CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distinct genetic pathways define pre-malignant versus compensatory clonal hematopoiesis in Shwachman-Diamond syndrome

Kennedy, Alyssa L., Myers, Kasiani C., Bowman, James, Gibson, Christopher J., Camarda, Nicholas D., Furutani, Elissa, Muscato, Gwen M., Klein, Robert H., Ballotti, Kaitlyn, Liu, Shanshan, Harris, Chad E., Galvin, Ashley, Malsch, Maggie, Dale, David, Gansner, John M., Nakano, Taizo A., Bertuch, Alison, Vlachos, Adrianna, Lipton, Jeffrey M., Castillo, Paul, Connelly, James, Churpek, Jane, Edwards, John R., Hijiya, Nobuko, Ho, Richard H., Hofmann, Inga, Huang, James N., Keel, Siobán, Lamble, Adam, Lau, Bonnie W., Norkin, Maxim, Stieglitz, Elliot, Stock, Wendy, Walkovich, Kelly, Boettcher, Steffen, Brendel, Christian, Fleming, Mark D., Davies, Stella M., Weller, Edie A., Bahl, Christopher, Carter, Scott L., Shimamura, Akiko, Lindsley, R. Coleman·2021·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-021-21588-4PMC PMC7910481
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To understand the mechanisms that mediate germline genetic leukemia predisposition, we studied the inherited ribosomopathy Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS), a bone marrow failure disorder with high risk of myeloid malignancies at an early age. To define the mechanistic basis of clonal hematopoiesis in SDS, we investigate somatic mutations acquired by patients with SDS followed longitudinally. Here we report that multiple independent somatic hematopoietic clones arise early in life, most commonly harboring heterozygous mutations in EIF6 or TP53 . We show that germline SBDS deficiency establishes a fitness constraint that drives selection of somatic clones via two distinct mechanisms with different clinical consequences. EIF6 inactivation mediates a compensatory pathway with limited leukemic potential by ameliorating the underlying SDS ribosome defect and enhancing clone fitness. TP53 mutations define a maladaptive pathway with enhanced leukemic potential by inactivating tumor suppressor checkpoints without correcting the ribosome defect. Subsequent development of leukemia was associated with acquisition of biallelic TP53 alterations. These results mechanistically link leukemia predisposition to germline genetic constraints on cellular fitness, and provide a rational framework for clinical surveillance strategies.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-021-21588-4

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Clinical factors associated with CH in SDS patients. a Schema of genomic analysis. b A co-mutation plot showing somatic mutations in individual genes as labeled on the left. Mutations are depicted by colored bars and each column represents an individual patient in the indicated study cohort. The sum total of each event or mutation are tabulated to the right of each plot. c Number of mutations per patient in each of the four most frequently mutated genes:TP53, EIF6, PRPF8, and CSNK1A. d Base pair substitutions of somatic mutations in TP53 and EIF6. e Total number of somatic mutations by age in patients with biallelic germline SBDS mutations, based on targeted deep sequencing.
Fig. 1 Clinical factors associated with CH in SDS patients. a Schema of genomic analysis. b A co-mutation plot showing somatic mutations in individual genes as labeled on the left. Mutations are depicted by colored bars and each column represents an individual patient in the indicated study cohort. The sum total of each event or mutation are tabulated to the right of each plot. c Number of mutations per patient in each of the four most frequently mutated genes:TP53, EIF6, PRPF8, and CSNK1A. d Base pair substitutions of somatic mutations in TP53 and EIF6. e Total number of somatic mutations by age in patients with biallelic germline SBDS mutations, based on targeted deep sequencing.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 EIF6 somatic missense mutations alter EIF6 protein stability or function to improve cell fitness. a Types of somatic EIF6 mutations. b Number and location of EIF6 mutations according to variant type. c Impact on the calculated energy of the folded state (ΔΔGmutation) of EIF6 missense mutations. Mutant residue colored according to ΔΔG value. d ΔΔGmutation of 12 EIF6 missense mutations located at the RPL23-binding interface versus 85 other EIF6 missense mutations located in the remainder of EIF6. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles. p value calculated using unpaired two tailed t-test. e Relative levels of EIF6 mRNA using a V5-specific qPCR primer (top panel) and V5 immunoblot from K562 cells 48 h after doxycycline treatment (bottom panel). Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. f Left panel: In silico modeling of EIF6-R96W. Right panel: V5 and VCL immunoblots of K562 cells with inducible EIF6-R96W versus V5-wild type EIF6 48 h after doxycycline treatment. Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. g Left panel: Change in the energy of binding (ΔΔGbind) of missense mutations at RPL23 interface. Mutant residues are colored according to ΔΔGbind. Right panel: In silico modeling of EIF6 N106S mutation. h V5, EIF6, and RPL3 immunoblots of sucrose gradient fractions from polysome profiles of doxycycline-treated K562 cells expressing V5-EIF6-WT or V5-EIF6-N106S. Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. i Immunofluorescence of V5-EIF-WT or V5-N106S-EIF6 protein in SDS patient-derived fibroblasts, V5 (green), fibrillarin (red), and DAPI (blue). Right panel: quantification of V5 nucleolar signal from four independent experiments. Error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. Scale bar = 10 μm. j Quantification of colony forming units from sorted CD34+ transduced with shSBDS-GFP and either EIF6-WT-RFP or EIF6-N106S-RFP plated in triplicate. Data shown are representative of three independent experiments. Error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. k Competitive growth of doxycycline inducible-shSBDS in K562 cells (Supplementary Fig. 3D) transduced with either EIF6-WT-RFP or EIF6-N106S-RFP after indicated time from doxycycline treatment (n = 3 technical replicates, representative of three biological replicates). Error bars represent mean ± standard deviation.
Fig. 2 EIF6 somatic missense mutations alter EIF6 protein stability or function to improve cell fitness. a Types of somatic EIF6 mutations. b Number and location of EIF6 mutations according to variant type. c Impact on the calculated energy of the folded state (ΔΔGmutation) of EIF6 missense mutations. Mutant residue colored according to ΔΔG value. d ΔΔGmutation of 12 EIF6 missense mutations located at the RPL23-binding interface versus 85 other EIF6 missense mutations located in the remainder of EIF6. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles. p value calculated using unpaired two tailed t-test. e Relative levels of EIF6 mRNA using a V5-specific qPCR primer (top panel) and V5 immunoblot from K562 cells 48 h after doxycycline treatment (bottom panel). Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. f Left panel: In silico modeling of EIF6-R96W. Right panel: V5 and VCL immunoblots of K562 cells with inducible EIF6-R96W versus V5-wild type EIF6 48 h after doxycycline treatment. Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. g Left panel: Change in the energy of binding (ΔΔGbind) of missense mutations at RPL23 interface. Mutant residues are colored according to ΔΔGbind. Right panel: In silico modeling of EIF6 N106S mutation. h V5, EIF6, and RPL3 immunoblots of sucrose gradient fractions from polysome profiles of doxycycline-treated K562 cells expressing V5-EIF6-WT or V5-EIF6-N106S. Data shown is representative of three independent experiments. i Immunofluorescence of V5-EIF-WT or V5-N106S-EIF6 protein in SDS patient-derived fibroblasts, V5 (green), fibrillarin (red), and DAPI (blue). Right panel: quantification of V5 nucleolar signal from four independent experiments. Error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. Scale bar = 10 μm. j Quantification of colony forming units from sorted CD34+ transduced with shSBDS-GFP and either EIF6-WT-RFP or EIF6-N106S-RFP plated in triplicate. Data shown are representative of three independent experiments. Error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. k Competitive growth of doxycycline inducible-shSBDS in K562 cells (Supplementary Fig. 3D) transduced with either EIF6-WT-RFP or EIF6-N106S-RFP after indicated time from doxycycline treatment (n = 3 technical replicates, representative of three biological replicates). Error bars represent mean ± standard deviation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 EIF6 and TP53 mutations attenuate p53 activation via different mechanisms. a Quantification of 80S:60S ratio from polysome profiles in SDS patient-derived primary fibroblasts transduced with shRNAs targeting luciferase, EIF6 (left panel) or TP53 (right panel). b OP-Puro incorporation in primary SDS patient-derived fibroblasts transduced with shRNAs targeting luciferase, EIF6 (left panel) or TP53 (right panel). c Relative CDKN1A expression in SDS patient-derived fibroblasts transduced with either shLUC control or shEIF6 (left panel) and shTP53 (right panel). Error bars represent mean ± standard deviation of three technical replicates representative of two to three independent experiments. p value calculated using unpaired two-tailed t-test.
