CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of chromosome-arm aberrations in breast cancer through genetic network rewiring

Open access
Kuzmin, Elena, Baker, Toby M., Lesluyes, Tom, Monlong, Jean, Abe, Kento T., Coelho, Paula P., Schwartz, Michael, Del Corpo, Joseph, Zou, Dongmei, Morin, Genevieve, Pacis, Alain, Yang, Yang, Martinez, Constanza, Barber, Jarrett, Kuasne, Hellen, Li, Rui, Bourgey, Mathieu, Fortier, Anne-Marie, Davison, Peter G., Omeroglu, Atilla, Guiot, Marie-Christine, Morris, Quaid, Kleinman, Claudia L., Huang, Sidong, Gingras, Anne-Claude, Ragoussis, Jiannis, Bourque, Guillaume, Van Loo, Peter, Park, Morag·2024·Cell Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.113988PMC PMC11063629

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The basal breast cancer subtype is enriched for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and displays consistent large chromosomal deletions. Here, we characterize evolution and maintenance of chromosome 4p (chr4p) loss in basal breast cancer. Analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas data shows recurrent deletion of chr4p in basal breast cancer. Phylogenetic analysis of a panel of 23 primary tumor/patient-derived xenograft basal breast cancers reveals early evolution of chr4p deletion. Mechanistically we show that chr4p loss is associated with enhanced proliferation. Gene function studies identify an unknown gene, C4orf19, within chr4p, which suppresses proliferation when overexpressed-a member of the PDCD10-GCKIII kinase module we name PGCKA1. Genome-wide pooled overexpression screens using a barcoded library of human open reading frames identify chromosomal regions, including chr4p, that suppress proliferation when overexpressed in a context-dependent manner, implicating network interactions. Together, these results shed light on the early emergence of complex aneuploid karyotypes involving chr4p and adaptive landscapes shaping breast cancer genomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.113988

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Hammond, 2010, American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer, J. Clin. Oncol., 28, 2784, 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529 · DOI
  2. Haffty, 2006, Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer, J. Clin. Oncol., 24, 5652, 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5664 · DOI
  3. Lehmann, 2011, Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies, J. Clin. Invest., 121, 2750, 10.1172/JCI45014 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Lehmann, 2016, Refinement of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes: Implications for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Selection, PLoS One, 11, 10.1371/journal.pone.0157368 · DOI
  5. Sorlie, 2001, Jeffrey S.S.et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 98, 10869, 10.1073/pnas.191367098 · DOI
  6. Perou, 2000, Molecular portraits of human breast tumours, Nature, 406, 747, 10.1038/35021093 · DOI
  7. Parker, 2009, Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes, J. Clin. Oncol., 27, 1160, 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1370 · DOI
  8. 2012, Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours, Nature, 490, 61, 10.1038/nature11412 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Curtis, 2012, The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups, Nature, 486, 346, 10.1038/nature10983 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hanahan, 2011, Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation, Cell, 144, 646, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hanahan, 2012, Accessories to the crime: functions of cells recruited to the tumor microenvironment, Cancer Cell, 21, 309, 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.022 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Sotiriou, 2009, Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer, N. Engl. J. Med., 360, 790, 10.1056/NEJMra0801289 · DOI
  13. Russnes, 2011, Insight into the heterogeneity of breast cancer through next-generation sequencing, J. Clin. Invest., 121, 3810, 10.1172/JCI57088 · DOI
  14. Stephens, 2012, The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer, Nature, 486, 400, 10.1038/nature11017 · DOI
  15. Zack, 2013, Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy number alteration, Nat. Genet., 45, 1134, 10.1038/ng.2760 · DOI
  16. Beroukhim, 2010, The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers, Nature, 463, 899, 10.1038/nature08822 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gerstung, 2020, The evolutionary history of 2,658 cancers, Nature, 578, 122, 10.1038/s41586-019-1907-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Sack, 2018, Profound tissue specificity in proliferation control underlies cancer drivers and aneuploidy patterns, Cell, 173, 499, 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.037 · DOI
