et al. Comprehensive analysis of chromothripsis in 2,658 human cancers using whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Genet. 52, 331–341 (2020).
Stephens, P. J. et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell 144, 27–40 (2011).
Forcato, M. et al. Comparison of computational methods for Hi-C data analysis. Nat. Methods 14, 679–685 (2017).
Davidson, I. F. & Peters, J. M. Genome folding through loop extrusion by SMC complexes. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 445–464 (2021).
Veloza, L., Ribera-Cortada, I. & Campo, E. Mantle cell lymphoma pathology update in the 2016 WHO classification. Ann. Lymphoma 3, 2616–2695 (2019).
Canela, A. et al. Genome organization drives chromosome fragility. Cell 170, 507–521 e518 (2017).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012).
Nora, E. P. et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012).
Zhang, Y. et al. Transcriptionally active HERV-H retrotransposons demarcate topologically associating domains in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Genet. 51, 1380–1388 (2019).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation. Nature 518, 331–336 (2015).
Schuijers, J. et al. Transcriptional dysregulation of MYC reveals common enhancer-docking mechanism. Cell Rep. 23, 349–360 (2018).
Shi, J. et al. Role of SWI/SNF in acute leukemia maintenance and enhancer-mediated Myc regulation. Genes Dev. 27, 2648–2662 (2013).
Fulco, C. P. et al. Systematic mapping of functional enhancer-promoter connections with CRISPR interference. Science 354, 769–773 (2016).
Beroukhim, R. et al. The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature 463, 899–905 (2010).
Delgado, M. D. & Leon, J. Myc roles in hematopoiesis and leukemia. Genes Cancer 1, 605–616 (2010).
Li, Y. et al. Patterns of somatic structural variation in human cancer genomes. Nature 578, 112–121 (2020).
Zhang, Y. et al. Spatial organization of the mouse genome and its role in recurrent chromosomal translocations. Cell 148, 908–921 (2012).
Arber, D. A. et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 127, 2391–2405 (2016).
Doyle, L. A. Sarcoma classification: an update based on the 2013 World Health Organization classification of tumors of soft tissue and bone. Cancer 120, 1763–1774 (2014).
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Zimmerman, M. W. et al. MYC drives a subset of high-risk pediatric neuroblastomas and is activated through mechanisms including enhancer hijacking and focal enhancer amplification. Cancer Discov. 8, 320–335 (2018).
Fulco, C. P. et al. Activity-by-contact model of enhancer-promoter regulation from thousands of CRISPR perturbations. Nat. Genet. 51, 1664–1669 (2019).
Zhou, J. Sequence-based modeling of three-dimensional genome architecture from kilobase to chromosome scale. Nat. Genet. 54, 725–734 (2022).
Lambert, S. A. et al. The human transcription factors. Cell 172, 650–665 (2018).
Bradner, J. E., Hnisz, D. & Young, R. A. Transcriptional addiction in cancer. Cell 168, 629–643 (2017).
Khurana, E. et al. Role of non-coding sequence variants in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 93–108 (2016).
Lupianez, D. G. et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 161, 1012–1025 (2015).
Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009).
Whyte, W. A. et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell 153, 307–319 (2013).
Zuin, J. et al. Nonlinear control of transcription through enhancer-promoter interactions. Nature 604, 571–577 (2022).
Ran, F. A. et al. Genome engineering using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Nat. Protoc. 8, 2281–2308 (2013).
DePristo, M. A. et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011).
Selvaraj, S., J, R. D., Bansal, V. & Ren, B. Whole-genome haplotype reconstruction using proximity-ligation and shotgun sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1111–1118 (2013).
Edge, P., Bafna, V. & Bansal, V. HapCUT2: robust and accurate haplotype assembly for diverse sequencing technologies. Genome Res. 27, 801–812 (2017).
Dobin, A. et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29, 15–21 (2013).
Anders, S., Pyl, P. T. & Huber, W. HTSeq–a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, 166–169 (2015).
Haas, B. J. et al. Accuracy assessment of fusion transcript detection via read-mapping and de novo fusion transcript assembly-based methods. Genome Biol. 20, 213 (2019).
Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997 (2013).
Imakaev, M. et al. Iterative correction of Hi-C data reveals hallmarks of chromosome organization. Nat. Methods 9, 999–1003 (2012).
Consortium, I. T. P.-C. A. o. W. G. Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes. Nature 578, 82–93 (2020).
Nakamura, Y. et al. Targeting of super-enhancers and mutant BRAF can suppress growth of BRAF-mutant colon cancer cells via repression of MAPK signaling pathway. Cancer Lett. 402, 100–109 (2017).
Diaferia, G. R. et al. Dissection of transcriptional and cis-regulatory control of differentiation in human pancreatic cancer. EMBO J. 35, 595–617 (2016).
Abraham, B. J. et al. Small genomic insertions form enhancers that misregulate oncogenes. Nat. Commun. 8, 14385 (2017).
Kalender Atak, Z. et al. Identification of cis-regulatory mutations generating de novo edges in personalized cancer gene regulatory networks. Genome Med. 9, 80 (2017).
Ryan, R. J. et al. Detection of enhancer-associated rearrangements reveals mechanisms of oncogene dysregulation in B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Discov. 5, 1058–1071 (2015).
Perreault, A. A., Sprunger, D. M. & Venters, B. J. Epigenetic and transcriptional profiling of triple negative breast cancer. Sci. Data 6, 190033 (2019).
Franco, H. L. et al. Enhancer transcription reveals subtype-specific gene expression programs controlling breast cancer pathogenesis. Genome Res. 28, 159–170 (2018).
Wang, Y. et al. CDK7-dependent transcriptional addiction in triple-negative breast cancer. Cell 163, 174–186 (2015).
Feld, C. et al. Combined cistrome and transcriptome analysis of SKI in AML cells identifies SKI as a co-repressor for RUNX1. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 3412–3428 (2018).
Singh, A. A. et al. Optimized ChIP-seq method facilitates transcription factor profiling in human tumors. Life Sci. Alliance 2, e201800115 (2019).
Liu, N. Q. et al. The non-coding variant rs1800734 enhances DCLK3 expression through long-range interaction and promotes colorectal cancer progression. Nat. Commun. 8, 14418 (2017).
Wan, L. et al. ENL links histone acetylation to oncogenic gene expression in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 543, 265–269 (2017).
Saito, S. et al. Eradication of central nervous system leukemia of T-cell origin with a brain-permeable LSD1 inhibitor. Clin. Cancer Res. 25, 1601–1611 (2019).
Mansour, M. R. et al. Oncogene regulation. An oncogenic super-enhancer formed through somatic mutation of a noncoding intergenic element. Science 346, 1373–1377 (2014).
Eliades, P. et al. High MITF expression is associated with super-enhancers and suppressed by CDK7 inhibition in melanoma. J. Invest. Dermatol. 138, 1582–1590 (2018).
Boeva, V. et al. Heterogeneity of neuroblastoma cell identity defined by transcriptional circuitries. Nat. Genet. 49, 1408–1413 (2017).
Cohen, A. J. et al. Hotspots of aberrant enhancer activity punctuate the colorectal cancer epigenome. Nat. Commun. 8, 14400 (2017).
Valenciaga, A. et al. Transcriptional targeting of oncogene addiction in medullary thyroid cancer. JCI Insight 3, e122225 (2018).
Chen, P. et al. Symbiotic macrophage-glioma cell interactions reveal synthetic lethality in PTEN-null glioma. Cancer Cell 35, 868–884 e866 (2019).
Zhang, Y. et al. Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 9, R137 (2008).
Adrian Alexa, J. R. topGO: Enrichment analysis for gene ontology. R package version 2.48.0 https://doi.org/10.18129/B9.bioc.topGO (2022).
