The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Common fragile sites (CFS) and extremely large CFS genes are targets for human papillomavirus integrations and chromosome rearrangements in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma
Abstract
Common fragile sites (CFS) are chromosome regions that are prone to form gaps or breaks in response to DNA replication stress. They are often found as hotspots for sister chromatid exchanges, deletions, and amplifications in different cancers. Many of the CFS regions are found to span genes whose genomic sequence is greater than 1 Mb, some of which have been demonstrated to function as important tumor suppressors. CFS regions are also hotspots for human papillomavirus (HPV) integrations in cervical cancer. We used mate‐pair sequencing to examine HPV integration events and chromosomal structural variations in 34 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). We used endpoint PCR and Sanger sequencing to validate each HPV integration event and found HPV integrations preferentially occurred within CFS regions similar to what is observed in cervical cancer. We also found that many of the chromosomal alterations detected also occurred at or near the cytogenetic location of CFSs. Several large genes were also found to be recurrent targets of rearrangements, independent of HPV integrations, including CSMD1 (2.1Mb), LRP1B (1.9Mb), and LARGE1 (0.7Mb). Sanger sequencing revealed that the nucleotide sequences near to identified junction sites contained repetitive and AT‐rich sequences that were shown to have the potential to form stem‐loop DNA secondary structures that might stall DNA replication fork progression during replication stress. This could then cause increased instability in these regions which could lead to cancer development in human cells. Our findings suggest that CFSs and some specific large genes appear to play important roles in OPSCC. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Integration of the viral DNA often occurs at common fragile sites [10,11], while the event can also induce host genome rearrangements that could lead to direct activation/repression of oncogenes/tumour suppressors such as myc [12]”
From The Not-So-Good, the Bad and the Ugly: HPV E5, E6 and E7 Oncoproteins in the Orchestration of Carcinogenesis (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cites
Signatures of mutation and selection in the cancer genome
Bignell, G. R., Greenman, C. D., Davies, H., Butler, A. P., Edkins, S., Andrews, J. M., Buck, G., Chen, L., Beare, D., Latimer, C., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08768 · Cited by 707
The haplotype-resolved genome and epigenome of the aneuploid HeLa cancer cell line
Adey, A., Burton, J. N., Kitzman, J. O., Hiatt, J. B., Lewis, A. P., Martin, B. K., Qiu, R., Lee, C., & Shendure, J. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12064 · Cited by 362
Research works printed but not linked: 67
- 10.1101/gr.164806.113 · DOI
- Alazawi W, 2002, Changes in cervical keratinocyte gene expression associated with integration of human papillomavirus 16, Cancer Res, 62, 6959
- 10.1002/jcp.21099 · DOI
- 10.1128/jvi.61.4.962-971.1987 · DOI
- Bednarek AK, 2000, WWOX, a novel WW domain‐containing protein mapping to human chromosome 16q23.3‐24.1, a region frequently affected in breast cancer, Cancer Res, 60, 2140
- 10.1038/nature08822 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s00432-008-0490-3 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkp1245 · DOI
- 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.1713 · DOI
- 10.1093/hmg/11.23.2887 · DOI
- 10.1038/ejhg.2010.212 · DOI
- 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-0203 · DOI
- Duensing S, 2002, The human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins independently induce numerical and structural chromosome instability, Cancer Res, 62, 7075
- 10.1126/science.2537532 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0042-6822(87)90478-8 · DOI
- 10.1182/blood-2010-08-303305 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.onc.1207006 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcv.2013.12.006 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00018-014-1753-6 · DOI
- 10.1177/1535370213519213 · DOI
- 10.1128/JVI.75.10.4705-4712.2001 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00272988 · DOI
- Greenspan DL, 1997, Loss of FHIT expression in cervical carcinoma cell lines and primary tumors, Cancer Res, 57, 4692
- 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.10.013 · DOI
- Henshall SM, 2003, Survival analysis of genome‐wide gene expression profiles of prostate cancers identifies new prognostic targets of disease relapse, Cancer Res, 63, 4196
- 10.1038/ng.3178 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990105)80:1<25::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
- 10.1002/gcc.21933 · DOI
- 10.1128/jvi.69.5.2989-2997.1995 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.onc.1208136 · DOI
- 10.1038/33416 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ajh.23495 · DOI
- 10.1038/nsmb.2155 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.07.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1040-8428(01)00129-9 · DOI
- Liu CX, 2000, LRP‐DIT, a putative endocytic receptor gene, is frequently inactivated in non‐small cell lung cancer cell lines, Cancer Res, 60, 1961
- 10.4161/cbt.8.10.8132 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70017-6 · DOI
- 10.1097/NEN.0000000000000065 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81034-X · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0088718 · DOI
- 10.1002/ijc.29112 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.05.019 · DOI
- 10.1093/hmg/ddh155 · DOI
- 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3214 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10689-007-9160-x · DOI
- 10.1002/ijc.20193 · DOI
- 10.1002/gcc.20394 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.onc.1207809 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00018-014-1723-z · DOI
- 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90409-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90384-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jnci/88.22.1676 · DOI
- 10.1002/gcc.10279 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.canlet.2005.07.039 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkp1131 · DOI
- 10.1002/ijc.20259 · DOI
- 10.1006/geno.1999.6020 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10495-012-0727-0 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.onc.1206170 · DOI
- 10.1002/gcc.10191 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F · DOI
- 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1101/gad.8.6.666 · DOI
- 10.1128/MCB.23.20.7143-7151.2003 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkg595 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nrc798 · DOI
Cited by
Basukala, O., & Banks, L. (2021) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v13101892 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, G., Johnson, S. H., Vasmatzis, G., Pauley, C. E., Tombers, N. M., Kasperbauer, J. L., & Smith, D. I.
- Affiliations
- Division of Experimental Pathology Mayo Clinic Rochester MN
- Biomarker Discovery Program, Center for Individualized Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN
- Division of Otolaryngology Mayo Clinic Rochester MN
- Venue
- Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-74
- ISSN
- 1045-2257
- 1098-2264
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Experimental Pathology Developmental Fund from the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review