  19. Davoli, 2017, Tumor aneuploidy correlates with markers of immune evasion and with reduced response to immunotherapy, Science, 355, 10.1126/science.aaf8399 · DOI
  20. Knight, 2018, KIBRA (WWC1) Is a Metastasis Suppressor Gene Affected by Chromosome 5q Loss in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, Cell Rep., 22, 3191, 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.095 · DOI
  21. Cai, 2016, Loss of Chromosome 8p Governs Tumor Progression and Drug Response by Altering Lipid Metabolism, Cancer Cell, 29, 751, 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.003 · DOI
  22. Liu, 2016, Deletions linked to TP53 loss drive cancer through p53-independent mechanisms, Nature, 531, 471, 10.1038/nature17157 · DOI
  23. Taylor, 2018, Genomic and Functional Approaches to Understanding Cancer Aneuploidy, Cancer Cell, 33, 676, 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.007 · DOI
  24. Li, 2021, Expression and prognosis analysis of GINS subunits in human breast cancer, Medicine (Baltim.), 100
  25. Zhang, 2019, STK33/ERK2 signal pathway contribute the tumorigenesis of colorectal cancer HCT15 cells, Biosci. Rep., 39
  26. Lee, 2021, Cancer Plasticity: The Role of mRNA Translation, Trends Cancer, 7, 134, 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.09.005 · DOI
  27. Savage, 2020, Munoz-Ramos V.,et al. Chemogenomic profiling of breast cancer patient-derived xenografts reveals targetable vulnerabilities for difficult-to-treat tumors, Commun. Biol., 16, 310, 10.1038/s42003-020-1042-x · DOI
  28. Karlsson, 2023, Deterministic evolution and stringent selection during preneoplasia, Nature, 618, 383, 10.1038/s41586-023-06102-8 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lips, 2022, Genomic analysis defines clonal relationships of ductal carcinoma in situ and recurrent invasive breast cancer, Nat. Genet., 54, 850, 10.1038/s41588-022-01082-3 · DOI
  30. Savage, 2017, A Targetable EGFR-Dependent Tumor-Initiating Program in Breast Cancer, Cell Rep., 21, 1140, 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.015 · DOI
  31. Kuzmin, 2021, Inferring Copy Number from Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patient Derived Xenograft scRNAseq Data Using scCNA, Methods Mol. Biol., 2381, 285, 10.1007/978-1-0716-1740-3_16 · DOI
  32. Tirosh, 2016, Dissecting the multicellular ecosystem of metastatic melanoma by single-cell RNA-seq, Science, 352, 189, 10.1126/science.aad0501 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2016, The ORFeome Collaboration: a genome-scale human ORF-clone resource, Nat. Methods, 13, 191, 10.1038/nmeth.3776 · DOI
  34. Aziz, 2021, Synergistic targeting of BRCA1 mutated breast cancers with PARP and CDK2 inhibition, NPJ Breast Cancer, 7, 111, 10.1038/s41523-021-00312-x · DOI
  35. Shen, 2021, A forward genetic screen identifies modifiers of rocaglate responsiveness, Sci. Rep., 11, 10.1038/s41598-021-97765-8 · DOI
  36. 2022, Harmonizing model organism data in the Alliance of Genome Resources, Genetics, 220
  37. Paysan-Lafosse, 2023, InterPro in 2022, Nucleic Acids Res., 51, D418, 10.1093/nar/gkac993 · DOI
  38. Oughtred, 2021, The BioGRID database: A comprehensive biomedical resource of curated protein, genetic, and chemical interactions, Protein Sci., 30, 187, 10.1002/pro.3978 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Luck, 2020, A reference map of the human binary protein interactome, Nature, 580, 402, 10.1038/s41586-020-2188-x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Huttlin, 2021, Dual proteome-scale networks reveal cell-specific remodeling of the human interactome, Cell, 184, 3022, 10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.011 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Ceccarelli, 2011, CCM3/PDCD10 heterodimerizes with germinal center kinase III (GCKIII) proteins using a mechanism analogous to CCM3 homodimerization, J. Biol. Chem., 286, 25056, 10.1074/jbc.M110.213777 · DOI
  42. Branon, 2018, Efficient proximity labeling in living cells and organisms with TurboID, Nat. Biotechnol., 36, 880, 10.1038/nbt.4201 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Uhlen, 2017, A pathology atlas of the human cancer transcriptome, Science, 357, 10.1126/science.aan2507 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Thul, 2017, A subcellular map of the human proteome, Science, 356, 10.1126/science.aal3321 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hart, 2015, High-Resolution CRISPR Screens Reveal Fitness Genes and Genotype-Specific Cancer Liabilities, Cell, 163, 1515, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.015 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Pacini, 2021, Integrated cross-study datasets of genetic dependencies in cancer, Nat. Commun., 12, 1661, 10.1038/s41467-021-21898-7 · DOI
