Advances in computational approaches for prioritizing driver mutations and significantly mutated genes in cancer genomes

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 642-656

  Cheng, Feixiong ^a   Zhao, Junfei ^a   Zhao, Zhongming ^a,b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT INGRAM CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer driver genes; Computational tools; Driver mutations; Next generation sequencing; Panomics; Precision cancer medicine; Significantly mutated genes; Structural genomics

Indexed keywords

EXOME; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; HUMAN; MUTATION; NEOPLASM;

EXOME; GENOMICS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84991338046     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv068     Document Type: Article

References (151)

1. Eisenstein M. Startups use short-read data to expand longread sequencing market. Nat Biotechnol 2015;33:433-35.
2. Wong KM, Hudson TJ, McPherson JD. Unraveling the genetics of cancer: genome sequencing and beyond. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2011;12:407-30.
3. Meyerson M, Gabriel S, Getz G. Advances in understanding cancer genomes through second-generation sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11:685-96.
4. Eifert C, Powers RS. From cancer genomes to oncogenic drivers, tumour dependencies and therapeutic targets. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:572-8.
5. Lovly CM, McDonald NT, Chen H, et al. Rationale for cotargeting IGF-1R and ALK in ALK fusion-positive lung cancer. Nat Med 2014;20:1027-34.
6. Xia J, Jia P, Hutchinson KE, et al. A meta-analysis of somatic mutations from next generation sequencing of 241 melanomas: a road map for the study of genes with potential clinical relevance. Mol Cancer Ther 2014;13:1918-28.
7. Jia P, Jin H, Meador CB, et al. Next-generation sequencing of paired tyrosine kinase inhibitor-sensitive and-resistant EGFR mutant lung cancer cell lines identifies spectrum of DNA changes associated with drug resistance. Genome Res 2013;23:1434-45.
8. Dahlman KB, Xia J, Hutchinson K, et al. BRAF(L597) mutations in melanoma are associated with sensitivity to MEK inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2012;2:791-7.
9. Chin L, Andersen JN, Futreal PA. Cancer genomics: from discovery science to personalized medicine. Nat Med 2011;17:297-303.
10. Gonzalez-Perez A, Mustonen V, Reva B, et al. Computational approaches to identify functional genetic variants in cancer genomes. Nat Methods 2013;10:723-9.
11. International Cancer Genome C, Hudson TJ, Anderson W, et al. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 2010;464:993-8.
12. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P, et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 2013;499:214-8.
13. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 2013;339:1546-58.
14. Raphael BJ, Dobson JR, Oesper L, et al. Identifying driver mutations in sequenced cancer genomes: computational approaches to enable precision medicine. Genome Med 2014;6:5.
15. Ding L, Wendl MC, McMichael JF, et al. Expanding the computational toolbox for mining cancer genomes. Nat Rev Genet 2014;15:556-70.
16. Forbes SA, Beare D, Gunasekaran P, et al. COSMIC: exploring the world's knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:D805-11.
17. Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal 2013;6:pl1.
18. Porta-Pardo E, Hrabe T, Godzik A. Cancer3D: understanding cancer mutations through protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:D968-73.
19. Mosca R, Tenorio-Laranga J, Olivella R, et al. dSysMap: exploring the edgetic role of disease mutations. Nat Methods 2015;12:167-8.
20. Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 2001;291:1304-51.
21. Consortium EP. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 2012;489:57-74.
22. Roadmap Epigenomics C, Kundaje A, Meuleman W, et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 2015;518:317-30.
23. Andersson R, Gebhard C, Miguel-Escalada I, et al. An atlas of active enhancers across human cell types and tissues. Nature 2014;507:455-61.
24. Consortium GT. Human genomics. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science 2015;348:648-60.
25. Consortium GT. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat Genet 2013;45:580-5.
26. Kelder T, van Iersel MP, Hanspers K, et al. WikiPathways: building research communities on biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:D1301-7.
27. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, et al. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D199-205.
28. Croft D, Mundo AF, Haw R, et al. The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D472-7.
29. Cerami EG, Gross BE, Demir E, et al. Pathway commons, a web resource for biological pathway data. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:D685-90.
30. Schaefer CF, Anthony K, Krupa S, et al. PID: the Pathway Interaction Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:D674-9.
