Cited by 223Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsCancer-related Molecular PathwaysPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research

Ordered and deterministic cancer genome evolution after p53 loss

Open access
Baslan, Timour, Morris, John P., Zhao, Zhen, Reyes, Jose, Ho, Yu-Jui, Tsanov, Kaloyan M., Bermeo, Jonathan, Tian, Sha +23 more·2022·Nature

Abstract

Although p53 inactivation promotes genomic instability 1 and presents a route to malignancy for more than half of all human cancers 2,3 , the patterns through which heterogenous TP53 (encoding human p53) mutant genomes emerge and influence tumorigenesis remain poorly understood. Here, in a mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that reports sporadic p53 loss of heterozygosity before cancer onset, we find that malignant properties enabled by p53 inactivation are acquired through a predictable pattern of genome evolution. Single-cell sequencing and in situ genotyping of cells from the point of p53 inactivation through progression to frank cancer reveal that this deterministic behaviour involves four sequential phases— Trp53 (encoding mouse p53) loss of heterozygosity, accumulation of deletions, genome doubling, and the emergence of gains and amplifications—each associated with specific histological stages across the premalignant and malignant spectrum. Despite rampant heterogeneity, the deletion events that follow p53 inactivation target functionally relevant pathways that can shape genomic evolution and remain fixed as homogenous events in diverse malignant populations. Thus, loss of p53—the ‘guardian of the genome’—is not merely a gateway to genetic chaos but, rather, can enable deterministic patterns of genome evolution that may point to new strategies for the treatment of TP53- mutant tumours.

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/s41586-022-05082-5

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • PDAC mouse models suggest TP53 mutations promote a patterned loss of genomic integrity rather than a chaotic process.

    “PDAC mouse models have suggested TP53 mutations promote a patterned loss of genomic integrity as opposed to a chaotic process60.”

    From Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [60]

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
Baslan, T., Morris, J. P., Zhao, Z., Reyes, J., Ho, Y.-J., Tsanov, K. M., Bermeo, J., Tian, S., Zhang, S., Askan, G., Yavas, A., Lecomte, N., Erakky, A., Varghese, A. M., Zhang, A., Kendall, J., Ghiban, E., Chorbadjiev, L., Wu, J., Dimitrova, N., Chadalavada, K., Nanjangud, G. J., Bandlamudi, C., Gong, Y., Donoghue, M. T. A., Socci, N. D., Krasnitz, A., Notta, F., Leach, S. D., Iacobuzio-Donahue, C. A., & Lowe, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
  • Technical University of Sofia (BG)
  • Philips (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Lowe, Scott W.
Venue
Nature
Published
2022-08-17
Volume
608
Issue
7924
Pages
795-802
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4292122046
Cited by
221
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 12
FWCI
20.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (P30 CA008748)
  • Simons Foundation (519054)
  • Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (P30 CA008748)
  • Pancreatic Cancer Action Network
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (CA008748, P30 CA008748)
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
  • National Institutes of Health (CA008748, 5p30ca045508-35)
  • Philips Research Americas
  • National Cancer Institute (P01CA087497, CA008748, P30-CA045508, P01CA013106, P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Keywords
TP53 mutation, cancer genome evolution, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, Trp53, genomic deletions, genome doubling, gene amplification, carcinogenesis, precancerous lesions, histological stage, single-cell genotyping, tumor heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Animals, Models, Genetic, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Genes, p53, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53, Genome, Gene Deletion, Disease Progression, Evolution, Molecular, Loss of Heterozygosity, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Mice, Carcinogenesis

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