Signatures of copy number alterations in human cancer

Abstract

Gains and losses of DNA are prevalent in cancer and emerge as a consequence of inter-related processes of replication stress, mitotic errors, spindle multipolarity and breakage–fusion–bridge cycles, among others, which may lead to chromosomal instability and aneuploidy 1,2 . These copy number alterations contribute to cancer initiation, progression and therapeutic resistance 3–5 . Here we present a conceptual framework to examine the patterns of copy number alterations in human cancer that is widely applicable to diverse data types, including whole-genome sequencing, whole-exome sequencing, reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, single-cell DNA sequencing and SNP6 microarray data. Deploying this framework to 9,873 cancers representing 33 human cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas 6 revealed a set of 21 copy number signatures that explain the copy number patterns of 97% of samples. Seventeen copy number signatures were attributed to biological phenomena of whole-genome doubling, aneuploidy, loss of heterozygosity, homologous recombination deficiency, chromothripsis and haploidization. The aetiologies of four copy number signatures remain unexplained. Some cancer types harbour amplicon signatures associated with extrachromosomal DNA, disease-specific survival and proto-oncogene gains such as MDM2 . In contrast to base-scale mutational signatures, no copy number signature was associated with many known exogenous cancer risk factors. Our results synthesize the global landscape of copy number alterations in human cancer by revealing a diversity of mutational processes that give rise to these alterations.

References 74

1. 1.

   Sansregret L, Swanton C. The role of aneuploidy in cancer evolution. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2017;7:a028373.

   Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a028373

2. 2.

   Levine MS, Holland AJ. The impact of mitotic errors on cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Genes Dev. 2018;32:620-638.

   Not in our library10.1101/gad.314351.118

3. 3.

   Beroukhim R, et al. The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature. 2010;463:899-905.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature08822

4. 4.

   Davoli T, Uno H, Wooten EC, Elledge SJ. Tumor aneuploidy correlates with markers of immune evasion and with reduced response to immunotherapy. Science. 2017;355:eaaf8399.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf8399

5. 5.

   Taylor AM, et al. Genomic and functional approaches to understanding cancer aneuploidy. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:676-689.e3.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.007

6. 6.

   Hoadley KA, et al. Cell-of-origin patterns dominate the molecular classification of 10,000 tumors from 33 types of cancer. Cell. 2018;173:291-304.e6.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.022

7. 7.

   Bielski CM, et al. Genome doubling shapes the evolution and prognosis of advanced cancers. Nat. Genet. 2018;50:1189-1195.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0165-1

8. 8.
   Massive Genomic Rearrangement Acquired in a Single Catastrophic Event during Cancer Development · 2011

   No notice
9. 9.

   Bolhaqueiro ACF, et al. Ongoing chromosomal instability and karyotype evolution in human colorectal cancer organoids. Nat. Genet. 2019;51:824-834.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41588-019-0399-6

10. 10.
    The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer · 2020

    Corrected
11. 11.

    Alexandrov LB, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature. 2013;500:415-421.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature12477

12. 12.

    Koh G, Degasperi A, Zou X, Momen S, Nik-Zainal S. Mutational signatures: emerging concepts, caveats and clinical applications. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2021;21:619-637.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41568-021-00377-7

13. 13.
    Patterns of somatic structural variation in human cancer genomes · 2020

    Corrected
14. 14.

    Nik-Zainal S, et al. Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 2016;534:47-54.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature17676

15. 15.

    Thutkawkorapin J, Eisfeldt J, Tham E, Nilsson D. pyCancerSig: subclassifying human cancer with comprehensive single nucleotide, structural and microsatellite mutational signature deconstruction from whole genome sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2020;21:128.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12859-020-3451-8

16. 16.

    Steele CD, et al. Undifferentiated sarcomas develop through distinct evolutionary pathways. Cancer Cell. 2019;35:441-456.e8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.002

17. 17.
    Copy number signatures predict chromothripsis and clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma · 2021

    Not checked
18. 18.

