Construction of oncogenetic tree models reveals multiple pathways of oral cancer progression
Swapnali Pathare
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
Search for more papers by this authorAlejandro A. Schäffer
Computational Biology Branch, National Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD
Search for more papers by this authorNiko Beerenwinkel
Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Manoj Mahimkar
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
Fax: +91-22-27405085.
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210, IndiaSearch for more papers by this authorSwapnali Pathare
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
Search for more papers by this authorAlejandro A. Schäffer
Computational Biology Branch, National Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD
Search for more papers by this authorNiko Beerenwinkel
Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Manoj Mahimkar
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
Fax: +91-22-27405085.
Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Cancer Research Institute (CRI), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210, IndiaSearch for more papers by this authorAbstract
Oral cancer develops and progresses by accumulation of genetic alterations. The interrelationship between these alterations and their sequence of occurrence in oral cancers has not been thoroughly understood. In the present study, we applied oncogenetic tree models to comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) data of 97 primary oral cancers to identify pathways of progression. CGH revealed the most frequent gains on chromosomes 8q (72.4%) and 9q (41.2%) and frequent losses on 3p (49.5%) and 8p (47.5%). Both mixture and distance-based tree models suggested multiple progression pathways and identified +8q as an early event. The mixture model suggested two independent pathways namely a major pathway with −8p and a less frequent pathway with +9q. The distance-based tree identified three progression pathways, one characterized by −8p, another by −3p and the third by alterations +11q and +7p. Differences were observed in cytogenetic pathways of node-positive and node-negative oral cancers. Node-positive cancers were characterized by more non-random aberrations (n = 11) and progressed via −8p or −3p. On the other hand, node-negative cancers involved fewer non-random alterations (n = 6) and progressed along −3p. In summary, the tree models for oral cancers provided novel information about the interactions between genetic alterations and predicted their probable order of occurrence. © 2009 UICC
References
- 1 Baudis M. Genomic imbalances in 5918 malignant epithelial tumors: an explorative meta-analysis of chromosomal CGH data. BMC Cancer 2007; 7: 226.
- 2 Höglund M,Gisselsson D,Mandahl N,Johansson B,Mertens F,Mitelman F,Säll T. Multivariate analyses of genomic imbalances in solid tumors reveal distinct and converging pathways of karyotypic evolution. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2001; 31: 156–71.
- 3 Shingaki S,Takada M,Sasai K,Bibi R,Kobayashi T,Nomura T,Saito C. Impact of lymph node metastasis on the pattern of failure and survival in oral carcinomas. Am J Surg 2003; 185: 278–84.
- 4 Hermsen MAJA,Joenje H,Arwert F,Braakhuis BJM,Baak JP,Westerveld A,Slater R. Assessment of chromosomal gains and losses in oral squamous cell carcinoma by comparative genomic hybridisation. Oral Oncol 1997; 33: 414–18.
- 5 Wolff E,Girod S,Liehr T,Vorderwulbecke U,Ries J,Steininger H,Gebhart E. Oral squamous cell carcinomas are characterized by a rather uniform pattern of genomic imbalances detected by comparative genomic hybridisation. Oral Oncol 1998; 34: 186–90.
- 6 Weber RG,Scheer M,Born IA,Joos S,Cobbers JMJL,Hofele C,Reifenberger G,Zöller JE,Lichter P. Recurrent chromosomal imbalances detected in biopsy material from oral premalignant and malignant lesions by combined tissue microdissection, universal DNA amplification and comparative genomic hybridization. Am J Pathol 1998; 153: 295–303.
- 7 Okafuji M,Ita M,Oga A,Hayatsu Y,Matsuo A,Shinzato Y,Shinozaki F,Sasaki K. The relationship of genetic aberrations detected by comparative genomic hybridization to DNA ploidy and tumor size in human oral squamous cell carcinomas. J Oral Pathol Med 2000; 29: 226–31.
