Detailed longitudinal sampling of glioma stem cells in situ reveals Chr7 gain and Chr10 loss as repeated events in primary tumor formation and recurrence

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 141, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 2002-2013

  Baysan, Mehmet ^a   Woolard, Kevin ^b   Cam, Margaret C ^c   Zhang, Wei ^c   Song, Hua ^c   Kotliarova, Svetlana ^d   Balamatsias, Demosthenes ^e   Linkous, Amanda ^e   Ahn, Susie ^c   Walling, Jennifer ^c   Belova, Galina I ^c   Fine, Howard A ^e  

^a ISTANBUL SEHIR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^e WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

clonal development; glioblastoma; glioma stem cells; intratumor heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE 6; IMMUNOGLOBULIN ENHANCER BINDING PROTEIN; INTERLEUKIN 1BETA; INTERLEUKIN 6; PROTEIN KINASE B; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR ER81; VASCULOTROPIN; TUMOR MARKER;

AKT GENE; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CARCINOGENESIS; CDK6 GENE; CHROMOSOME 10; CHROMOSOME 7; CONTROLLED STUDY; ETV1 GENE; GENE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE LOSS; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC GAIN; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GLIOMA STEM CELL; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; IL1B GENE; IL6 GENE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; NFKB GENE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; VEGF GENE; ANIMAL; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER STEM CELL; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; GENETICS; GENOMICS; GLIOMA; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; METABOLISM; MOUSE; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; TUMOR CELL LINE; TUMOR RECURRENCE; XENOGRAFT;