Fig. 3 EIF6 and TP53 mutations attenuate p53 activation via different mechanisms. a Quantification of 80S:60S ratio from polysome profiles in SDS patient-derived primary fibroblasts transduced with shRNAs targeting luciferase, EIF6 (left panel) or TP53 (right panel). b OP-Puro incorporation in primary SDS patient-derived fibroblasts transduced with shRNAs targeting luciferase, EIF6 (left panel) or TP53 (right panel). c Relative CDKN1A expression in SDS patient-derived fibroblasts transduced with either shLUC control or shEIF6 (left panel) and shTP53 (right panel). Error bars represent mean ± standard deviation of three technical replicates representative of two to three independent experiments. p value calculated using unpaired two-tailed t-test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Independence of TP53 and EIF6 mutated clones in SDS patients. a Number of somatic mutations detected in each patient by bulk DNA sequencing. b corresponding VAF of TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue) or other (black) mutation. c Clonal hierarchy of mutations determined by single cell sequencing amongst six patients with SDS. Each row represents a unique clone or subclone and the frequency of each clone is indicated to the left. Columns reflect the genotype status of each mutation in each clone, and all depicted clones have complete genotyping at all loci. The y-axis indicates single cell VAF from 0 to 1, where 0 is absent, 0.5 is heterozygous mutation, and 1 is homo/hemizygous. Each dot reflects a single cell, colored according to gene mutation, TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), CSNK1A1 (black) and the frequency distribution of the data points reflected by shaded violin plots.
Fig. 4 Independence of TP53 and EIF6 mutated clones in SDS patients. a Number of somatic mutations detected in each patient by bulk DNA sequencing. b corresponding VAF of TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue) or other (black) mutation. c Clonal hierarchy of mutations determined by single cell sequencing amongst six patients with SDS. Each row represents a unique clone or subclone and the frequency of each clone is indicated to the left. Columns reflect the genotype status of each mutation in each clone, and all depicted clones have complete genotyping at all loci. The y-axis indicates single cell VAF from 0 to 1, where 0 is absent, 0.5 is heterozygous mutation, and 1 is homo/hemizygous. Each dot reflects a single cell, colored according to gene mutation, TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), CSNK1A1 (black) and the frequency distribution of the data points reflected by shaded violin plots.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 CH in SDS patients. a Frequency of mutations in the indicated genes among the 58 SDS patients with CH. b VAFs in the indicated genes among 378 samples from SDS patients with clonal hematopoiesis. Horizontal lines within boxes indicate median VAF. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles with whiskers and outliers defined by the Tukey method. c Proportion of patients in the study cohort per decade of age with detectable CH, where CH was defined as the presence of a recurrent somatic clonal genetic alteration. d, e Shown is the VAF of each somatic EIF6 (blue), TP53 (red) or CSNK1A mutation (black) from d six patients who developed clonal hematopoiesis in the first decade of life and e six patients who were found to have clonal hematopoiesis in their second or third decade of life. Arrows indicate timing of sample acquisition. Points represent the VAF for detected mutations f, Fold change in VAF of all somatic EIF6 (blue) and TP53 (red) mutations from time of first detection to time of most recent detection in 23 patients with CH. Boxes center around the median and span 25th and 75th percentiles with whiskers and outliers defined by the Tukey method. g Ages of patients at diagnosis of six patients with severe bone marrow failure (BMF), 15 patients with myeloid neoplasm (MN), or no BMF/MDS with (59 patients) or without CH (19 patients) at last follow up. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles.
