Cargando…
The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors
INTRODUCTION: This study presents a novel molecular parameter potentially co‐defining tumor biology—the total tumor suppressor gene (TSG) count at chromosomal loci harboring genes rearranged in fusion‐defined tumors. It belongs to the family of molecular parameters created using a black‐box approach...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9356546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35621010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1994 |
_version_ | 1784763542122004480 |
---|---|
author | Mosaieby, Elaheh Martínek, Petr Ondič, Ondrej |
author_facet | Mosaieby, Elaheh Martínek, Petr Ondič, Ondrej |
author_sort | Mosaieby, Elaheh |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: This study presents a novel molecular parameter potentially co‐defining tumor biology—the total tumor suppressor gene (TSG) count at chromosomal loci harboring genes rearranged in fusion‐defined tumors. It belongs to the family of molecular parameters created using a black‐box approach. METHOD: It is based on a public curated Texas TSG database. Its data are regrouped based on individual genes loci using another public database (Genecards). The total TSG count for NTRK (NTRK1; OMIM: 191315; NTRK2; OMIM: 600456; NTRK3; OMIM: 191316), NRG1 (OMIM: 142445), and RET (OMIM: 164761) rearranged tumors in patients treated with a theranostic approach is calculated using the results of recently published studies. RESULTS: Altogether 138 loci containing at least three TSGs are identified. These include 21 “extremely hot” spots, with 10 to 28 TSGs mapping to a given locus. However, the study falls short of finding a correlation between tumor regression or patient survival and the TSG count owing to a low number of cases meeting the study criteria. CONCLUSION: The total TSG count alone cannot predict the biology of translocation‐defined tumors. The addition of other parameters, including microsatellite instability (MSI), tumor mutation burden (TMB), homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), and copy number heterogeneity (CNH), might be helpful. Thus a multi‐modal data integration is advocated. We believe that large scale studies should evaluate the significance and value of the total TSG count. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9356546 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93565462022-08-09 The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors Mosaieby, Elaheh Martínek, Petr Ondič, Ondrej Mol Genet Genomic Med Original Articles INTRODUCTION: This study presents a novel molecular parameter potentially co‐defining tumor biology—the total tumor suppressor gene (TSG) count at chromosomal loci harboring genes rearranged in fusion‐defined tumors. It belongs to the family of molecular parameters created using a black‐box approach. METHOD: It is based on a public curated Texas TSG database. Its data are regrouped based on individual genes loci using another public database (Genecards). The total TSG count for NTRK (NTRK1; OMIM: 191315; NTRK2; OMIM: 600456; NTRK3; OMIM: 191316), NRG1 (OMIM: 142445), and RET (OMIM: 164761) rearranged tumors in patients treated with a theranostic approach is calculated using the results of recently published studies. RESULTS: Altogether 138 loci containing at least three TSGs are identified. These include 21 “extremely hot” spots, with 10 to 28 TSGs mapping to a given locus. However, the study falls short of finding a correlation between tumor regression or patient survival and the TSG count owing to a low number of cases meeting the study criteria. CONCLUSION: The total TSG count alone cannot predict the biology of translocation‐defined tumors. The addition of other parameters, including microsatellite instability (MSI), tumor mutation burden (TMB), homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), and copy number heterogeneity (CNH), might be helpful. Thus a multi‐modal data integration is advocated. We believe that large scale studies should evaluate the significance and value of the total TSG count. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9356546/ /pubmed/35621010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1994 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Mosaieby, Elaheh Martínek, Petr Ondič, Ondrej The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title | The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title_full | The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title_fullStr | The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title_full_unstemmed | The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title_short | The significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
title_sort | significance of the fusion partner gene genomic neighborhood analysis in translocation‐defined tumors |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9356546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35621010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1994 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mosaiebyelaheh thesignificanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors AT martinekpetr thesignificanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors AT ondicondrej thesignificanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors AT mosaiebyelaheh significanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors AT martinekpetr significanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors AT ondicondrej significanceofthefusionpartnergenegenomicneighborhoodanalysisintranslocationdefinedtumors |