Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23805207›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Two Distinct Categories of Focal Deletions in Cancer Genomes.

Megha Rajaram, Jianping Zhang, Tim Wang, Jinyu Li, Cem Kuscu, Huan Qi, Mamoru Kato, Vladimir Grubor, Robert J Weil, Aslaug Helland and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Time is ticking faster for long genes in aging.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Megha RajaramCancer Genome Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Woodbury, New York, United States of America.
Jianping Zhang
Tim Wang
Jinyu Li
Cem Kuscu
Huan Qi
Mamoru Kato
Vladimir Grubor
Robert J Weil
Aslaug Helland
Anne-Lise Borrenson-Dale
Kathleen R Cho
Douglas A Levine
Alan N Houghton
Jedd D Wolchok
Lois Myeroff
Sanford D Markowitz
Scott W Lowe
Michael Zhang
Alex Krasnitz
Robert Lucito
David Mu
R Scott Powers
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNorwegian Cancer Society · NOCase Western Reserve University · USCleveland Clinic · USMichigan United · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
COMPUTATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO VALIDATING CANCER GENOME TARGETSU01CA168409 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI POWERS, SCOTT · 2012 to 2016
$7.3M
CSHL Molecular Target Discovery and Development CenterRC2CA148532 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI POWERS, SCOTT · 2009 to 2010
$4.7M
An integrative approach to cancer gene discovery in hepatocellular carcinomaR01CA124648 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI POWERS, SCOTT · 2007 to 2011
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124648NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148532NCI NIH HHS U01 CA168409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the key questions about genomic alterations in cancer is whether they are functional in the sense of contributing to the selective advantage of tumor cells. The frequency with which an alteration occurs might reflect its ability to increase cancer cell growth, or alternatively, enhanced instability of a locus may increase the frequency with which it is found to be aberrant in tumors, regardless of oncogenic impact. Here we've addressed this on a genome-wide scale for cancer-associated focal deletions, which are known to pinpoint both tumor suppressor genes (tumor suppressors) and unstable loci. Based on DNA copy number analysis of over one-thousand human cancers representing ten different tumor types, we observed five loci with focal deletion frequencies above 5%, including the A2BP1 gene at 16p13.3 and the MACROD2 gene at 20p12.1. However, neither RNA expression nor functional studies support a tumor suppressor role for either gene. Further analyses suggest instead that these are sites of increased genomic instability and that they resemble common fragile sites (CFS). Genome-wide analysis revealed properties of CFS-like recurrent deletions that distinguish them from deletions affecting tumor suppressor genes, including their isolation at specific loci away from other genomic deletion sites, a considerably smaller deletion size, and dispersal throughout the affected locus rather than assembly at a common site of overlap. Additionally, CFS-like deletions have less impact on gene expression and are enriched in cell lines compared to primary tumors. We show that loci affected by CFS-like deletions are often distinct from known common fragile sites. Indeed, we find that each tumor tissue type has its own spectrum of CFS-like deletions, and that colon cancers have many more CFS-like deletions than other tumor types. We present simple rules that can pinpoint focal deletions that are not CFS-like and more likely to affect functional tumor suppressors.

Indexed as

Sequence DeletionAnimalsCell Line, TumorChromosome Fragile SitesChromosome MappingChromosomesComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA Repair EnzymesGenomeHumansHydrolasesMiceNeoplasmsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA Splicing FactorsTransplantation, HeterologousDNA Repair EnzymesHydrolasesMACROD2 protein, humanRBFOX1 protein, humanRNA Splicing Factors

Identifiers

PMID23805207
PMCPMC3689739
OpenAlexW2029395131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.