31. Chatr-Aryamontri A, Breitkreutz BJ, Heinicke S, et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41:D816-23.
32. Keshava Prasad TS, Goel R, Kandasamy K, et al. Human Protein Reference Database-2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:D767-72.
33. Licata L, Briganti L, Peluso D, et al. MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2012 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:D857-61.
34. Kerrien S, Aranda B, Breuza L, et al. The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2012. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:D841-6.
35. Franceschini A, Szklarczyk D, Frankild S, et al. STRING v9.1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41:D808-15.
36. Cowley MJ, Pinese M, Kassahn KS, et al. PINA v2.0: mining interactome modules. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:D862-5.
37. Hornbeck PV, Kornhauser JM, Tkachev S, et al. PhosphoSitePlus: a comprehensive resource for investigating the structure and function of experimentally determined post-translational modifications in man and mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:D261-70.
38. Diella F, Cameron S, Gemund C, et al. Phospho.ELM: a database of experimentally verified phosphorylation sites in eukaryotic proteins. BMC Bioinformatics 2004;5:79.
39. Minguez P, Letunic I, Parca L, et al. PTMcode v2: a resource for functional associations of post-translational modifications within and between proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:D494-502.
40. Cheng F, Jia P, Wang Q, et al. Quantitative network mapping of the human kinome interactome reveals new clues for rational kinase inhibitor discovery and individualized cancer therapy. Oncotarget 2014;5:3697-710.
41. Mosca R, Ceol A, Aloy P. Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks. Nat Methods 2013;10:47-53.
42. Mosca R, Ceol A, Stein A, et al. 3did: a catalog of domainbased interactions of known three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D374-9.
43. Meyer MJ, Das J, Wang X, et al. INstruct: a database of highquality 3D structurally resolved protein interactome networks. Bioinformatics 2013;29:1577-9.
44. Cheng F, Jia P, Wang Q, et al. Studying tumorigenesis through network evolution and somatic mutational perturbations in the cancer interactome. Mol Biol Evol 2014;31:2156-69.
45. Jia P, Zhao Z. Network.assisted analysis to prioritize GWAS results: principles, methods and perspectives. Hum Genet 2014;133:125-38.
46. Leiserson MD, Vandin F, Wu HT, et al. Pan-cancer network analysis identifies combinations of rare somatic mutations across pathways and protein complexes. Nat Genet 2015;47:106-14.
47. Dees ND, Zhang Q, Kandoth C, et al. MuSiC: identifying mutational significance in cancer genomes. Genome Res 2012;22:1589-98.
48. Tamborero D, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. OncodriveCLUST: exploiting the positional clustering of somatic mutations to identify cancer genes. Bioinformatics 2013;29:2238-44.
49. Tian R, Basu MK, Capriotti E. ContrastRank: a new method for ranking putative cancer driver genes and classification of tumor samples. Bioinformatics 2014;30:i572-8.
50. Sim NL, Kumar P, Hu J, et al. SIFT web server: predicting effects of amino acid substitutions on proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:W452-7.
51. Kumar P, Henikoff S, Ng PC. Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm. Nat Protoc 2009;4:1073-81.
52. Adzhubei IA, Schmidt S, Peshkin L, et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods 2010;7:248-9.
53. Schwarz JM, Rodelsperger C, Schuelke M, et al. MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations. Nat Methods 2010;7:575-6.
54. Reva B, Antipin Y, Sander C. Predicting the functional impact of protein mutations: application to cancer genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:e118.
55. Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. Improving the assessment of the outcome of nonsynonymous SNVs with a consensus deleteriousness score, Condel. Am J Hum Genet 2011;88:440-9.
56. Wong WC, Kim D, Carter H, et al. CHASM and SNVBox: toolkit for detecting biologically important single nucleotide mutations in cancer. Bioinformatics 2011;27:2147-8.
57. Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. Functional impact bias reveals cancer drivers. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:e169.
58. Choi Y, Sims GE, Murphy S, et al. Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. PLoS One 2012;7:e46688.
59. Mao Y, Chen H, Liang H, et al. CanDrA: cancer-specific driver missense mutation annotation with optimized features. PLoS One 2013;8:e77945.
60. Shihab HA, Gough J, Cooper DN, et al. Predicting the functional consequences of cancer-associated amino acid substitutions. Bioinformatics 2013;29:1504-10.
61. Douville C, Carter H, Kim R, et al. CRAVAT: cancer-related analysis of variants toolkit. Bioinformatics 2013;29:647-8.