Fig. 5 CH in SDS patients. a Frequency of mutations in the indicated genes among the 58 SDS patients with CH. b VAFs in the indicated genes among 378 samples from SDS patients with clonal hematopoiesis. Horizontal lines within boxes indicate median VAF. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles with whiskers and outliers defined by the Tukey method. c Proportion of patients in the study cohort per decade of age with detectable CH, where CH was defined as the presence of a recurrent somatic clonal genetic alteration. d, e Shown is the VAF of each somatic EIF6 (blue), TP53 (red) or CSNK1A mutation (black) from d six patients who developed clonal hematopoiesis in the first decade of life and e six patients who were found to have clonal hematopoiesis in their second or third decade of life. Arrows indicate timing of sample acquisition. Points represent the VAF for detected mutations f, Fold change in VAF of all somatic EIF6 (blue) and TP53 (red) mutations from time of first detection to time of most recent detection in 23 patients with CH. Boxes center around the median and span 25th and 75th percentiles with whiskers and outliers defined by the Tukey method. g Ages of patients at diagnosis of six patients with severe bone marrow failure (BMF), 15 patients with myeloid neoplasm (MN), or no BMF/MDS with (59 patients) or without CH (19 patients) at last follow up. Boxes center around the median and span the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extend to the 10th and 90th percentiles.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Biallelic TP53 inactivation and myeloid neoplasia in patients with SDS. a Total copy ratio (tCR, denoted in black) and phased SNP-VAF (denoted in red/blue) across chromosome 17. b Cancer cell fraction of somatic TP53 mutations in seven patient samples analyzed in panel a. c Shown are the clinicopathologic status and VAF of somatic TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), and CSNK1A (black) mutations from bulk sequencing of serial samples from SDS-048, a patient with SDS who progressed to AML. d Single cell sequencing demonstrating clonal hierarchy from SDS-048 during serial surveillance prior to development of AML. Each row represents a unique clone or subclone and the frequency of each clone is indicated to the left. Columns reflect the genotype status of each mutation in each clone, and all depicted clones have complete genotyping at all loci. Y-axis indicates single cell VAF from 0 to 1, where 0 is absent, 0.5 is heterozygous mutation, and 1 is homo/hemizygous. Each dot reflects a single cell, colored according to gene mutation, TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), CSNK1A1 (black) and the frequency distribution of the data points reflected by shaded violin plots. Shown on the right is a time course indicating dynamics of the pre-leukemic p.C242F mutated clone and two independent TP53-mutated clones that did not transform.
Fig. 6 Biallelic TP53 inactivation and myeloid neoplasia in patients with SDS. a Total copy ratio (tCR, denoted in black) and phased SNP-VAF (denoted in red/blue) across chromosome 17. b Cancer cell fraction of somatic TP53 mutations in seven patient samples analyzed in panel a. c Shown are the clinicopathologic status and VAF of somatic TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), and CSNK1A (black) mutations from bulk sequencing of serial samples from SDS-048, a patient with SDS who progressed to AML. d Single cell sequencing demonstrating clonal hierarchy from SDS-048 during serial surveillance prior to development of AML. Each row represents a unique clone or subclone and the frequency of each clone is indicated to the left. Columns reflect the genotype status of each mutation in each clone, and all depicted clones have complete genotyping at all loci. Y-axis indicates single cell VAF from 0 to 1, where 0 is absent, 0.5 is heterozygous mutation, and 1 is homo/hemizygous. Each dot reflects a single cell, colored according to gene mutation, TP53 (red), EIF6 (blue), CSNK1A1 (black) and the frequency distribution of the data points reflected by shaded violin plots. Shown on the right is a time course indicating dynamics of the pre-leukemic p.C242F mutated clone and two independent TP53-mutated clones that did not transform.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 TP53 and EIF6 mutations define distinct pathways of somatic clonal progression and distinguish leukemia predisposition in SDS. Germline context drives separate compensatory and maladaptive somatic pathways of clonal evolution in patients with SDS. Germline SBDS mutations result in ribosomal stress which activate TP53 checkpoint pathways and promote bone marrow failure. EIF6 mutations alleviate the underlying ribosome maturation defects which reduces p53 checkpoint activation and improves cell fitness. TP53 mutations eliminate checkpoint pathways to improve relative fitness without improving the underlying ribosomal abnormalities, and promote the development of myeloid malignancies.