- 8 Lin S-C,Chen Y-J,Kao S-Y,Hsu M-T,Lin C-H,Yang S-C. Chromosomal changes in betel-associated oral squamous cell carcinomas and their relationship to clinical parameters. Oral Oncol 2002; 38: 266–73.
- 9 Noutomi Y,Oga A,Uchida K,Okafuji M,Ita M,Kawauchi S,Furuya T,Ueyama Y,Sasaki K. Comparative genomic hybridization reveals genetic progression of oral squamous cell carcinoma from dysplasia via two different tumorigenic pathways. J Pathol 2006; 210: 67–74.
- 10 Desper R,Jiang F,Kallioniemi O-P,Moch H,Papadimitriou CH,Schäffer AA. Inferring tree models for oncogenesis from comparative genome hybridization data. J Comput Biol 1999; 6: 37–51.
- 11 Desper R,Jiang F,Kallioniemi O-P,Moch H,Papadimitriou CH,Schäffer AA. Distance-based reconstruction of tree models for oncogenesis. J Comput Biol 2000; 7: 789–803.
- 12 Beerenwinkel N,Rahnenführer J,Däumer M,Hoffmann D,Kaiser R,Selbig J,Lengauer T. Learning multiple evolutionary pathways from cross-sectional data. J Comput Biol 2005; 12: 584–98.
- 13 Fearon E,Vogelstein B. A genetic model of colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 1990; 61: 759–67.
- 14 Jiang F,Desper R,Papadimitriou CH,Schäffer A,Kallioniemi O-P,Richter J,Schraml P,Sauter G,Mihatsch MJ,Moch H. Construction of evolutionary tree models for renal cell carcinoma from comparative genomic hybridization data. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 6503–9.
- 15 Schäffer AA,Simon R,Desper R,Richter J,Sauter G. Tree models for dependent copy number changes in bladder cancer. Int J Oncol 2001; 18: 349–54.
- 16 Huang Q,Yu GP,McCormick SA,Mo J,Datta B,Mahimkar M,Lazarus P,Schäffer AA,Desper R,Schantz SP. Genetic differences detected by comparative genomic hybridization in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas from different tumor sites: construction of oncogenetic trees for tumor progression. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2002; 34: 224–33.
- 17 Huang Z,Desper R,Schäffer AA,Yin Z,Li X,Yao K. Construction of tree models for pathogenesis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2004; 40: 307–15.
- 18 Rahnenführer J,Beerenwinkel N,Schulz WA,Hartmann C,von Deimling A,Wullich B,Lengauer T. Estimating cancer survival and clinical outcome based on genetic tumor progression scores. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 2438–46.
- 19 Jiang H-Y,Huang Z-X,Zhang X-F,Desper R,Zhao T. Construction and analysis of tree models for chromosomal classification of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 1737–42.
- 20 Ketter R,Urbschat S,Henn W,Feiden W,Beerenwinkel N,Lengauer T,Steudel W-I,Zang KD,Rahnenführer J. Application of oncogenetic trees mixtures as a biostatistical model of the clonal cytogenetic evolution of meningiomas. Int J Cancer 2007; 121: 1473–80.
- 21 Kallioniemi A,Kallioniemi O-P,Sudar D,Rutovitz D,Gray JW,Waldman F,Pinkel D. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992; 258: 818–21.
- 22 du Manoir S,Schröck E,Bentz M,Speicher MR,Joos S,Ried T,Lichter P,Cremer T. Quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry 1995; 19: 27–41.
- 23 Ried T,Liyanage M,du Manoir S,Heselmeyer K,Auer G,Macville M,Schröck E. Tumor cytogenetics revisited: comparative genomic hybridization and spectral karyotyping. J Mol Med 1997; 75: 801–14.
- 24 Jeuken JWM,Sprenger SHE,Wesseling P. Comparative genomic hybridization: practical guidelines. Diagn Mol Pathol 2002; 11: 193–203.
- 25 Beerenwinkel N,Rahnenführer J,Kaiser R,Hoffmann D,Selbig J,Lengauer T. Mtreemix: a software package for learning and using mixture models of mutagenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 2106–7.