62. Ryslik GA, Cheng Y, Cheung KH, et al. Utilizing protein structure to identify non-random somatic mutations. BMC Bioinformatics 2013;14:190.
63. Reimand J, Bader GD. Systematic analysis of somatic mutations in phosphorylation signaling predicts novel cancer drivers. Mol Syst Biol 2013;9:637.
64. Ghersi D, Singh M. Interaction-based discovery of functionally important genes in cancers. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:e18.
65. Jia P, Wang Q, Chen Q, et al. MSEA: detection and quantification of mutation hotspots through mutation set enrichment analysis. Genome Biol 2014;15:489.
66. Porta-Pardo E, Godzik A. e-Driver: a novel method to identify protein regions driving cancer. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:3109-14.
67. Vuong H, Cheng F, Lin CC, et al. Functional consequences of somatic mutations in cancer using protein pocket-based prioritization approach. Genome Med 2014;6:81.
68. Zhao J, Cheng F, Wang Y, et al. Systematic prioritization of druggable mutations in 5, 000 genomes across 16 cancer types using a structural genomics-based approach. Mol Cell Proteomics 2016;15:642-56.
69. Vaske CJ, Benz SC, Sanborn JZ, et al. Inference of patient-specific pathway activities from multi-dimensional cancer genomics data using PARADIGM. Bioinformatics 2010;26:i237-45.
70. Ng S, Collisson EA, Sokolov A, et al. PARADIGM-SHIFT predicts the function of mutations in multiple cancers using pathway impact analysis. Bioinformatics 2012;28:i640-6.
71. Jia P, Zhao Z. Personalized pathway enrichment map of putative cancer genes from next generation sequencing data. PLoS One 2012;7:e37595.
72. Bashashati A, Haffari G, Ding J, et al. DriverNet: uncovering the impact of somatic driver mutations on transcriptional networks in cancer. Genome Biol 2012;13:R124.
73. Paull EO, Carlin DE, Niepel M, et al. Discovering causal pathways linking genomic events to transcriptional states using Tied Diffusion Through Interacting Events (TieDIE). Bioinformatics 2013;29:2757-64.
74. Hofree M, Shen JP, Carter H, et al. Network-based stratification of tumor mutations. Nat Methods 2013;10:1108-15.
75. Hou JP, Ma J. DawnRank: discovering personalized driver genes in cancer. Genome Med 2014;6:56.
76. Jia P, Zhao Z. VarWalker: personalized mutation network analysis of putative cancer genes from next-generation sequencing data. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10:e1003460.
77. Akavia UD, Litvin O, Kim J, et al. An integrated approach to uncover drivers of cancer. Cell 2010;143:1005-17.
78. Zhang KX, Ouellette BF. CAERUS: predicting CAncER oUtcomeS using relationship between protein structural information, protein networks, gene expression data, and mutation data. PLoS Comput Biol 2011;7:e1001114.
79. Chen Y, Hao J, Jiang W, et al. Identifying potential cancer driver genes by genomic data integration. Sci Rep 2013;3:3538.
80. Sanchez-Garcia F, Villagrasa P, Matsui J, et al. Integration of genomic data enables selective discovery of breast cancer drivers. Cell 2014;159:1461-75.
81. Melloni GE, Ogier AG, de Pretis S, et al. DOTS-Finder: a comprehensive tool for assessing driver genes in cancer genomes. Genome Med 2014;6:44.
82. Schroeder MP, Rubio-Perez C, Tamborero D, et al. OncodriveROLE classifies cancer driver genes in loss of function and activating mode of action. Bioinformatics 2014;30:i549-55.
83. Bertrand D, Chng KR, Sherbaf FG, et al. Patient-specific driver gene prediction and risk assessment through integrated network analysis of cancer omics profiles. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:e44
84. Supek F, Minana B, Valcarcel J, et al. Synonymous mutations frequently act as driver mutations in human cancers. Cell 2014;156:1324-35.
85. Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason H, Gudjonsson SA, et al. Largescale whole-genome sequencing of the Icelandic population. Nat Genet 2015;47:435-44
86. Jones S, Anagnostou V, Lytle K, et al. Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mutation discovery and interpretation. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:283ra53.
87. Fu W, O'Connor TD, Jun G, et al. Analysis of 6, 515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature 2013;493:216-20.
