Cited by 74Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

High prevalence of focal and multi-focal somatic genetic variants in the human brain

Open access
Keogh, Michael J., Wei, Wei, Aryaman, Juvid, Walker, Lauren, van den Ameele, Jelle, Coxhead, Jon, Wilson, Ian, Bashton, Matthew +10 more·2018·Nature Communications

Abstract

Somatic mutations during stem cell division are responsible for several cancers. In principle, a similar process could occur during the intense cell proliferation accompanying human brain development, leading to the accumulation of regionally distributed foci of mutations. Using dual platform >5000-fold depth sequencing of 102 genes in 173 adult human brain samples, we detect and validate somatic mutations in 27 of 54 brains. Using a mathematical model of neurodevelopment and approximate Bayesian inference, we predict that macroscopic islands of pathologically mutated neurons are likely to be common in the general population. The detected mutation spectrum also includes DNMT3A and TET2 which are likely to have originated from blood cell lineages. Together, these findings establish developmental mutagenesis as a potential mechanism for neurodegenerative disorders, and provide a novel mechanism for the regional onset and focal pathology in sporadic cases.

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/s41467-018-06331-w

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 few small studies of primary brain samples have hinted that cancer-associated variants and clonal overgrowth might occur in brain microglia.

    “A few small studies of primary brain samples have hinted that cancer-associated variants and clonal overgrowth might occur in brain microglia, which proliferate throughout life25,27,28.”

    From Somatic cancer variants enriched in Alzheimer’s disease microglia-like cells drive inflammatory and proliferative states (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Results and Discussion sections on multiple regional mutations and brains with more than one mutation report cancer-associated variants in human brain samples and discuss possible clonal origins or subclone evolution. They do not identify the affected brain cells as microglia or show clonal overgrowth of microglia; some variants are instead attributed to blood-cell lineages. The paper also does not establish that microglia proliferate throughout life. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mutations consistent with CHIP were found in 17 brain samples from 1,776 persons in ADSP.

    “Similar to a prior study22, we found mutations consistent with CHIP in 17 brain samples (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Table 13), although paired blood samples were not available for this set.”

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

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keogh, M. J., Wei, W., Aryaman, J., Walker, L., van den Ameele, J., Coxhead, J., Wilson, I., Bashton, M., Beck, J., West, J., Chen, R., Haudenschild, C., Bartha, G., Luo, S., Morris, C. M., Jones, N. S., Attems, J., & Chinnery, P. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Personalis (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Chinnery, Patrick F.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2018-10-15
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
4257-4257
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897583224
Cited by
74
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (212219/Z/18/Z, 101876/Z/13/Z)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UP_1501/2)
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 › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
somatic mutations, human brain, brain development, DNMT3A, TET2, neurodegenerative diseases, approximate Bayesian inference, mutation spectrum
MeSH terms
Brain, Clone Cells, Humans, Mutation, Genetic Variation, Reproducibility of Results, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genetic Association Studies, Genotyping Techniques

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