    Macintyre G, et al. Copy number signatures and mutational processes in ovarian carcinoma. Nat. Genet. 2018;50:1262-1270.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0179-8

19. 19.

    Pladsen, A. V. et al. Copy number motifs expose genome instability type and predict driver events and disease outcome in breast cancer. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/769356 (2019).

    Not in our library

20. 20.
    Copy number signature analysis tool and its application in prostate cancer reveals distinct mutational processes and clinical outcomes · 2021

    No notice
21. 21.
    Uncovering novel mutational signatures by de novo extraction with SigProfilerExtractor · 2022

    No notice
22. 22.

    Lopez S, et al. Interplay between whole-genome doubling and the accumulation of deleterious alterations in cancer evolution. Nat. Genet. 2020;52:283-293.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-0584-7

23. 23.

    Tarabichi M, et al. A practical guide to cancer subclonal reconstruction from DNA sequencing. Nat. Methods. 2021;18:144-155.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-020-01013-2

24. 24.

    Davoli T, et al. Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome. Cell. 2013;155:948-962.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.011

25. 25.

    Kim H, et al. Extrachromosomal DNA is associated with oncogene amplification and poor outcome across multiple cancers. Nat. Genet. 2020;52:891-897.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-0678-2

26. 26.

    Burrell RA, et al. Replication stress links structural and numerical cancer chromosomal instability. Nature. 2013;494:492-496.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11935

27. 27.

    Zheng S, et al. Comprehensive pan-genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2016;29:723-736.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.002

28. 28.

    Davis CF, et al. The somatic genomic landscape of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:319-330.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2014.07.014

29. 29.

    Menghi F, et al. The tandem duplicator phenotype is a prevalent genome-wide cancer configuration driven by distinct gene mutations. Cancer Cell. 2018;34:197-210.e5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2018.06.008

30. 30.
    Exploring the landscape of focal amplifications in cancer using AmpliconArchitect · 2019

    No notice
31. 31.

    Hadi K, et al. Distinct classes of complex structural variation uncovered across thousands of cancer genome graphs. Cell. 2020;183:197-210.e32.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.006

32. 32.

    Lo AW, et al. DNA amplification by breakage/fusion/bridge cycles initiated by spontaneous telomere loss in a human cancer cell line. Neoplasia. 2002;4:531-538.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.neo.7900267

33. 33.
    Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes · 2020

    Corrected
34. 34.
    Comprehensive analysis of chromothripsis in 2,658 human cancers using whole-genome sequencing · 2020

    Corrected
35. 35.

    Knudson AG. Hereditary cancer: two hits revisited. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 1996;122:135-140.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01366952

36. 36.

    Holmfeldt L, et al. The genomic landscape of hypodiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:242-252.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.2532

37. 37.

    Ricketts CJ, et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas comprehensive molecular characterization of renal cell carcinoma. Cell Rep. 2018;23:3698.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.032

38. 38.

    Scarpa A, et al. Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Nature. 2017;543:65-71.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature21063

39. 39.

    Nichols CA, et al. Loss of heterozygosity of essential genes represents a widespread class of potential cancer vulnerabilities. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:2517.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-020-16399-y

40. 40.
    Universal Patterns of Selection in Cancer and Somatic Tissues · 2017

    Corrected

Cited by papers we hold 8

• High-resolution detection of copy number alterations in single cells with HiScanner · 2025
  Not checked
• Geographic and age variations in mutational processes in colorectal cancer · 2025
  No notice
• Tumor initiation and early tumorigenesis: molecular mechanisms and interventional targets · 2024
  No notice
• Conumee 2.0: enhanced copy-number variation analysis from DNA methylation arrays for humans and mice · 2024
  No notice
• Genomic Classification and Individualized Prognosis in Multiple Myeloma · 2024
  No notice
• Pan-cancer whole-genome comparison of primary and metastatic solid tumours · 2023
  No notice
• Assigning mutational signatures to individual samples and individual somatic mutations with SigProfilerAssignment · 2023
  No notice
• Uncovering novel mutational signatures by de novo extraction with SigProfilerExtractor · 2022
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.