88. Genomes Project C, Abecasis GR, Altshuler D, et al. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature 2010;467:1061-73.
89. Martelotto LG, Ng CK, De Filippo MR, et al. Benchmarking mutation effect prediction algorithms using functionally validated cancer-related missense mutations. Genome Biol 2014;15:484.
90. Carter H, Chen S, Isik L, et al. Cancer-specific high-throughput annotation of somatic mutations: computational prediction of driver missense mutations. Cancer Res 2009;69:6660-7.
91. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-42.
92. Yang F, Petsalaki E, Rolland T, et al. Protein domain-level landscape of cancer-type-specific somatic mutations. PLoS Comput Biol 2015;11:e1004147.
93. Wang Y, Cheng H, Pan Z, et al. Reconfiguring phosphorylation signaling by genetic polymorphisms affects cancer susceptibility. J Mol Cell Biol 2015;7:187-202.
94. Reimand J, Wagih O, Bader GD. The mutational landscape of phosphorylation signaling in cancer. Sci Rep 2013;3:2651.
95. Ellis MJ, Gillette M, Carr SA, et al. Connecting genomic alterations to cancer biology with proteomics: the NCI Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium. Cancer Discov 2013;3:1108-12.
96. Shi Z, Moult J. Structural and functional impact of cancer-related missense somatic mutations. J Mol Biol 2011;413:495-512.
97. Stehr H, Jang SH, Duarte JM, et al. The structural impact of cancer-associated missense mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressors. Mol Cancer 2011;10:54.
98. Wang Q, Xia J, Jia P, et al. Application of next generation sequencing to human gene fusion detection: computational tools, features and perspectives. Brief Bioinform2013;14:506-19.
99. Zhong Q, Simonis N, Li QR, et al. Edgetic perturbation models of human inherited disorders. Mol Syst Biol 2009;5:321.
100. Pe'er D, Hacohen N. Principles and strategies for developing network models in cancer. Cell 2011;144:864-73.
101. Rolland T, Tasan M, Charloteaux B, et al. A proteomescale map of the human interactome network. Cell 2014; 159:1212-26.
102. Huang S, Ernberg I, Kauffman S. Cancer attractors: a systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2009;20:869-76.
103. Sahni N, Yi S, Taipale M, et al. Widespread macromolecular interaction perturbations in human genetic disorders. Cell 2015;161:647-60.
104. Vandin F, Upfal E, Raphael BJ. Algorithms for detecting significantly mutated pathways in cancer. J Comput Biol 2011;18:507-22.
105. Stumpf MP, Thorne T, de Silva E, et al. Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008;105:6959-64.
106. Hart GT, Ramani AK, Marcotte EM. How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? Genome Biol 2006;7:120.
107. Menche J, Sharma A, Kitsak M, et al. Disease networks. Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome. Science 2015;347:1257601.
108. Lopez Villar E, Wang X, Madero L, et al. Application of oncoproteomics to aberrant signalling networks in changing the treatment paradigm in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. J Cell Mol Med 2015;19:46-52.
109. Brunak S, De La Vega FM, Rätsch G, et al. Cancer panomics: Computational methods and infrastructure for integrative analysis of cancer high-throughput "omics" data-session introduction. Pac Sym Biocomput 2014;19:1-2.
110. Stankiewicz P, Lupski JR. Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu Rev Med 2010;61:437-55.
111. Wong K, Keane TM, Stalker J, et al. Enhanced structural variant and breakpoint detection using SVMerge by integration of multiple detection methods and local assembly. Genome Biol 2010;11:R128.
112. Alkodsi A, Louhimo R, Hautaniemi S. Comparative analysis of methods for identifying somatic copy number alterations from deep sequencing data. Brief Bioinform 2015;16:242-54.
113. Tamborero D, Gonzalez-Perez A, Perez-Llamas C, et al. Comprehensive identification of mutational cancer driver genes across 12 tumor types. Sci Rep 2013;3:2650.
114. Alizadeh AA, Aranda V, Bardelli A, et al. Toward understanding and exploiting tumor heterogeneity. Nat Med 2015;21:846-53.
115. Yadav VK, De S. An assessment of computational methods for estimating purity and clonality using genomic data derived from heterogeneous tumor tissue samples. Brief Bioinform 2015;16:232-41.