- 26 Brodeur GM,Tsiatis AA,Williams DL,Luthardt FW,Green AA. Statistical analysis of cytogenetic abnormalities in human cancer cells. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1982; 7: 137–52.
- 27 Morton NE. Parameters of the human genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88: 7474–6.
- 28 Yin J,Beerenwinkel N,Rahnenführer J,Lengauer T. Model selection for mixtures of mutagenetic trees. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 2006; 5:Article17.
- 29
Simon R,Papadimitriou CH,Peng A,Taetle R,Alberts DS,Trent JM,Schäffer AA.
Chromosome abnormalities in ovarian adenocarcinoma III: using breakpoint data to infer and test mathematical models for oncogenesis.
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
2000;
28:
106–20.
10.1002/(SICI)1098-2264(200005)28:1<106::AID-GCC13>3.0.CO;2-S CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 30 Fitch WM,Margoliash E. Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 1967; 155: 279–84.
- 31 Saitou N,Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987; 4: 406–24.
- 32 Felsenstein J. PHYLIP phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2). Cladistics 1989; 5: 164–6.
- 33 Gansner ER,North S. An open graph visualization system and its applications to software engineering. Softw Pract Exper 1999; 30: 1203–33.
- 34 Page RDM. TREEVIEW. An application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comp Appl Biosci 1996; 12: 357–8.
- 35 Höglund M,Gisselsson D,Säll T,Mitelman F. Coping with complexity: multivariate analysis of tumor karyotypes. Cytogenet Genome Res 2002; 135: 103–9.
- 36 Benjamini Y,Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Statist Soc Ser 1995; B 57: 289–300.
- 37 Paterson IC,Eveson JW,Prime SS. Molecular changes in oral cancer may reflect aetiology and ethnic origin. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol 1996; 32B: 150–3.
- 38 Garnis C,Coe BP,Ishkanian A,Zhang L,Rosin MP,Lam WI. Novel regions of amplification on 8q distinct from the MYC locus and frequently altered in oral dysplasia and cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2004; 39: 93–8.
- 39 Roz L,Wu CL,Porter S,Scully C,Speight P,Read A,Sloan P,Thakker N. Allelic imbalance on chromosome 3p in oral dysplastic lesions: an early event in oral carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 1996; 56: 1228–31.
- 40 Rosin MP,Cheng X,Poh C,Lam WL,Huang Y,Lovas J,Berean K,Epstein JB,Priddy R,Le ND,Zhang L. Use of allelic loss to predict malignant risk for low-grade oral epithelial dysplasia. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 357–62.
- 41 Gebhart E,Ries J,Wiltfang J,Liehr T,Efferth T. Genomic gain of the epidermal growth factor receptor harboring band 7p12 is part of a complex pattern of genomic imbalances in oral squamous cell carcinomas. Arch Med Res 2004; 35: 385–94.
- 42 Kalyankrishna S,Grandis J. Epidermal growth factor receptor biology in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 2666–72.
- 43 Michalides R,van Veelen N,Hart A,Loftus B,Wientjens E,Balm A. Overexpression of cyclin D1 correlates with recurrence in a group of forty-seven operable squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer Res 1995; 55: 975–8.
- 44 Rodrigo JP,García LA,Ramos S,Lazo PS,Suárez C. EMS1 gene amplification correlates with poor prognosis in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 3177–82.
- 45 Bockmühl U,Iswad CS,Ferrell RE,Gollin SM. Association of 8p23 deletions with poor survival in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol-Head. Neck Surgery 2001; 124: 451–55.
- 46
Pearlstein RP,Benninger MS,Carey TE,Zarbo RJ,Torres FX,Rybicki BA,Dyke DL.
Loss of 18q predicts poor survival of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
1998;
21:
333–9.
10.1002/(SICI)1098-2264(199804)21:4<333::AID-GCC7>3.0.CO;2-# CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar