Citations

Abstract Motivation Genomic data are prevalent, leading to frequent encounters with uninterpreted variants or mutations with unknown mechanisms of effect. Researchers must manually aggregate data from multiple sources and across related proteins, mentally translating effects between the genome and proteome, to attempt to understand mechanisms. Materials and methods P2T2 presents diverse data and annotation types in a unified protein-centric view, facilitating the interpretation of coding variants and hypothesis generation. Information from primary sequence, domain, motif, and structural levels are presented and also organized into the first Paralog Annotation Analysis across the human proteome. Results Our tool assists research efforts to interpret genomic variation by aggregating diverse, relevant, and proteome-wide information into a unified interactive web-based interface. Additionally, we provide a REST API enabling automated data queries, or repurposing data for other studies. Conclusion The unified protein-centric interface presented in P2T2 will help researchers interpret novel variants identified through next-generation sequencing. Code and server link available at github.com/GenomicInterpretation/p2t2.

Background: Thousands of gene fusions have been reported in prostate cancer, but their authenticity, incidence, and tumor specificity have not been thoroughly evaluated, nor have their genomic characteristics been carefully explored. Methods: We developed FusionVet to dedicatedly validate known fusion genes using RNA-seq alignments. Using FusionVet, we re-assessed 2727 gene fusions reported from 36 studies using the RNA-seq data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We also explored their genomic characteristics and interrogated the transcriptomic and DNA methylomic consequences of the E26 transformation-specific (ETS) fusions. Results: We found that nearly two-thirds of reported fusions are intra-chromosomal, and 80% of them were formed between 2 protein-coding genes. Although most (76%) genes were fused to only 1 partner, we observed many fusion hub genes that have multiple fusion partners, including ETS family genes, androgen receptor signaling pathway genes, tumor suppressor genes, and proto-oncogenes. More than 90% of the reported fusions cannot be validated by TCGA RNA-seq data. For those fusions that can be validated, 5% were detected from tumor and normal samples with similar frequencies, and only 4% (120 fusions) were tumor-specific. The occurrences of ERG, ETV1, and ETV4 fusions were mutually exclusive, and their fusion statuses were tightly associated with overexpressions. Besides, we found ERG fusions were significantly co-occurred with PTEN deletion but mutually exclusive with common genomic alterations such as SPOP mutation and FOXA1 mutation. Conclusions: Most of the reported fusion genes cannot be validated by TCGA samples. The ETS family and androgen response genes were significantly enriched in prostate cancer–specific fusion genes. Transcription activity was significantly repressed, and the DNA methylation was significantly increased in samples carrying ERG fusion.

Abstract Background: Traditionally, mutational burden and mutational signatures have been assessed by tumor-normal pair DNA sequencing. The requirement of having both normal and tumor samples is not always feasible from a clinical perspective, and led us to investigate the efficacy of using RNA sequencing of only the tumor sample to determine the mutational burden and signatures, and subsequently molecular cause of the cancer. The potential advantages include reducing the cost of testing, and simultaneously providing information on the gene expression profile and gene fusions present in the tumor. Results: In this study, we devised supervised and unsupervised learning methods to determine mutational signatures from tumor RNA-seq data. As applications, we applied the methods to a training set of 587 TCGA uterine cancer RNA-seq samples, and examined in an independent testing set of 521 TCGA colorectal cancer RNA-seq samples. Both diseases are known associated with microsatellite instable high (MSI-H) and driver defects in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLɛ). From RNA-seq called variants, we found majority (>95%) are likely germline variants, leading to C>T enriched germline variants (dbSNP) widely applicable in tumor and normal RNA-seq samples. We found significant associations between RNA-derived mutational burdens and MSI/POLɛ status, and insignificant relationship between RNA-seq total coverage and derived mutational burdens. Additionally we found that over 80% of variants could be explained by using the COSMIC mutational signature-5, -6 and -10, which are implicated in natural aging, MSI-H, and POLɛ, respectively. For classifying tumor type, within UCEC we achieved a recall of 0.56 and 0.78, and specificity of 0.66 and 0.99 for MSI and POLɛ respectively. By applying learnt RNA signatures from UCEC to COAD, we were able to improve our classification of both MSI and POLɛ. Conclusions: Taken together, our work provides a novel method to detect RNA-seq derived mutational signatures with effective procedures to remove likely germline variants. It can leads to accurate classification of underlying driving mechanisms of DNA damage deficiency.

(1) Background: Arthrofibrosis is a common cause of patient debility and dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The diversity of molecular pathways involved in arthrofibrosis disease progression suggest that effective treatments for arthrofibrosis may require a multimodal approach to counter the complex cellular mechanisms that direct disease pathogenesis. In this study, we leveraged RNA-seq data to define genes that are suppressed in arthrofibrosis patients and identified adiponectin (ADIPOQ) as a potential candidate. We hypothesized that signaling pathways activated by ADIPOQ and the cognate receptors ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 may prevent fibrosis-related events that contribute to arthrofibrosis. (2) Methods: Therefore, ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 were analyzed in a TGFβ1 inducible cell model for human myofibroblastogenesis by both loss- and gain-of-function experiments. (3) Results: Treatment with AdipoRon, which is a small molecule agonist of ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2, decreased expression of collagens (COL1A1, COL3A1, and COL6A1) and the myofibroblast marker smooth muscle α-actin (ACTA2) at both mRNA and protein levels in basal and TGFβ1-induced cells. (4) Conclusions: Thus, ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 represent potential drug targets that may attenuate the pathogenesis of arthrofibrosis by suppressing TGFβ-dependent induction of myofibroblasts. These findings also suggest that AdipoRon therapy may reduce the development of arthrofibrosis by mediating anti-fibrotic effects in joint capsular tissues.