116. Isella C, Terrasi A, Bellomo SE, et al. Stromal contribution to the colorectal cancer transcriptome. Nat Genet 2015;47: 312-9.
117. Calon A, Lonardo E, Berenguer-Llergo A, et al. Stromal gene expression defines poor-prognosis subtypes in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 2015;47:320-9.
118. Yoshihara K, Shahmoradgoli M, Martinez E, et al. Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data. Nat Commun 2013;4:2612.
119. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Mermel CH, et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 2014;505:495-501.
120. Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, et al. Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell 2012;150:1107-20.
121. Tomasetti C, Marchionni L, Nowak MA, et al. Only three driver gene mutations are required for the development of lung and colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:118-23.
122. Cibulskis K, Lawrence MS, Carter SL, et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:213-9.
123. Belkadi A, Bolze A, Itan Y, et al. Whole-genome sequencing is more powerful than whole-exome sequencing for detecting exome variants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:5473-78.
124. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-5.
125. Kim SY, Speed TP. Comparing somatic mutation-callers: beyond Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinformatics 2013;14:189.
126. McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 2010; 20:1297-303.
127. O'Rawe J, Jiang T, Sun G, et al. Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing. Genome Med 2013;5:28.
128. O'Brien TD, Jia P, Xia J, et al. Inconsistency and features of single nucleotide variants detected in whole exome sequencing versus transcriptome sequencing: A case study in lung cancer. Methods 2015;83:118-27.
129. Wang Q, Jia P, Li F, et al. Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers. Genome Med 2013;5:91.
130. Ewing AD, Houlahan KE, Hu Y, et al. Combining tumor genome simulation with crowdsourcing to benchmark somatic singlenucleotide-variant detection. NatMethods 2015;12:623-30
131. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, et al. The cancer genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet 2013;45:1113-20.
132. Hoadley KA, Yau C, Wolf DM, et al. Multiplatform analysis of 12 cancer types reveals molecular classification within and across tissues of origin. Cell 2014;158:929-44.
133. Ledford H. End of cancer-genome project prompts rethink. Nature 2015;517:128-9.
134. Fredriksson NJ, Ny L, Nilsson JA, et al. Systematic analysis of noncoding somatic mutations and gene expression alterations across 14 tumor types. Nat Genet 2014;46:1258-63.
135. Weinhold N, Jacobsen A, Schultz N, et al. Genome-wide analysis of noncoding regulatory mutations in cancer. Nat Genet 2014;46:1160-5.
136. Schramek D, Sendoel A, Segal JP, et al. Direct in vivo RNAi screen unveils myosin IIa as a tumor suppressor of squamous cell carcinomas. Science 2014;343:309-13.
137. Konermann S, Brigham MD, Trevino AE, et al. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature 2015;517:583-8.
138. Newman AM, Bratman SV, To J, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat Med 2014;20:548-54.
139. Dawson SJ, Tsui DW, Murtaza M, et al. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA to monitor metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1199-209.
140. Lohr JG, Adalsteinsson VA, Cibulskis K, et al. Whole-exome sequencing of circulating tumor cells provides a window intometastatic prostate cancer. Nat Biotechnol 2014;32:479-84.
141. Leary RJ, Sausen M, Kinde I, et al. Detection of chromosomal alterations in the circulation of cancer patients with wholegenome sequencing. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:162ra54.
142. Navin N, Kendall J, Troge J, et al. Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 2011;472:90-4.
143. Levine JH, Lin Y, Elowitz MB. Functional roles of pulsing in genetic circuits. Science 2013;342:1193-200.
144. Karr JR, Sanghvi JC, Macklin DN, et al. A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype. Cell 2012;150:389-401.
145. Shapiro E, Biezuner T, Linnarsson S. Single-cell sequencingbased technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:618-30.
146. Gubin MM, Zhang X, Schuster H, et al. Checkpoint blockade cancer immunotherapy targets tumour-specific mutant antigens. Nature 2014;515:577-81.
147. Heemskerk B, Kvistborg P, Schumacher TN. The cancer antigenome. EMBO J 2013;32:194-203.
148. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 2012;366:883-92.
149. Rooney MS, Shukla SA, Wu CJ, et al. Molecular and genetic properties of tumors associated with local immune cytolytic activity. Cell 2015;160:48-61.
150. Snyder A, Makarov V, Merghoub T, et al. Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2189-99.
151. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 2015;348:124-8.