  47. Wang, 2015, The effects and mechanisms of SLC34A2 in tumorigenesis and progression of human non-small cell lung cancer, J. Biomed. Sci., 22, 52, 10.1186/s12929-015-0158-7 · DOI
  48. Lv, 2021, SRSF1 inhibits autophagy through regulating Bcl-x splicing and interacting with PIK3C3 in lung cancer, Signal Transduct. Target. Ther., 6, 108, 10.1038/s41392-021-00495-6 · DOI
  49. Horiguchi, 2022, Deletion of murine Rhoh leads to de-repression of Bcl-6 via decreased KAISO levels and accelerates a malignancy phenotype in a murine model of lymphoma, Small GTPases, 13, 267, 10.1080/21541248.2021.2019503 · DOI
  50. Bachetti, 2020, Causative and common PHOX2B variants define a broad phenotypic spectrum, Clin. Genet., 97, 103, 10.1111/cge.13633 · DOI
  51. Mondal, 2022, UCHL1 as a novel target in breast cancer: emerging insights from cell and chemical biology, Br. J. Cancer, 126, 24, 10.1038/s41416-021-01516-5 · DOI
  52. Xue, 2012, A cluster of cooperating tumor-suppressor gene candidates in chromosomal deletions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 8212, 10.1073/pnas.1206062109 · DOI
  53. Wistuba, 2000, High resolution chromosome 3p allelotyping of human lung cancer and preneoplastic/preinvasive bronchial epithelium reveals multiple, discontinuous sites of 3p allele loss and three regions of frequent breakpoints, Cancer Res., 60, 1949
  54. Weigman, 2012, Basal-like Breast cancer DNA copy number losses identify genes involved in genomic instability, response to therapy, and patient survival, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 133, 865, 10.1007/s10549-011-1846-y · DOI
  55. Amps, 2011, Screening ethnically diverse human embryonic stem cells identifies a chromosome 20 minimal amplicon conferring growth advantage, Nat. Biotechnol., 29, 1132, 10.1038/nbt.2051 · DOI
  56. Gruosso, 2019, Spatially distinct tumor immune microenvironments stratify triple-negative breast cancers, J. Clin. Invest., 129, 1785, 10.1172/JCI96313 · DOI
  57. Davoli, 2013, Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome, Cell, 155, 948, 10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.011 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sheltzer, 2017, Single-chromosome Gains Commonly Function as Tumor Suppressors, Cancer Cell, 31, 240, 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.12.004 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Ben-David, 2020, Context is everything: aneuploidy in cancer, Nat. Rev. Genet., 21, 44, 10.1038/s41576-019-0171-x · DOI
  60. Anders, 2009, A strategy for constructing aneuploid yeast strains by transient nondisjunction of a target chromosome, BMC Genet., 10, 36, 10.1186/1471-2156-10-36 · DOI
  61. Ravichandran, 2018, Genetic interactions between specific chromosome copy number alterations dictate complex aneuploidy patterns, Genes Dev., 32, 1485, 10.1101/gad.319400.118 · DOI
  62. Goudreault, 2009, A PP2A phosphatase high density interaction network identifies a novel striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase complex linked to the cerebral cavernous malformation 3 (CCM3) protein, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 8, 157, 10.1074/mcp.M800266-MCP200 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Kean, 2011, Structure-function analysis of core STRIPAK Proteins: a signaling complex implicated in Golgi polarization, J. Biol. Chem., 286, 25065, 10.1074/jbc.M110.214486 · DOI
  64. Valentino, 2021, The multifaceted PDCD10/CCM3 gene, Genes Dis., 8, 798, 10.1016/j.gendis.2020.12.008 · DOI
  65. Zhang, 2013, A network of interactions enables CCM3 and STK24 to coordinate UNC13D-driven vesicle exocytosis in neutrophils, Dev. Cell, 27, 215, 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.09.021 · DOI
  66. Jenny Zhou, 2016, Endothelial exocytosis of angiopoietin-2 resulting from CCM3 deficiency contributes to cerebral cavernous malformation, Nat. Med., 22, 1033, 10.1038/nm.4169 · DOI
  67. Fujii, 2013, Early brain injury, an evolving frontier in subarachnoid hemorrhage research, Transl. Stroke Res., 4, 432, 10.1007/s12975-013-0257-2 · DOI
  68. Coelho, 2022, Endosomal LC3C-pathway selectively targets plasma membrane cargo for autophagic degradation, Nat. Commun., 13, 3812, 10.1038/s41467-022-31465-3 · DOI
  69. Liu, 2016, Data Independent Acquisition analysis in ProHits 4.0, J. Proteomics, 149, 64, 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.04.042 · DOI
  70. Talevich, 2016, CNVkit: Genome-Wide Copy Number Detection and Visualization from Targeted DNA Sequencing, PLoS Comput. Biol., 12, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004873 · DOI
  71. Leshchiner, 2023, Inferring early genetic progression in cancers with unobtainable premalignant disease, Nat. Cancer, 4, 550, 10.1038/s43018-023-00533-y · DOI
