1
|
Cotto KC, Feng YY, Ramu A, Richters M, Freshour SL, Skidmore ZL, Xia H, McMichael JF, Kunisaki J, Campbell KM, Chen THP, Rozycki EB, Adkins D, Devarakonda S, Sankararaman S, Lin Y, Chapman WC, Maher CA, Arora V, Dunn GP, Uppaluri R, Govindan R, Griffith OL, Griffith M. Integrated analysis of genomic and transcriptomic data for the discovery of splice-associated variants in cancer. Nat Commun 2023; 14:1589. [PMID: 36949070 PMCID: PMC10033906 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37266-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Accepted: 03/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Somatic mutations within non-coding regions and even exons may have unidentified regulatory consequences that are often overlooked in analysis workflows. Here we present RegTools ( www.regtools.org ), a computationally efficient, free, and open-source software package designed to integrate somatic variants from genomic data with splice junctions from bulk or single cell transcriptomic data to identify variants that may cause aberrant splicing. We apply RegTools to over 9000 tumor samples with both tumor DNA and RNA sequence data. RegTools discovers 235,778 events where a splice-associated variant significantly increases the splicing of a particular junction, across 158,200 unique variants and 131,212 unique junctions. To characterize these somatic variants and their associated splice isoforms, we annotate them with the Variant Effect Predictor, SpliceAI, and Genotype-Tissue Expression junction counts and compare our results to other tools that integrate genomic and transcriptomic data. While many events are corroborated by the aforementioned tools, the flexibility of RegTools also allows us to identify splice-associated variants in known cancer drivers, such as TP53, CDKN2A, and B2M, and other genes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsy C Cotto
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yang-Yang Feng
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Avinash Ramu
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Megan Richters
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sharon L Freshour
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Zachary L Skidmore
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Huiming Xia
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Joshua F McMichael
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Jason Kunisaki
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Katie M Campbell
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Timothy Hung-Po Chen
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Emily B Rozycki
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Douglas Adkins
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Siddhartha Devarakonda
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sumithra Sankararaman
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yiing Lin
- Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - William C Chapman
- Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Christopher A Maher
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Vivek Arora
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Gavin P Dunn
- Department of Neurosurgery, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Center for Brain Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ravindra Uppaluri
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ramaswamy Govindan
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Obi L Griffith
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
| | - Malachi Griffith
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
- Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shi K, Li X, Zhang J, Sun X. Development and Validation of a Novel Metabolic Signature-Based Prognostic Model for Uveal Melanoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2022; 11:9. [PMID: 35536719 PMCID: PMC9100464 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.5.9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary malignant tumor with poor prognosis. The role of metabolism-related genes in the prognosis of UM remains unrevealed. This study aimed to establish and validate a prognostic prediction model for UM based on metabolism-related genes. Methods Gene expression profiles and clinicopathological information were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas, and the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Univariable Cox regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression, and stepwise regression were performed to establish the model. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and calibration and discrimination analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic model. Results Three metabolism-related genes, carbonic anhydrase 12, acyl-CoA synthetase long-chain family member 3, and synaptojanin 2, and three clinicopathological parameters (i.e., age, gender, and metastasis staging) were identified to establish the model. The risk score was found to be an independent prognostic factor for UM survival. High-risk patients demonstrated significantly poorer prognosis than low-risk patients. ROC analysis suggested the promising prognostic efficiency of the model. The calibration curve manifested satisfactory agreement between the predicted and observed risk. A nomogram and online survival calculator were developed to predict the survival probability. Conclusions The novel metabolism-based prognostic model could accurately predict the prognosis of UM patients, which facilitates the prediction of the survival probability by both ophthalmologists and patients with the online dynamic nomogram. Translational Relevance The dynamic nomogram links gene expression profiles to clinical prognosis of UM and is useful to evaluate the survival probability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ke Shi
- Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Fundus Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xinxin Li
- Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Fundus Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jingfa Zhang
- Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Fundus Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaodong Sun
- Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Fundus Diseases, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|