Cited by 450Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

The landscape and therapeutic relevance of cancer-associated transcript fusions

Open access
Yoshihara, K, Wang, Q, Torres-Garcia, W, Zheng, S, Vegesna, R, Kim, H, Verhaak, R G W·2015·Oncogene

Abstract

Transcript fusions as a result of chromosomal rearrangements have been a focus of attention in cancer as they provide attractive therapeutic targets. To identify novel fusion transcripts with the potential to be exploited therapeutically, we analyzed RNA sequencing, DNA copy number and gene mutation data from 4366 primary tumor samples. To avoid false positives, we implemented stringent quality criteria that included filtering of fusions detected in RNAseq data from 364 normal tissue samples. Our analysis identified 7887 high confidence fusion transcripts across 13 tumor types. Our fusion prediction was validated by evidence of a genomic rearrangement for 78 of 79 fusions in 48 glioma samples where whole-genome sequencing data were available. Cancers with higher levels of genomic instability showed a corresponding increase in fusion transcript frequency, whereas tumor samples harboring fusions contained statistically significantly fewer driver gene mutations, suggesting an important role for tumorigenesis. We identified at least one in-frame protein kinase fusion in 324 of 4366 samples (7.4%). Potentially druggable kinase fusions involving ALK, ROS, RET, NTRK and FGFR gene families were detected in bladder carcinoma (3.3%), glioblastoma (4.4%), head and neck cancer (1.0%), low-grade glioma (1.5%), lung adenocarcinoma (1.6%), lung squamous cell carcinoma (2.3%) and thyroid carcinoma (8.7%), suggesting a potential for application of kinase inhibitors across tumor types. In-frame fusion transcripts involving histone methyltransferase or histone demethylase genes were detected in 111 samples (2.5%) and may additionally be considered as therapeutic targets. In summary, we described the landscape of transcript fusions detected across a large number of tumor samples and revealed fusion events with clinical relevance that have not been previously recognized. Our results support the concept of basket clinical trials where patients are matched with experimental therapies based on their genomic profile rather than the tissue where the tumor originated.

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 · 10.1038/onc.2014.406

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A low ratio of chimeric to wild-type reads in the vicinity of the fusion boundary may indicate spurious mis-mapping of reads from a highly expressed gene.

    “Finally, a low ratio of chimeric to wild-type reads in the vicinity of the fusion boundary may indicate spurious mis-mapping of reads from a highly expressed gene (the transcript allele fraction described by Yoshihara et al. [87]).”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [87]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoshihara, K., Wang, Q., Torres-Garcia, W., Zheng, S., Vegesna, R., Kim, H., & Verhaak, R. G. W.
Affiliations
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Verhaak, R G W
Venue
Oncogene
Published
2014-12-15
Volume
34
Issue
37
Pages
4845-4854
ISSN
  • 0950-9232 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5594
OpenAlex
W2042337609
Cited by
450
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Oncogene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mary K. Chapman Foundation
  • California Department of Transportation
  • National Cancer Institute (CA083639, CA143883, U24CA143883, P50CA083639, P30CA016672)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
fusion transcripts, chromosomal rearrangements, kinase fusions, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, reactive oxygen species, RET, NTRK, fibroblast growth factor receptor, genomic instability, driver mutations, kinase inhibitors, glioma, bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, lung adenocarcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, low-grade glioma, glioblastoma
MeSH terms
Cell Transformation, Neoplastic, DNA Mutational Analysis, Humans, Neoplasms, RNA, Messenger, RNA, Neoplasm, Oncogene Proteins, Fusion, Sequence Alignment, Genetic Heterogeneity, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Chromatin Assembly and Disassembly, Molecular Targeted Therapy

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