Cited by 80Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Mutation patterns in cancer genomes

Open access
Rubin, Alan F., Green, Phil·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Recent large-scale cancer sequencing studies have focused primarily on identifying cancer-associated genes, but as an important byproduct provide "passenger mutation" data that can potentially illuminate the mutational mechanisms at work in cancer cells. Here, we explore patterns of nucleotide substitution in several cancer types using published data. We first show that selection (negative or positive) has affected only a small fraction of mutations, allowing us to attribute observed trends to underlying mutational processes rather than selection. We then show that the increased CpG mutation frequency observed in some cancers primarily occurs outside of CpG islands and CpG island shores, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the increase is a byproduct of island or shore methylation followed by deamination. We observe an A-->G vs. T-->C mutational asymmetry in some cancers similar to one that has been observed in germline mutations in transcribed regions, suggesting that the mutation process may be influenced by gene expression. We also demonstrate that the relative frequency of mutations at dinucleotide "hotspots" can be used as a tool to detect likely technical artifacts in large-scale studies.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0912499106

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubin, A. F., & Green, P.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-12-22
Volume
106
Issue
51
Pages
21766-21770
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2020699933
Cited by
80
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
passenger mutations, mutational mechanisms, cancer genome, nucleotide substitution patterns, CpG islands, DNA methylation, deamination, gene expression, sequencing artifacts, mutational signatures
MeSH terms
Humans, Mutation, Neoplasm Proteins, Genome, Human, CpG Islands

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