Fig. 7 TP53 and EIF6 mutations define distinct pathways of somatic clonal progression and distinguish leukemia predisposition in SDS. Germline context drives separate compensatory and maladaptive somatic pathways of clonal evolution in patients with SDS. Germline SBDS mutations result in ribosomal stress which activate TP53 checkpoint pathways and promote bone marrow failure. EIF6 mutations alleviate the underlying ribosome maturation defects which reduces p53 checkpoint activation and improves cell fitness. TP53 mutations eliminate checkpoint pathways to improve relative fitness without improving the underlying ribosomal abnormalities, and promote the development of myeloid malignancies.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Nelson, A. S. & Myers, K. C. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Molecular Pathology of Shwachman-Diamond Syndrome. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am. 32, 687–700 (2018). · DOI
  2. Dror, Y. et al. Clonal evolution in marrows of patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Exp. Hematol. 30, 659–669 (2002). · DOI
  3. Donadieu, J. et al. Classification of and risk factors for hematologic complications in a French national cohort of 102 patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome. Haematologica 97, 1312–1319 (2012). · DOI
  4. Boocock, G. R. B. et al. Mutations in SBDS are associated with Shwachman–Diamond syndrome. Nat. Genet. 33, 97–101 (2003). · DOI
  5. Warren, A. J. Molecular basis of the human ribosomopathy Shwachman-Diamond syndrome. Adv. Biol. Regul. 67, 109–127 (2018). · DOI
  6. Narla, A. & Ebert, B. L. Ribosomopathies: human disorders of ribosome dysfunction. Blood 115, 3196–3205 (2010). · DOI
  7. Tourlakis, M. E. et al. Deficiency of Sbds in the mouse pancreas leads to features of Shwachman-Diamond syndrome, with loss of zymogen granules. Gastroenterology 143, 481–492 (2012). · DOI
  8. Dror, Y. & Freedman, M. H. Shwachman-Diamond syndrome marrow cells show abnormally increased apoptosis mediated through the Fas pathway. Blood 97, 3011–3016 (2001). · DOI
  9. Myers, K. C. et al. Clinical features and outcomes of patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome and myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 7, e238–e246 (2020). · DOI
  10. Furutani, E. & Shimamura, A. Germline genetic predisposition to hematologic malignancy. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 1018–1028 (2017). · DOI
  11. Bursac, S., Brdovcak, M. C., Donati, G. & Volarevic, S. Activation of the tumor suppressor p53 upon impairment of ribosome biogenesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)—Mol. Basis Dis. 1842, 817–830 (2014). · DOI
  12. Xia, J. et al. Somatic mutations and clonal hematopoiesis in congenital neutropenia. Blood 131, 408–416 (2018). · DOI
  13. Pressato, B. et al. Deletion of chromosome 20 in bone marrow of patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome, loss of the EIF6 gene and benign prognosis. Br. J. Haematol. 157, 503–505 (2012). · DOI
  14. Stratton, M. R., Campbell, P. J. & Andrew Futreal, P. The cancer genome. Nature 458, 719–724 (2009). · DOI
  15. Osorio, F. G. et al. Somatic mutations reveal lineage relationships and age-related mutagenesis in human hematopoiesis. Cell Rep. 25, 2308–2316.e4 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Groft, C. M., Beckmann, R., Sali, A. & Burley, S. K. Crystal structures of ribosome anti-association factor IF6. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 1156–1164 (2000). · DOI
  17. Gartmann, M. et al. Mechanism of eIF6-mediated inhibition of ribosomal subunit joining. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 14848–14851 (2010). · DOI
  18. Weis, F. et al. Mechanism of eIF6 release from the nascent 60S ribosomal subunit. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 914–919 (2015). · DOI
  19. Barlow, K. A. et al. Flex ddG: Rosetta ensemble-based estimation of changes in protein–protein binding affinity upon mutation. J. Phys. Chem. B 122, 5389–5399 (2018). · DOI
  20. Wong, C. C., Traynor, D., Basse, N., Kay, R. R. & Warren, A. J. Defective ribosome assembly in Shwachman-Diamond syndrome. Blood 118, 4305–4312 (2011). · DOI
  21. Ceci, M. et al. Release of eIF6 (p27BBP) from the 60S subunit allows 80S ribosome assembly. Nature 426, 579–584 (2003). · DOI
  22. Gallo, S., Beugnet, A. & Biffo, S. Tagging of functional ribosomes in living cells by HaloTag® technology. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 47, 132–138 (2011). · DOI
  23. Menne, T. F. et al. The Shwachman-Bodian-Diamond syndrome protein mediates translational activation of ribosomes in yeast. Nat. Genet. 39, 486–495 (2007). · DOI
  24. Ganapathi, K. A. et al. The human Shwachman-Diamond syndrome protein, SBDS, associates with ribosomal RNA. Blood 110, 1458–1465 (2007). · DOI