Abstract Background: Traditionally, mutational burden and mutational signatures have been assessed by tumor-normal pair DNA sequencing. The requirement of having both normal and tumor samples is not always feasible from a clinical perspective, and led us to investigate the efficacy of using RNA sequencing of only the tumor sample to determine the mutational burden and signatures, and subsequently molecular cause of the cancer. The potential advantages include reducing the cost of testing, and simultaneously providing information on the gene expression profile and gene fusions present in the tumor. Results: In this study, we devised supervised and unsupervised learning methods to determine mutational signatures from tumor RNA-seq data. As applications, we applied the methods to a training set of 587 TCGA uterine cancer RNA-seq samples, and examined in an independent testing set of 521 TCGA colorectal cancer RNA-seq samples. Both diseases are known associated with microsatellite instable high (MSI-H) and driver defects in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLɛ).From RNA-seq called variants, we found majority (>95%) are likely germline variants, leading to C>T enriched germline variants (dbSNP) widely applicable in tumor and normal RNA-seq samples. We found significant associations between RNA-derived mutational burdens and MSI/POLɛ status, and insignificant relationship between RNA-seq total coverage and derived mutational burdens. Additionally we found that over 80% of variants could be explained by using the COSMIC mutational signature-5, -6 and -10, which are implicated in natural aging, MSI-H, and POLɛ, respectively. For classifying tumor type, within UCEC we achieved a recall of 0.56 and 0.78, and specificity of 0.66 and 0.99 for MSI and POLɛ respectively. By applying learnt RNA signatures from UCEC to COAD, we were able to improve our classification of both MSI and POLɛ. Conclusions: Taken together, our work provides a novel method to detect RNA-seq derived mutational signatures with effective procedures to remove likely germline variants. It can leads to accurate classification of underlying driving mechanisms of DNA damage deficiency.

Abstract Background: Traditionally, mutational burden and mutational signatures have been assessed by tumor-normal pair DNA sequencing. The requirement of having both normal and tumor samples is not always feasible from a clinical perspective, and led us to investigate the efficacy of using RNA sequencing of only the tumor sample to determine the mutational burden and signatures, and subsequently molecular cause of the cancer. The potential advantages include reducing the cost of testing, and simultaneously providing information on the gene expression profile and gene fusions present in the tumor.Results: In this study, we devised supervised and unsupervised learning methods to determine mutational signatures from tumor RNA-seq data. As applications, we applied the methods to a training set of 587 TCGA uterine cancer RNAseq samples, and examined in an independent testing set of xxx TCGA colorectal cancer RNAseq samples. Both diseases are known associated with microsatellite instable high (MSI-H) and driver defects in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLɛ). From RNAseq called variants, we found majority (>95%) are likely germline variants, leading to C>T enriched germline variants (dbSNP) widely applicable in tumor and normal RNAseq samples. We found significant associations between RNA-derived mutational burdens and MSI/POLɛ status, and insignificant relationship between RNAseq total coverage and derived mutational burdens. Additionally we found that over 80% of variants could be explained by using the COSMIC mutational signature-5, -6 and -10, which are implicated in natural aging, MSI-H, and POLɛ, respectively. For classifying tumor type, within UCEC we achieved a recall of 0.56 and 0.78, and specificity of 0.66 and 0.99 for MSI and POLɛ respectively. By applying learnt RNA signatures from UCEC to COAD, we were able to improve our classification of both MSI and POLɛ. Conclusions: Taken together, our work provides a novel method to detect RNAseq derived mutational signatures with effective procedures to remove likely germline variants. It can leads to accurate classification of underlying driving mechanisms of DNA damage deficiency.

Abstract Motivation DNA methylation can be measured at the single CpG level using sodium bisulfite conversion of genomic DNA followed by sequencing or array hybridization. Many analytic tools have been developed, yet there is still a high demand for a comprehensive and multifaceted tool suite to analyze, annotate, QC and visualize the DNA methylation data. Results We developed the CpGtools package to analyze DNA methylation data generated from bisulfite sequencing or Illumina methylation arrays. The CpGtools package consists of three types of modules: (i) ‘CpG position modules’ focus on analyzing the genomic positions of CpGs, including associating other genomic and epigenomic features to a given list of CpGs and generating the DNA motif logo enriched in the genomic contexts of a given list of CpGs; (ii) ‘CpG signal modules’ are designed to analyze DNA methylation values, such as performing the PCA or t-SNE analyses, using Bayesian Gaussian mixture modeling to classify CpG sites into fully methylated, partially methylated and unmethylated groups, profiling the average DNA methylation level over user-specified genomics regions and generating the bean/violin plots and (iii) ‘differential CpG analysis modules’ focus on identifying differentially methylated CpGs between groups using different statistical methods including Fisher’s Exact Test, Student’s t-test, ANOVA, non-parametric tests, linear regression, logistic regression, beta-binomial regression and Bayesian estimation. Availability and implementation CpGtools is written in Python under the open-source GPL license. The source code and documentation are freely available at https://github.com/liguowang/cpgtools. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.