Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 31, 2026.

Signatures of copy number alterations in human cancer

Christopher D. Steele, Ammal Abbasi, S. M. Ashiqul Islam and 21 more

Nature · 2022 · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04738-6

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
  41. 41.
    Somatic Mutation Patterns in Hemizygous Genomic Regions Unveil Purifying Selection during Tumor Evolution. · 2016
    Not checked
  42. 42.

    McBride DJ, et al. Tandem duplication of chromosomal segments is common in ovarian and breast cancer genomes. J. Pathol. 2012;227:446-455.

    Not in our library10.1002/path.4042

  43. 43.

    Esteller M, et al. Promoter hypermethylation and BRCA1 inactivation in sporadic breast and ovarian tumors. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:564-569.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/92.7.564

  44. 44.
    Migrating the SNP array-based homologous recombination deficiency measures to next generation sequencing data of breast cancer · 2018
    No notice
  45. 45.

    Sakofsky CJ, et al. Repair of multiple simultaneous double-strand breaks causes bursts of genome-wide clustered hypermutation. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000464.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.3000464

  46. 46.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive and integrated genomic characterization of adult soft tissue sarcomas. Cell. 2017;171:950-965.e28.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.014

  47. 47.

    Bindra RS, et al. Down-regulation of Rad51 and decreased homologous recombination in hypoxic cancer cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004;24:8504-8518.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.24.19.8504-8518.2004

  48. 48.

    Chan N, et al. Chronic hypoxia decreases synthesis of homologous recombination proteins to offset chemoresistance and radioresistance. Cancer Res. 2008;68:605-614.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-5472

  49. 49.

    Bhandari V, et al. Molecular landmarks of tumor hypoxia across cancer types. Nat. Genet. 2019;51:308-318.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0318-2

  50. 50.

    Thorsson V, et al. The immune landscape of cancer. Immunity. 2019;51:411-412.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2019.08.004

  51. 51.

    Overgaard J. Hypoxic modification of radiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother. Oncol. 2011;100:22-32.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.radonc.2011.03.004

  52. 52.

    Sinha S, et al. Higher prevalence of homologous recombination deficiency in tumors from African Americans versus European Americans. Nat. Cancer. 2020;1:112-121.

    Not in our library10.1038/s43018-019-0009-7

  53. 53.

    de Jonge MM, et al. Frequent homologous recombination deficiency in high-grade endometrial carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:1087-1097.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-1443

  54. 54.

    Abbasi A, Alexandrov LB. Significance and limitations of the use of next-generation sequencing technologies for detecting mutational signatures. DNA Repair (Amst.). 2021;107:103200.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.dnarep.2021.103200

  55. 55.

    Davies H, et al. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat. Med. 2017;23:517-525.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.4292

  56. 56.

    Van Loo P, et al. Allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:16910-16915.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1009843107

  57. 57.

    Carter SL, et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012;30:413-421.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2203

  58. 58.

    Sandve GK, Ferkingstad E, Nygard S. Sequential Monte Carlo multiple testing. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:3235-3241.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btr568

  59. 59.

    Liu J, et al. An integrated TCGA pan-cancer clinical data Resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analytics. Cell. 2018;173:400-416.e11.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.052

  60. 60.

    Alexandrov LB, et al. Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science. 2016;354:618-622.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aag0299

  61. 61.

    Grossman RL, et al. Toward a shared vision for cancer genomic data. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016;375:1109-1112.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmp1607591

  62. 62.
    COSMIC: the Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer · 2018
    No notice
  63. 63.

    Knijnenburg TA, et al. Genomic and molecular landscape of DNA damage tepair deficiency across The Cancer Genome Atlas. Cell Rep. 2018;23:239-254.e6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.076

  64. 64.
    Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency · 2020
    No notice
  65. 65.

    Yost S, Ruark E, Alexandrov LB, Rahman N. Insights into BRCA cancer predisposition from integrated germline and somatic analyses in 7632 cancers. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;3:pkz028.

    Not in our library10.1093/jncics/pkz028

  66. 66.
    Homologous recombination deficiency status-based classification of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma · 2020
    No notice
  67. 67.

    Eustace A, et al. A 26-gene hypoxia signature predicts benefit from hypoxia-modifying therapy in laryngeal cancer but not bladder cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013;19:4879-4888.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0542

  68. 68.
    Targeted next-generation sequencing of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma identifies novel genetic alterations in HPV+ and HPV- tumors · 2013
    No notice
  69. 69.
    A cell‐based model system links chromothripsis with hyperploidy · 2015
    No notice
  70. 70.
    Copynumber: Efficient algorithms for single- and multi-track copy number segmentation · 2012
    No notice
  71. 71.

    Browning BL, Zhou Y, Browning SR. A one-penny imputed genome from next-generation reference panels. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2018;103:338-348.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.07.015

  72. 72.
    The Life History of 21 Breast Cancers · 2012
    Corrected
  73. 73.
    Recurrent mutation of IGF signalling genes and distinct patterns of genomic rearrangement in osteosarcoma · 2017
    No notice
  74. 74.

    Pinto EM, et al. Genomic landscape of paediatric adrenocortical tumours. Nat. Commun. 2015;6:6302.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms7302

Cited by papers we hold 8

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

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.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.