Tumor evolutionary directed graphs and the history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

  1. Jiguang Wang
  2. Hossein Khiabanian
  3. Davide Rossi
  4. Giulia Fabbri
  5. Valter Gattei
  6. Francesco Forconi
  7. Luca Laurenti
  8. Roberto Marasca
  9. Giovanni Del Poeta
  10. Robin Foà
  11. Laura Pasqualucci
  12. Gianluca Gaidano
  13. Raul Rabadan  Is a corresponding author
  1. Columbia University, United States
  2. Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont, Italy
  3. Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Italy
  4. University of Southampton, United Kingdom
  5. Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy
  6. University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy
  7. Tor Vergata University, Italy
  8. Sapienza University, Italy

Abstract

Cancer is a clonal evolutionary process, caused by successive accumulation of genetic alterations providing milestones of tumor initiation, progression, dissemination and/or resistance to certain therapeutic regimes. To unravel these milestones we propose a framework, tumor evolutionary directed graphs (TEDG), which is able to characterize the history of genetic alterations by integrating longitudinal and cross-sectional genomic data. We applied TEDG to a chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cohort of 70 patients spanning 12 years, and show that: (a) the evolution of CLL follows a time-ordered process represented as a global flow in TEDG that proceeds from initiating events to late events; (b) there are two distinct and mutually exclusive evolutionary paths of CLL evolution; (c) higher fitness clones are present in later stages of the disease, indicating a progressive clonal replacement with more aggressive clones. Our results suggest that TEDG may constitute an effective framework to recapitulate the evolutionary history of tumors.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jiguang Wang

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Hossein Khiabanian

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Davide Rossi

    Division of Hematology, Department of Translational Medicine, Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Giulia Fabbri

    Institute for Cancer Genetics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Valter Gattei

    Clinical and Experimental Onco-Hematology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Francesco Forconi

    Cancer Sciences Unit, Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Luca Laurenti

    Institute of Hematology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Roberto Marasca

    DIvision of Hematology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Giovanni Del Poeta

    Department of Hematology, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Robin Foà

    Department of Cellular Biotechnologies and Hematology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Laura Pasqualucci

    Institute for Cancer Genetics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Gianluca Gaidano

    Division of Hematology, Department of Translational Medicine, Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Raul Rabadan

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    rabadan@dbmi.columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Emmanouil T Dermitzakis, University of Geneva Medical School, Switzerland

Ethics

Human subjects: The study was approved by the institutional ethical committee of the Azienda Ospedaliero-Universiataria Maggiore della Carita di Novara affiliated with the Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy (Protocol Code 59/CE; Study Number CE 8/11). Patients provided informed consent in accordance with local IRB requirements and Declaration of Helsinki

Version history

  1. Received: March 24, 2014
  2. Accepted: December 10, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 11, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 28, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Wang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,668
    views
  • 546
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Jiguang Wang
  2. Hossein Khiabanian
  3. Davide Rossi
  4. Giulia Fabbri
  5. Valter Gattei
  6. Francesco Forconi
  7. Luca Laurenti
  8. Roberto Marasca
  9. Giovanni Del Poeta
  10. Robin Foà
  11. Laura Pasqualucci
  12. Gianluca Gaidano
  13. Raul Rabadan
(2014)
Tumor evolutionary directed graphs and the history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia
eLife 3:e02869.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02869

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02869

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Daniel Thiel, Luis Alfonso Yañez Guerra ... Gáspár Jékely
    Research Article

    Neuropeptides are ancient signaling molecules in animals but only few peptide receptors are known outside bilaterians. Cnidarians possess a large number of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) – the most common receptors of bilaterian neuropeptides – but most of these remain orphan with no known ligands. We searched for neuropeptides in the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis and created a library of 64 peptides derived from 33 precursors. In a large-scale pharmacological screen with these peptides and 161 N. vectensis GPCRs, we identified 31 receptors specifically activated by 1 to 3 of 14 peptides. Mapping GPCR and neuropeptide expression to single-cell sequencing data revealed how cnidarian tissues are extensively connected by multilayer peptidergic networks. Phylogenetic analysis identified no direct orthology to bilaterian peptidergic systems and supports the independent expansion of neuropeptide signaling in cnidarians from a few ancestral peptide-receptor pairs.