Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37328455›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

Cancer genomes tolerate deleterious coding mutations through somatic copy number amplifications of wild-type regions.

Fabio Alfieri, Giulio Caravagna, Martin H Schaefer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The Hallmarks of Aneuploidy in Cancer and Congenital Syndromes.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Cancer Genome in the Long Reads Era.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Placenta: an old organ with new functions.Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fabio AlfieriDepartment of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, 20139, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7173-0105
Giulio CaravagnaDepartment of Mathematics and Geosciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, 34127, Italy.
Martin H SchaeferDepartment of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, 20139, Italy. martin.schaefer@ieo.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7503-6364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancers evolve under the accumulation of thousands of somatic mutations and chromosomal aberrations. While most coding mutations are deleterious, almost all protein-coding genes lack detectable signals of negative selection. This raises the question of how tumors tolerate such large amounts of deleterious mutations. Using 8,690 tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we demonstrate that copy number amplifications frequently cover haploinsufficient genes in mutation-prone regions. This could increase tolerance towards the deleterious impact of mutations by creating safe copies of wild-type regions and, hence, protecting the genes therein. Our findings demonstrate that these potential buffering events are highly influenced by gene functions, essentiality, and mutation impact and that they occur early during tumor evolution. We show how cancer type-specific mutation landscapes drive copy number alteration patterns across cancer types. Ultimately, our work paves the way for the detection of novel cancer vulnerabilities by revealing genes that fall within amplifications likely selected during evolution to mitigate the effect of mutations.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsNeoplasmsGenomeHumansMutation

Identifiers

PMID37328455
PMCPMC10276008

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.