Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39033140›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Copy number losses of oncogenes and gains of tumor suppressor genes generate common driver mutations.

Elizaveta Besedina, Fran Supek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors.

Elizaveta BesedinaInstitute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona), 08028, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8575-6688
Fran SupekInstitute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona), 08028, Barcelona, Spain. fran.supek@bric.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-7811-6711

Funding

EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (H2020 Excellent Science - European Research Council) 757700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer driver genes can undergo positive selection for various types of genetic alterations, including gain-of-function or loss-of-function mutations and copy number alterations (CNA). We investigated the landscape of different types of alterations affecting driver genes in 17,644 cancer exomes and genomes. We find that oncogenes may simultaneously exhibit signatures of positive selection and also negative selection in different gene segments, suggesting a method to identify additional tumor types where an oncogene is a driver or a vulnerability. Next, we characterize the landscape of CNA-dependent selection effects, revealing a general trend of increased positive selection on oncogene mutations not only upon CNA gains but also upon CNA deletions. Similarly, we observe a positive interaction between mutations and CNA gains in tumor suppressor genes. Thus, two-hit events involving point mutations and CNA are universally observed regardless of the type of CNA and may signal new therapeutic opportunities. An analysis with focus on the somatic CNA two-hit events can help identify additional driver genes relevant to a tumor type. By a global inference of point mutation and CNA selection signatures and interactions thereof across genes and tissues, we identify 9 evolutionary archetypes of driver genes, representing different mechanisms of (in)activation by genetic alterations.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsGenes, Tumor SuppressorNeoplasmsOncogenesExomeGenome, HumanHumansMutationPoint Mutation

Identifiers

PMID39033140
PMCPMC11271286

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.