The long tail of oncogenic drivers in prostate cancer

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 31 May 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Comprehensive genomic characterization of prostate cancer has identified recurrent alterations in genes involved in androgen signaling, DNA repair, and PI3K signaling, among others. However, larger and uniform genomic analysis may identify additional recurrently mutated genes at lower frequencies. Here we aggregate and uniformly analyze exome sequencing data from 1,013 prostate cancers. We identify and validate a new class of E26 transformation-specific (ETS)-fusion-negative tumors defined by mutations in epigenetic regulators, as well as alterations in pathways not previously implicated in prostate cancer, such as the spliceosome pathway. We find that the incidence of significantly mutated genes (SMGs) follows a long-tail distribution, with many genes mutated in less than 3% of cases. We identify a total of 97 SMGs, including 70 not previously implicated in prostate cancer, such as the ubiquitin ligase CUL3 and the transcription factor SPEN. Finally, comparing primary and metastatic prostate cancer identifies a set of genomic markers that may inform risk stratification.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Mutational significance in 1,013 prostate cancers.
Fig. 2: Ubiquitin and splicing pathways in prostate cancer.
Fig. 3: SPEN mutations and WNT pathway alterations.
Fig. 4: Enrichment of genomic alterations in metastatic tumors.

Change history

  • 31 May 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. 1.

    Robinson, D. et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell 161, 1215–1228 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer. Cell 163, 1011–1025 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tomlins, S. A. et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 310, 644–648 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barbieri, C. E. et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent SPOP, FOXA1 and MED12 mutations in prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 44, 685–689 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lawrence, M. S. et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505, 495–501 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lek, M. et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536, 285–291 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Beltran, H. et al. Divergent clonal evolution of castration-resistant neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Nat. Med. 22, 298–305 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kumar, A. et al. Substantial interindividual and limited intraindividual genomic diversity among tumors from men with metastatic prostate cancer. Nat. Med. 22, 369–378 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hieronymus, H. et al. Copy number alteration burden predicts prostate cancer relapse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11139–11144 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature 499, 43–49 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature 507, 315–322 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Theurillat, J.-P. P. et al. Ubiquitylome analysis identifies dysregulation of effector substrates in SPOP-mutant prostate cancer. Science 346, 85–89 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Geng, C. et al. Prostate cancer–associated mutations in speckle-type POZ protein (SPOP) regulate steroid receptor coactivator 3 protein turnover. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6997–7002 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yuan, W.-C. et al. A Cullin3–KLHL20 ubiquitin ligase–dependent pathway targets PML to potentiate HIF-1 signaling and prostate cancer progression. Cancer Cell 20, 214–228 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Groner, A. C. et al. TRIM24 is an oncogenic transcriptional activator in prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 29, 846–858 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Boysen, G. et al. SPOP mutation leads to genomic instability in prostate cancer. eLife 4, e09207 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Abida, W. et al. Prospective genomic profiling of prostate cancer across disease states reveals germline and somatic alterations that may affect clinical decision making. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00029 (2017).

  20. 20.

    Zehir, A. et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat. Med. 23, 703–713 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dolatshad, H. et al. Disruption of SF3B1 results in deregulated expression and splicing of key genes and pathways in myelodysplastic syndrome hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Leukemia 29, 1092–1103 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ciriello, G. et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer. Cell 163, 506–519 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Papaemmanuil, E. et al. Somatic SF3B1 mutation in myelodysplasia with ring sideroblasts. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1384–1395 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    McHugh, C. A. et al. The Xist lncRNA interacts directly with SHARP to silence transcription through HDAC3. Nature 521, 232–236 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Shi, Y. et al. Sharp, an inducible cofactor that integrates nuclear receptor repression and activation. Genes Dev. 15, 1140–1151 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Légaré, S. et al. The estrogen receptor cofactor SPEN functions as a tumor suppressor and candidate biomarker of drug responsiveness in hormone-dependent breast cancers. Cancer Res. 75, 4351–4363 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kuchay, S. et al. FBXL2- and PTPL1-mediated degradation of p110-free p85β regulatory subunit controls the PI(3)K signalling cascade. Nat. Cell. Biol. 15, 472–480 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fraser, M. et al. Genomic hallmarks of localized, non-indolent prostate cancer. Nature 541, 359–364 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cibulskis, K. et al. ContEst: estimating cross-contamination of human samples in next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 27, 2601–2602 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Costello, M. et al. Discovery and characterization of artifactual mutations in deep coverage targeted capture sequencing data due to oxidative DNA damage during sample preparation. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e67 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Van Allen, E. M. et al. Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine. Nat. Med. 20, 682–688 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Saunders, C. T. et al. Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor–normal sample pairs. Bioinformatics 28, 1811–1817 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chang, M. T. et al. Identifying recurrent mutations in cancer reveals widespread lineage diversity and mutational specificity. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 155–163 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mermel, C. H. et al. GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers. Genome Biol. 12, R41 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Shen, R. & Seshan, V. E. FACETS: allele-specific copy number and clonal heterogeneity analysis tool for high-throughput DNA sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e131 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Cerami, E. et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2, 401–404 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cheng, D. T. et al. Memorial Sloan Kettering–Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT): a hybridization capture-based next-generation sequencing clinical assay for solid tumor molecular oncology. J. Mol. Diagn. 17, 251–264 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chakravarty, D. OncoKB: a precision oncology knowledge base. Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Hartmaier, R. J. et al. High-throughput genomic profiling of adult solid tumors reveals novel insights into cancer pathogenesis. Cancer. Res. 77, 2464–2475 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients for participating in this study. We also thank the Broad Cancer Genome Analysis and Data Sciences groups for analysis methodology and computational support. This work was supported by the SU2C-PCF Prostate Cancer International Dream Team, Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Awards (B.S.T., C.P., N.S., and E.M.V.A.), Prostate Cancer Foundation–V Foundation Challenge Award (E.M.V.A., P.S.N., and J.S.d.B.), NIH K08CA188615 (E.M.V.A.), NCI P50-CA097186 and NCI P50-CA92629 SPOREs in Prostate Cancer, the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Core Grant (P30-CA008748), and the Robertson Foundation (B.S.T. and N.S.).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

