Number of mutations in each gene in the two studies.
Abstract
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumor that arises from the mesothelial cells lining the pleural cavity. Asbestos is considered the major factor in the pathogenesis of this malignancy, with more than 80% of patients with a history of asbestos exposure. MPM is characterized by a long latency period, typically 20–40 years from the time of asbestos exposure to diagnosis, suggesting that multiple somatic genetic alterations are required for the tumorigenic conversion of a mesothelial cell. In the last few years, advancements in next-generation sequencing and “–omics” technologies have revolutionized the field of genomics and medical diagnosis. The focus of this chapter is to summarize recent studies which explore the molecular mechanisms underlying this disease and identify potential therapeutic targets in MPM.
Keywords
- pleural mesothelioma
- next-generation sequencing
- transcriptome
- exome sequencing
- tumor suppressor gene
1. Introduction
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a lethal cancer of the mesothelial cells lining the pleural cavity and, less frequently, the pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis [1]. Many years after the peak of asbestos use in United States, 3200 cases of MPM continue to be diagnosed annually, indicating that the U.S. population remains at risk of exposure to asbestos and development of mesothelioma [2]. There are two major histological variants: epithelioid, which accounts for about 60% of cases and has the more favorable prognosis, and sarcomatoid, whose incidence is 10%. The remaining cases demonstrate histologic characteristics of both types and are classified as biphasic [3]. The prognosis for patients with MPM is poor, with a median survival of 5–15 months [3]. However, some patients with early MPM who undergo multimodality therapy including surgical resection and chemotherapy demonstrate longer-term survival of up to 25% at 5 years [4].
Many studies have shown a causal relationship between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma (reviewed by Bianche et al. [5]). Although it has been suggested that brief asbestos exposure is sufficient to induce disease, MPM is the consequence of prolonged exposure in most cases. However, only a small percentage of individuals exposed to asbestos develop MPM, suggesting that genetic predisposition may modulate the effect of exposure to asbestos. In addition, 20% of MPM cases with unknown asbestos exposure have been related to other risk factors such as radiation therapy and thorotrast [6].
Studies conducted on large numbers of patients indicate that the time between asbestos exposure and diagnosis of MPM is generally more than 20 years. The molecular mechanisms for the transformation of mesothelial cells are unknown; it has been suggested that asbestos induces multiple chromosomal aberrations, particularly deletions, facilitating oncogenesis [7].
Investigations prior to the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) revealed the complexity of the genetic alterations observed in MPM tumors by using karyotypic and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analyses [8, 9]. Chromosomal losses were found to be more frequent than gains and particular chromosomal regions (1p22, 3p21, 4q, 6q, 9p21, 13q13–14, 15q11–15, and 22q12) were deleted at higher frequency in MPM tissues and cell lines [10, 11, 12]. Two tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) were identified by positional cloning approaches:
2. Exome sequencing studies
NGS technologies have allowed the sequencing of DNA and RNA at unprecedented speed, uncovering potential driver genes and creating novel biological applications [16]. In the last decade, NGS has been used to detect driver genetic mutations in cancer and provide new insights into tumorigenesis.
Shotgun pyrosequencing was used to characterize RNA expression levels and mutations of four patients in the first effort to investigate MPM by NGS. Several different mutations were found in the four transcriptomes. In addition, RNA editing gene deletions and gene silencing were identified [17].
In 2010, the first whole genome sequence of one MPM tumor and matching normal tissue was conducted using a combination of sequencing-by-synthesis and pyrosequencing methodologies [18]. This study showed that aneuploidy and chromosomal rearrangements were more numerous than point mutations in this tumor. One large deletion in the dipeptidyl peptidase like 10 (
In 2016, Bueno et al. conducted an extensive analysis of the mutational landscape of MPM. Ninety-nine MPM tumors were examined by whole exome sequencing, whereas additional 103 samples were characterized by targeted exome sequencing [13].
In 2018, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) program performed a comprehensive molecular profiling of 74 primary MPM samples including exome sequencing, copy-number arrays, mRNA sequencing, noncoding RNA profiling, DNA methylation, and reverse-phase protein arrays [15]. The significantly mutated genes in this study were
The TCGA study performed a comparison of the significantly mutated genes between the Bueno and TCGA cohorts [15]. This analysis identified five genes that were frequently mutated in both studies: BRCA1-associated protein-1 (
Gene symbol | Gene ID | Chromosomal location | Number of mutations in Bueno’s cohort | Number of mutations in Hmeljak’s cohort | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ENSG00000163930 | 3p21.1 | 55 | 17 | 72 |
|
ENSG00000186575 | 22q12.2 | 39 | 19 | 58 |
|
ENSG00000141510 | 17p31.1 | 17 | 10 | 27 |
|
ENSG00000181555 | 3p21.31 | 18 | 8 | 26 |
|
ENSG00000143379 | 1q21 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
|
ENSG00000150457 | 13q12.11 | 2 | 9 | 11 |
|
ENSG00000215301 | Xp11.4 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
|
ENSG00000198626 | 1q43 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
|
ENSG00000083290 | 17p11.2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
|
ENSG00000185163 | 12q24.33 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Total | 157 | 67 | 224 |
2.1 BAP1
Given its prevalence in MPM, loss of nuclear BAP1 expression by IHC is commonly used as a diagnostic marker in MPM [26, 27].