  25. Elghetany, M. T. & Alter, B. P. p53 protein overexpression in bone marrow biopsies of patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome has a prevalence similar to that of patients with refractory anemia. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 126, 452–455 (2002). · DOI
  26. Carter, S. L. et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 413–421 (2012). · DOI
  27. Landau, D. A., Carter, S. L., Getz, G. & Wu, C. J. Clonal evolution in hematological malignancies and therapeutic implications. Leukemia 28, 34–43 (2014). · DOI
  28. Miluzio, A. et al. Impairment of cytoplasmic eIF6 activity restricts lymphomagenesis and tumor progression without affecting normal growth. Cancer Cell 19, 765–775 (2011). · DOI
  29. Gregory, J. J. et al. Somatic mosaicism in Fanconi anemia: evidence of genotypic reversion in lymphohematopoietic stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 2532–2537 (2001). · DOI
  30. Hamanoue, S. et al. Myeloid lineage-selective growth of revertant cells in Fanconi anaemia. Br. J. Haematol. 132, 630–635 (2006). · DOI
  31. Foe, J. R. L. T. et al. Somatic mosaicism in fanconi anemia: molecular basis and clinical significance. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 5, 137–148 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Austin, K. M., Leary, R. J. & Shimamura, A. The Shwachman-Diamond SBDS protein localizes to the nucleolus. Blood 106, 1253–1258 (2005). · DOI
  33. Rudin, C. M. et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies SOX2 as a frequently amplified gene in small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Genet. 44, 1111–1116 (2012). · DOI
  34. Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods 25, 402–408 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Guda, S. et al. miRNA-embedded shRNAs for Lineage-specific BCL11A knockdown and hemoglobin F induction. Mol. Ther. 23, 1465–1474 (2015). · DOI
  36. Adams, F. F. et al. An optimized lentiviral vector system for conditional RNAi and efficient cloning of microRNA embedded short hairpin RNA libraries. Biomaterials 139, 102–115 (2017). · DOI
  37. Austin, K. M. et al. Mitotic spindle destabilization and genomic instability in Shwachman-Diamond syndrome. J. Clin. Investig. 118, 1511–1518 (2008). · DOI
  38. Dror, Y. et al. Draft consensus guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of Shwachman-Diamond syndrome. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1242, 40–55 (2011). · DOI
  39. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  40. McKenna, A. et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  41. DePristo, M. A. et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011). · DOI
  42. Karczewski, K. J. et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. https://doi.org/10.1101/531210. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Forbes, S. A. et al. The catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer (COSMIC). Curr. Protoc. Hum. Genet. 57, 10.11 (2008). · DOI
  44. Lindsley, R. C. et al. Acute myeloid leukemia ontogeny is defined by distinct somatic mutations. Blood 125, 1367–1376 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Raman, S. et al. Structure prediction for CASP8 with all-atom refinement using Rosetta. Proteins 77(Suppl. 9), 89–99 (2009). · DOI
  46. Song, Y. et al. High-resolution comparative modeling with RosettaCM. Structure 21, 1735–1742 (2013). · DOI
  47. Tyka, M. D. et al. Alternate states of proteins revealed by detailed energy landscape mapping. J. Mol. Biol. 405, 607–618 (2011). · DOI
  48. Pavlovicz, R. E., Park, H. & DiMaio, F. Efficient consideration of coordinated water molecules improves computational protein–protein and protein–ligand docking. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008103 (2020). · DOI
  49. Ashkenazy, H. et al. ConSurf 2016: an improved methodology to estimate and visualize evolutionary conservation in macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W344–W350 (2016). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, A. L., Myers, K. C., Bowman, J., Gibson, C. J., Camarda, N. D., Furutani, E., Muscato, G. M., Klein, R. H., Ballotti, K., Liu, S., Harris, C. E., Galvin, A., Malsch, M., Dale, D., Gansner, J. M., Nakano, T. A., Bertuch, A., Vlachos, A., Lipton, J. M., Castillo, P., Connelly, J., Churpek, J., Edwards, J. R., Hijiya, N., Ho, R. H., Hofmann, I., Huang, J. N., Keel, S., Lamble, A., Lau, B. W., Norkin, M., Stieglitz, E., Stock, W., Walkovich, K., Boettcher, S., Brendel, C., Fleming, M. D., Davies, S. M., Weller, E. A., Bahl, C., Carter, S. L., Shimamura, A., & Lindsley, R. C.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-02-26
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/s41467-021-21588-4
PMC
PMC7910481
Cited by
188
References
11
Language
en
Licence
Funders
The Butterfly Guild

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