J.A., S.A.M.W., N.S., E.M.V.A., D.L., J.G., R.K., E.R., W.K.C., D.C., G.C.H., C.E.B., A.S., C.M.B., A.V.P., C.T., F.D., M.A.R., and B.S.T. contributed with algorithm development and analysis of genomic data. R.L., L.A.G., I.C., B.M., C.P., C.M., H.B., Z.Z., S.M., F.W.H., D.R., Y.M.W., P.W.K., M.-E.T., W.A., H.I.S., P.S.N., J.S.d.B., M.A.R., C.L.S., and A.M.C. developed the patient cohort, obtained tumor biopsies, performed molecular testing for metastatic cases, and carried out data interpretation of the overall cohort. J.A., S.A.M.W., D.L., N.S., and E.M.V.A. performed final aggregate cohort assembly, mutation review, interpretation, and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nikolaus Schultz or Eliezer M. Van Allen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

E.M.V.A. is a consultant for Tango Therapeutics and Genome Medical.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1

Workflow of sample inclusion and quality control.

Supplementary Figure 2 Correlates of genomic burden.

Metastatic tumors have increased mutational and copy number burden as compared to primary tumors, adjusted for differences in purity and coverage. In primary tumors, increased age at diagnosis and higher Gleason score are associated with higher mutational and copy number burden, adjusting for purity and coverage. Reported P values for each predictor (metastatic versus primary disease; age; Gleason score) are from the multivariate regression adjusting for purity and coverage. The center values represent the median value of each group and the error bars below or above the median line define the first and third quartile respectively.

Supplementary Figure 3 Schematic workflow of the combination of statistical, quality and biological filters used to identify SMGs.

Flowchart describing how we applied a combination of statistical, quality, and biological filters to the results to identify SMGs. Approach to defining significantly mutated genes using both statistical and biological filters.

Supplementary Figure 4 Allele frequencies and mRNA expression of significantly mutated genes.

(a) Allele frequencies of significantly mutated genes. Boxplot showing the distribution of allele frequencies across SMGs sorted by decreasing median allele frequency. (b) mRNA expression of the SMGs across the TCGA cohort. mRNA expression of the SMGs across the PCF-SU2C cohort. The red center line in the boxplots indicates the median value.

Supplementary Figure 5 Supervised hierarchical clustering on arm-level deletions.

Samples (rows) are ordered according to six copy number clusters derived from hierarchical clustering on arm-level deletions (2q, 5q, 6q, 8p, 13q, and 16q), with SPOP and CUL3 mutations indicated in green. Chromosomes are shown from left to right, samples from top to bottom. Regions of loss are indicated by shades of blue, and gains are indicated by shades of red.

Supplementary Figure 6 Additional mutation characteristics of individual SMGs.

(a) CUL3 mutations observed in our cohort. (b) Mutations observed in PIK3R2. Hotspot mutations observed in PIK3R2 are paralogous to the oncogenic D560 mutation in PIK3R1. (c) Mutation distribution of CDK12 variants, showing that the majority of mutations are truncating and that missense variants cluster in the kinase domain.

Supplementary Figure 7 The overlap of the three bait sets used in this analysis (Agilent, Ilumina, NimbleSeq).

(a) Overlap of all bases. (b) Overlap of coding regions.

Supplementary Figure 8 Segmented copy-number profiles of 303 primary tumors from TCGA.

(a) Whole exome sequencing (top) vs Affymetrix SNP6 data (bottom). 303 tumors are shown for data set, sorted in identical order. Regions of gain are shown in shades of red, losses as shades of blue. The center summary plots show the fraction of samples with a log2(cn/2) value >0.1 (red) or <-0.1 (blue) at a given position. (b) Scatter plot to compare the segment means of matched segments >200KB from the SNP6 and the ReCapSeg data, resulting in a pearson correlation of 0.92 (C.I. 0.916-0.918). The graph shows the correlation between the inferred copy number of 29,290 microarray segments with size > 200 KB with the corresponding inferred copy number from the WES. The segments with size > 200KB represent 99.94% of the covered genome from the SNP array.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary Tables 5 and 7, and Supplementary Note

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Source of cohorts used for this analysis

Supplementary Table 2

Complete list of all somatic mutations in this cohort

Supplementary Table 3

Patient-level information

Supplementary Table 4

Mutational significance analysis

Supplementary Table 6

Genes in cancer pathways

Supplementary Table 8

Intersected BED file

Supplementary Table 9

Unfiltered MAF file

Supplementary Table 10

Matrix of copy number calls

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armenia, J., Wankowicz, S.A.M., Liu, D. et al. The long tail of oncogenic drivers in prostate cancer. Nat Genet 50, 645–651 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0078-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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