ANIMALS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CELL LINE, TUMOR; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN, PAIR 10; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN, PAIR 7; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENOMICS; GLIOMA; HETEROGRAFTS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; MICE; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASTIC STEM CELLS; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 85029592915     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30887     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. States CBTRotU. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States, 2004–2006, February 2010. Hinsdale, IL: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (http://wwwcbtrusorg/2010-NPCR-SEER/CBTRUS-WEBREPORT-Final-3-2-10pdf)[Accessed June 24, 2011] 2012.
2. Johnson DR, O'neill BP. Glioblastoma survival in the United States before and during the temozolomide era. J Neurooncol 2012;107:359–64.
3. Johnson DR, Leeper HE, Uhm JH. Glioblastoma survival in the United States improved after Food and Drug Administration approval of bevacizumab: a population-based analysis. Cancer 2013;119:3489–95.
4. Wen PY, Kesari S. Malignant gliomas in adults. N Engl J Med 2008;359:492–507.
5. Baysan M, Bozdag S, Cam MC, et al. G-Cimp status prediction of glioblastoma samples using mRNA expression data. PloS ONE 2012;7:e47839
6. Brown TM, Fee E. Rudolf Carl Virchow: medical scientist, social reformer, role model. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2104
7. Makino S. Further evidence favoring the concept of the stem cell in ascites tumors of rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1956;63:818–30.
8. Heppner GH, Miller BE. Tumor heterogeneity: biological implications and therapeutic consequences. Cancer Metast Rev 1983;2:5–23.
9. Fidler IJ. Tumor heterogeneity and the biology of cancer invasion and metastasis. Cancer Res 1978;38:2651–60.
10. Fidler IJ, Kripke ML. Metastasis results from preexisting variant cells within a malignant tumor. Science 1977;197:893–5.
11. Snuderl M, Fazlollahi L, Le LP, et al. Mosaic amplification of multiple receptor tyrosine kinase genes in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 2011;20:810–7.
12. Szerlip NJ, Pedraza A, Chakravarty D, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of receptor tyrosine kinases EGFR and PDGFRA amplification in glioblastoma defines subpopulations with distinct growth factor response. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;109:3041–6.
13. Sottoriva A, Spiteri I, Piccirillo SG, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2013;110:4009–14.
14. Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 2014;344:1396–401.
15. Maley CC, Galipeau PC, Finley JC, et al. Genetic clonal diversity predicts progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Nat Genet 2006;38:468–73.
16. Mengelbier LH, Karlsson J, Lindgren D, et al. Intratumoral genome diversity parallels progression and predicts outcome in pediatric cancer. Nat Comms 2015;6:6125
17. Mazor T, Pankov A, Johnson BE, et al. DNA methylation and somatic mutations converge on the cell cycle and define similar evolutionary histories in brain tumors. Cancer Cell 2015;28:307–17.
18. Johnson BE, Mazor T, Hong C, et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science 2014;343:189–93.
19. Kim J, Lee I-H, Cho HJ, et al. Spatiotemporal evolution of the primary glioblastoma genome. Cancer Cell 2015;28:318–28.
20. Nickel GC, Barnholtz-Sloan J, Gould MP, et al. Characterizing mutational heterogeneity in a glioblastoma patient with double recurrence. PloS One 2012;7:e35262
21. Favero F, McGranahan N, Salm M, et al. Glioblastoma adaptation traced through decline of an IDH1 clonal driver and macro-evolution of a double-minute chromosome. Ann Oncol 2015;26:880–7.
22. Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, et al. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 2010;467:1114–7.
23. McGranahan N, Swanton C. Biological and therapeutic impact of intratumor heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Cancer Cell 2015;27:15–26.
24. Bonavia R, Cavenee WK, Furnari FB. Heterogeneity maintenance in glioblastoma: a social network. Cancer Res 2011;71:4055–60.
25. Lyons JG, Lobo E, Martorana AM, et al. Clonal diversity in carcinomas: its implications for tumour progression and the contribution made to it by epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Clin Exp Metastasis 2008;25:665–77.
26. Eirew P, Steif A, Khattra J, et al. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature 2014;
27. Kleihues P, Louis DN, Scheithauer BW, et al. The WHO classification of tumors of the nervous system. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2002;61:215–25.
28. Suvà ML, Rheinbay E, Gillespie SM, et al. Reconstructing and reprogramming the tumor-propagating potential of glioblastoma stem-like cells. Cell 2014;157:580–94.
29. Frattini V, Trifonov V, Chan JM, et al. The integrated landscape of driver genomic alterations in glioblastoma. Nat Genet 2013;45:1141–9.
30. Baysan M, Woolard K, Bozdag S, et al. Micro-environment causes reversible changes in DNA methylation and mRNA expression profiles in patient-derived glioma stem cells. PloS One 2014;9:e94045
31. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell 2013;155:462–77.
32. Ramaswamy B, Lu Y, Teng K-y, et al. Hedgehog signaling is a novel therapeutic target in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer aberrantly activated by PI3K/AKT pathway. Cancer Res 2012;72:5048–59.
33. Metcalfe C, de Sauvage FJ. Hedgehog fights back: mechanisms of acquired resistance against Smoothened antagonists. Cancer Res 2011;71:5057–61.
34. Bhat KP, Balasubramaniyan V, Vaillant B, et al. Mesenchymal differentiation mediated by NF-κB promotes radiation resistance in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 2013;24:331–46.
35. Brocks D, Assenov Y, Minner S, et al. Intratumor DNA methylation heterogeneity reflects clonal evolution in aggressive prostate cancer. Cell Rep 2014;8:798–806.
36. Desper R, Gascuel O. Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction algorithms based on the minimum-evolution principle. Journal of Comput Biol 2002;9:687–705.
37. Ozawa T, Riester M, Cheng Y-K, et al. Most human non-GCIMP glioblastoma subtypes evolve from a common proneural-like precursor glioma. Cancer Cell 2014;26:288–300.
38. Noushmehr H, Weisenberger DJ, Diefes K, et al. Identification of a CpG island methylator phenotype that defines a distinct subgroup of glioma. Cancer Cell 2010;17:510–22.
39. Baena E, Shao Z, Linn DE, et al. ETV1 directs androgen metabolism and confers aggressive prostate cancer in targeted mice and patients. Genes Develop 2013;27:683–98.
40. Bellail AC, Olson JJ, Hao C. SUMO1 modification stabilizes CDK6 protein and drives the cell cycle and glioblastoma progression. Nat Comms 2014;5:
41. Li B, He H, Tao B-B, et al. Knockdown of CDK6 enhances glioma sensitivity to chemotherapy. Oncology Rep 2012;28:909–14.
42. Krämer A, Green J, Pollard J, et al. Causal analysis approaches in ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA). Bioinformatics 2013; btt703
43. McFarland BC, Hong SW, Rajbhandari R, et al. NF-κB-induced IL-6 ensures STAT3 activation and tumor aggressiveness in glioblastoma. PloS ONE 2013;8:e78728
44. Weissenberger J, Loeffler S, Kappeler A, et al. IL-6 is required for glioma development in a mouse model. Oncogene 2004;23:3308–16.
45. Liu Q, Li G, Li R, et al. IL-6 promotion of glioblastoma cell invasion and angiogenesis in U251 and T98G cell lines. J Neurooncol 2010;100:165–76.
46. Xie T-X, Xia Z, Zhang N, et al. Constitutive NF-κB activity regulates the expression of VEGF and IL-8 and tumor angiogenesis of human glioblastoma. Oncology Rep 2010;23:725–32.
47. Jiang R, Mircean C, Shmulevich I, et al. Pathway alterations during glioma progression revealed by reverse phase protein lysate arrays. Proteomics 2006;6:2964–71.
48. Silber J, Lim DA, Petritsch C, et al. miR-124 and miR-137 inhibit proliferation of glioblastoma multiforme cells and induce differentiation of brain tumor stem cells. BMC Med 2008;6:14
49. Xia H, Cheung WK, Ng SS, et al. Loss of brain-enriched miR-124 microRNA enhances stem-like traits and invasiveness of glioma cells. J Biol Chem 2012;287:9962–71.