  72. Liu, 2017, Conditional reprogramming and long-term expansion of normal and tumor cells from human biospecimens, Nat. Protoc., 12, 439, 10.1038/nprot.2016.174 · DOI
  73. Robinson, 2010, A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data, Genome Biol., 11, R25, 10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Ritchie, 2015, limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies, Nucleic Acids Res., 43, e47, 10.1093/nar/gkv007 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Perkins, 1999, Probability-based protein identification by searching sequence databases using mass spectrometry data, Electrophoresis, 20, 3551, 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2683(19991201)20:18<3551::AID-ELPS3551>3.0.CO;2-2 · DOI
  76. Eng, 2013, Comet: an open-source MS/MS sequence database search tool, Proteomics, 13, 22, 10.1002/pmic.201200439 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Shteynberg, 2011, iProphet: multi-level integrative analysis of shotgun proteomic data improves peptide and protein identification rates and error estimates, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 10, 10.1074/mcp.M111.007690 · DOI
  78. Teo, 2014, SAINTexpress: improvements and additional features in Significance Analysis of INTeractome software, J. Proteomics, 100, 37, 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.10.023 · DOI
  79. O'Flanagan, 2019, Dissociation of solid tumor tissues with cold active protease for single-cell RNA-seq minimizes conserved collagenase-associated stress responses, Genome Biol., 20, 210, 10.1186/s13059-019-1830-0 · DOI
  80. Kaufmann, 2022, MEDICC2: whole-genome doubling aware copy-number phylogenies for cancer evolution, Genome Biol., 23, 241, 10.1186/s13059-022-02794-9 · DOI
  81. Dentro, 2017, Principles of Reconstructing the Subclonal Architecture of Cancers, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med., 7, 10.1101/cshperspect.a026625 · DOI
  82. Wang, 2020, A Normalization and Copy-Number Estimation Method for Single-Cell DNA Sequencing, Cell Syst., 10, 445, 10.1016/j.cels.2020.03.005 · DOI
  83. Bourgey, 2019, GenPipes: an open-source framework for distributed and scalable genomic analyses, GigaScience, 8, 10.1093/gigascience/giz037 · DOI
  84. Zaccaria, 2021, Characterizing allele- and haplotype-specific copy numbers in single cells with CHISEL, Nat. Biotechnol., 39, 207, 10.1038/s41587-020-0661-6 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kuzmin, E., Baker, T. M., Lesluyes, T., Monlong, J., Abe, K. T., Coelho, P. P., Schwartz, M., Del Corpo, J., Zou, D., Morin, G., Pacis, A., Yang, Y., Martinez, C., Barber, J., Kuasne, H., Li, R., Bourgey, M., Fortier, A.-M., Davison, P. G., Omeroglu, A., Guiot, M.-C., Morris, Q., Kleinman, C. L., Huang, S., Gingras, A.-C., Ragoussis, J., Bourque, G., Van Loo, P., & Park, M.
Affiliations
  • Institut du cancer Rosalind & Morris Goodman (CA)
  • The Francis Crick Institute (GB)
  • McGill Genome Centre (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Kuzmin, Elena
  • Park, Morag
ORCID
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-04
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
113988
ISSN
2211-1247 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.celrep.2024.113988
PMC
PMC11063629
OpenAlex
W4393085953
Cited by
20
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canada Foundation for Innovation
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Ontario Genomics Institute (OGI-139)
  • McGill University
  • Worldwide Cancer Research (16-0402)
  • Terry Fox Research Institute (40104)
  • Government of Ontario
  • Genome Canada (CFI 41563, MSI 35444, CFI 33406)
  • Wellcome Trust (CC2008)
  • Canada Research Chairs (CRC-2021-00031)
  • Cancer Research Society
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
  • Fondation du cancer du sein du Québec
  • Francis Crick Institute
  • Medical Research Council Canada
  • UKRI Medical Research Council
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PG 480465, FDN 143281, FDN 143301)
  • Concordia University
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds
  • CPRIT (RR210006)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
basal-like breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, chromosome 4p deletion, chromosomal abnormalities, tumor evolution, patient-derived xenografts, tumor cell proliferation, fitness landscape, tumor suppressor
MeSH terms
Animals, Breast Neoplasms, Chromosome Aberrations, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 4, Female, Humans, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Proliferation, Mice, Gene Regulatory Networks, Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms

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