We thank A. Saghatelian and A. Deshpande for contributing cell lines to this study. We thank A. Kim for sharing the mCherry modified version of the pX458 plasmid. We thank T. Popay for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the NIH grant DP5OD023071 to J.R.D. and is also supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust grant No. 2017-PG-MED001 to J.R.D. Work in the laboratory of G.M.W. was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (grant no. R35 CA197687) and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF). This work was also supported by the Flow Cytometry Core Facility of the Salk Institute and the NGS Core Facility of the Salk Institute with funding from NIH-NCI CCSG (grant no. P30 014195). We thank UC San Diego Biorepository and Tissue technology who shared resources for Biospecimen collection. This work carried out at the UC San Diego Moore’s Cancer Center Comprehensive Biorepository was supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant no. NCI P30CA23100).
The authors declare no competing interests
Peer review information
Nature thanks Charles Lin, Ekta Khurana and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a, Pie chart showing all 4,543 rearrangements identified and which cell line or patient tumor sample they are derived from. The order in the pie chart starts with A172 cells and proceeds counter-clockwise. b, Resolution of structural variants calls from Hi-C. Calls are first identified at low resolution and then progressively refined. The resolution reported is the highest resolution with which a given structural variant is identified. c, Chromatin interaction maps from mixed lineage leukemia cell lines with known MLL/KMT2A rearrangements. The maps show the presence of translocations on chromosome 4 in MV4;11 cells (left), chromosome 6 in ML2 cells (middle), and chromosome 9 in MOLM13 cells (right). d, Heat maps showing known disease defining translocations from five Mantle Cell lymphoma cell lines (Rec-1, Mino, Maver, Jeko, Granta). e, Heat maps showing known disease defining translocations in two Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia cell lines (K562 and KBM7).
a, Pie chart showing the fraction of intra-chromosomal vs. inter-chromosomal structural variant predictions. b, The number of observed intra-chromosomal (blue) or inter-chromosomal (red) rearrangements identified in each cell line. c, -log10 (p-values) for the observed frequency of intra-chromosomal rearrangements for each chromosome in each cell line under the null hypothesis that rearrangements are randomly distributed across chromosomes. The dashed line shows the threshold for significance accounting for multiple testing using a Bonferroni correction (p = 2.5 × 10−5). d, Example of high-frequency local rearrangements on chromosome 9 in U343 cells. Below the matrix is an arc plot of predicted rearrangements. e, Example of high-frequency local rearrangements along chromosome 15 in SNU-C1 cells (shown in the upper right-hand half of the matrix) in comparison with data from chromosome 15 in LoVo cells (lower left hand) where no rearrangements are observed. Below the matrix is an arc plot of predicted rearrangements. f, Results of cross validation of the neural network. The violin plots show the distribution of the accuracy and false discovery rate (FDR) across all 82 samples. g, Bar plots showing the percentage of domains containing oncogenes (based on the Cosmic Cancer Gene census) in domains identified as being part of fusion TADs (blue) versus those not identified in fusion TADs (grey). P-value is calculated by Fisher’s exact test. h, Bar plots showing the percentage of domains that contain enhancers for domains that contain TAD fusion events (blue) or do not (gray). The domain/enhancer analysis was performed for each domain in each cell type. P-value is calculated by Fisher’s exact test. i, Violin plots showing the distribution of the frequency of enhancers in domains that show TAD fusion events (blue) versus those that do not (gray). P-value is calculated from the two-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. j, Bar plots showing the percentage of domains that contain super enhancers for domains that contain TAD fusion events (blue) or do not (gray). The domain/super-enhancer analysis was performed for each domain in each cell type. P-value is calculated by Fisher’s exact test. k, Violin plots showing the number of END-seq reads per kb for TADs that contain super enhancers (blue) versus those that do not (gray).
a, The number of called domains in each of five cell lines (hESC, HCC38, MV411, NCI-H1437, DLD-1) and the number of domains after merging unique boundaries (Merged). b, Quantile-quantile plot for evaluating the false discovery rate for recurrent TAD fusion identification. The observed p-values (Y-axis) are estimated using a Poisson model accounting for the overall frequency of rearrangements and the size of the domain. Randomized p-values are generated from these expected values (x-axis). This randomization analysis was repeated 1000 times to estimate the FDR at different p-value cut-offs. c, Hi-C data over the MYC locus in five cell types used for generating the merged TAD boundary set. The locations of TAD calls are shown in black bars below each heat map. This includes the TAD calls for each cell type as well as the across-cell merged calls (“Union set”). d, Estimated copy number of the MYC gene for samples with a TAD fusion event at the MYC locus versus those that do not. The copy number is estimated from the total number of Hi-C reads over the 100 kb bin surrounding the MYC gene divided by the median read count per 100 kb bin in each cell line. e, Circos plot showing the translocation partner region of each predicted TAD fusion event at the MYC locus. f, Examples of identified TAD fusion events at the MYC locus in two cell lines.
a, Bar plot showing the frequency of patient samples containing inter-TAD rearrangements at the MYC locus by tumor type. b, Fraction of PCAWG samples with SVs at the MYC locus based on copy number. Samples are stratified into low copy (<=2), mid-copy (>2 and <=6), and high-copy (>6). c, Violin plots showing MYC expression for PCAWG samples stratified by copy number and the presence or absence of an SV at the MYC locus. P-values are calculated using Kruskal-Wallis test. d, RNA-seq expression of the MYC gene from patient samples with matched structural variant calls for samples with no high-level copy number alterations at the MYC gene (copy <= 6). Samples are separated into those that contain an inter-TAD rearrangement at the MYC locus (blue) and those that do not (black). P-value is from two-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. e, RNA-seq expression of the MYC gene from patient samples with matched structural variant calls that are copy neutral at the MYC gene (copy <= 2). Samples are separated into those that contain an inter-TAD rearrangement at the MYC locus (blue) and those that do not (black). P-value is from two-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. f, Circos plot of all inter-TAD rearrangements at the MYC locus. The Circos plot is zoomed in on cytoband 8q24.21 to show the MYC locus at a higher resolution. The position of TAD calls (black) and genes (green) are marked below the track.
a, Hi-C heat maps between chromosomes 7 and 8 in SK-N-SH cells (left) and SK-N-DZ cells (right). SK-N-SH cells have an endogenous t(7;8) translocation that creates a TAD fusion event at the locus, while SK-N-DZ cells have no rearrangements at the MYC locus in wild-type cells. b, Schematic for engineering rearrangement strategy. Guide RNAs targeting a locus ~300 kb downstream from the MYC gene and Guide RNAs targeting the partner region are cloned into a vector expressing Cas9. Guides are expressed either as single guides on plasmid with different fluorescent proteins or as dual guides on a plasmid with a single fluorescent protein. Cells are sorted and plated as single cells into 96 well plates. These can then be screened by PCR over the potential breakpoint to identify engineered clones. c, Sanger sequencing of PCR products from different engineered clones. The sequences that align to chromosome 7 are highlighted in green, while the sequences that align to chromosome 8 are highlighted in purple. d, Similar to Fig. 4b, validation of the engineered t(7;8) translocation by chromosome painting. e, MYC expression in cell lines containing endogenous or engineered rearrangements at the MYC locus including the non-rearranged SK-N-DZ parent cell line (purple), engineered clones classified as “Non-activating” (light blue), engineered clones classified as “MYC-activating” (dark red), Neuroblastoma cell lines with endogenous MYC rearrangements (green), and non-Neuroblastoma cell lines with MYC rearrangements (black). f, Scatter plot showing MYC expression (y-axis) and estimated MYC copy number (x-axis). g, Scatter plot showing MYC expression (y-axis) and estimated MYCN copy number (x-axis). h, Scatter plot showing MYC expression (y-axis) and MYCN expression (x-axis). i, FACS plots of mClover2 fluorescence in SK-N-DZ cells with a T2A-mClover2 reporter knocked into the 3′ end of the MYC gene (pink) and in a line derived from this MYC reporter with an engineered translocation between chromosome 1 and 8 (green). j, Heat map of chromosome 1 translocation to chromosome 8 with box showing H3K27ac ChIP-seq data over the partner region. The small inset box on the ChIP-seq track shows the enhancer targeted for deletion. k, FACS showing mClover2 fluorescence levels in the original chromosome 1 and chromosome 8 MYC reporter translocation (red) and in the same line with the targeted enhancer deletion (blue). The gate shows the region classified as “mClover2 low”. An example of the gating strategy for is also shown, including gating for single-cells and mCherry positive cells (FSC – forward scatter, SSC – side scatter, A – area, W – width). l, Percentage of “mClover2 low” cells in the control (red) and deletion (blue) cells. P-value is using Student’s two-sided T-test. m, MYC RPKM of clones with enhancer deletion on wild type allele and MYC-translocated allele. P-value is using two-sided T-test with equal variance.
a, Example plot showing method for calculating ABC score for MYC with rearranged partner sites. Interaction frequency between the MYC promoter and H3K27ac peaks in the partner region (“contact”) is multiplied by the strength of the H3K27ac signal (“activity”) at each peak across the partner region to obtain a final score for each peak. This signal is then summed across all peaks over the partner region. Of note, this example plot only shows the calculations for the six strongest H3K27ac peaks in the partner region, whereas the actual score is calculated using all H3K27ac peaks. b, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve for the TAD delimited ABC model. Shown above the plot is the area under the curve (AUC). c, ROC curve for an ABC model where contacts are measured from genome wide average interaction frequencies. d, Plots showing ABC scores for genes neighboring MYC. Above the plot is the Pearson correlation coefficient for each gene between the genes’ ABC score and expression. e, Heat map of the TAD surrounding MYC as well as the location and relative position of the genes shown in panel D. f, Scatter plot showing ABC scores and summed enhancer activity within 3 Mb for every gene in 30 cancer cell lines. g, Scatter plot showing ABC scores and summed interaction within 3 Mb for every gene in 30 cancer cell lines. h, The number of enhancers per gene linked by the marginal ABC score >= 0.1 for ABC-correlated and non-correlated genes. Gray lines show the paired values for each cell line comparing ABC-correlated and non-correlated genes. P-value is from paired Wilcoxon test. i, Percentage of ABC responsive (blue) and protein-coding genes classified as transcription factors. Protein coding genes are from the Gencode reference annotation. P-value is from Fisher’s Exact test. j, Percentage of ABC responsive (blue) and protein-coding genes classified as oncogenes according to the Cosmic cancer gene census. P-value is from Fisher’s Exact test. k, Normalized interaction frequency as a function of distance for Hi-C interactions at 10 kb resolution in SK-N-DZ cells. Interaction frequency decays exponentially as a function of distance. l, Enhancer activity based on H3K27ac ChIP-seq as quantified by the ROSE super enhancer calling activity for all enhancers in SK-N-DZ cells. Enhancers are displayed ranked according to strength. Super-enhancers show exponentially stronger enhancer activity compared with typical enhancers. m, Enhancer activity required to achieve the equivalent activity-by-contact score for the median enhancer at 20 kb in SK-N-DZ cells as a function of genomic distance. Shown as a dashed line is the minimal enhancer strength categorized as a “super-enhancer” in SK-N-DZ cells by the ROSE algorithm. Due to the exponential decay in interaction frequency. After ~300 kb, the only enhancers capable of producing an ABC score equivalent to the median enhancer at 20 kb are super enhancers.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Z., Lee, DS., Chandran, S. et al. Structural variants drive context-dependent oncogene activation in cancer. Nature 612, 564–572 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05504-4