Recently,
2.2 NF2
In 2009, a study suggested that
2.3 TP53
Located at 17p31.1,
2.4 SETD2
2.5 SETDB1
Targeted deep sequencing has revealed somatic
2.6 LATS2
Several investigations have linked
2.7 DDX3X
2.8 RYR2
2.9 ULK2
3. Transcriptome sequencing studies
Since gene expression is linked to tumor behavior, bulk expression profiling of tumors has revolutionized our understanding of cancer by giving insight into the expression levels of thousands of genes measured at once. In addition, the allocation of cancer specimens into molecular clusters having similar biological and clinical characteristics has improved the understanding of the molecular biology of tumors and identified both actionable targets for therapies as well as biomarkers for prediction of response [70].
In 2005, Gordon et al. profiled 40 MPM tumors using microarray technologies [71]. Four normal pleura specimens and four normal lung tissues were included in the analysis as controls because MPM arises from mesothelial cells of the pleura and often involves the lung parenchyma [71]. Unsupervised cluster analysis revealed four distinct subclasses with two, named C1 and C2, consisting only of MPM samples. These two clusters had epithelial (88%) and mixed (78%) subtypes, respectively, showing a partial correlation with tumor histology. Differential gene expression analysis demonstrated genes related to cytoskeletal/support, such as keratins, cadherins, and other proteoglycans, were over-expressed in cluster C1, whereas genes associated with extracellular matrix and structural proteins such as collagen, actin, biglycan, and fibronectin were highly expressed in subclass C2 [71].
In 2014, a study from de Reynies et al. generated a transcriptomic classification of MPM using 38 primary cultures [72]. Consensus clustering of the expression profiles identified two groups of MPM, C1 and C2, which are partially related to histology. Epithelioid MPM were found in both clusters, whereas sarcomatoid tumors clustered only in C2. In addition, tumor samples in C1 tended to have more frequent mutations in
In 2016, a seminal publication on genomics in MPM described unsupervised consensus clustering of RNA sequencing data from 211 MPM tumors. This analysis classified the samples into four distinct molecular clusters: epithelioid, biphasic-epithelioid (biphasic-E), biphasic-sarcomatoid (biphasic-S), and sarcomatoid [13]. The clusters were loosely associated with the spectrum from epithelioid to sarcomatoid histology. Epithelioid and biphasic samples were distributed in all four subgroups, whereas sarcomatoid tumors were only in one cluster. Biphasic samples clustered according to the proportion of epithelioid and sarcomatoid cells contained in the specimen; biphasic tumors with the highest portion of sarcomatoid cells grouped with the sarcomatoid samples. Notably, patients in the epithelioid cluster had longer overall survival compared to the survival of patients in the other three groups. Differential expression analysis of the sarcomatoid and epithelioid clusters revealed that genes related to the EMT process were differently expressed between the two groups, and that ratio of two genes
A different approach to classify MPM tumors was used by Hmeljak et al. [15]. To determine whether a multi-platform molecular profiling may offer additional power to identify subsets of MPM, two clustering algorithms, iCluster [73] and PARADIGM [74] were used to integrate somatic copy-number alteration, gene expression, and epigenetic data from 74 MPM samples. Both algorithms grouped the samples into four distinct clusters with high concordance between the two methods in the assignment of the sample into the groups. Survival analyses showed significant differences in survival across the four groups. In addition, the four clusters were significantly associated with histology: cluster 1 contained many epithelioid samples, whereas cluster 4 was enriched for sarcomatoid tumors as found in previous studies [13, 71, 72]. This study, using a small number of samples, mostly epithelial, confirmed that genes related to the EMT process were differentially expressed between the two most extreme clusters [15].
In 2019, unsupervised clustering of microarray profiles assigned 63 primary MPMs into four groups (C1A, C1B, C2A, and C2B) [75]. Then, a meta-analysis of mesothelioma expression profiles was conducted to compare these clusters with the groups from previous classifications [13, 15, 71, 72, 75, 76]. This analysis identified two highly correlated MPM clusters present in all expression profiles, which corresponded to the extreme epithelioid and the sarcomatoid phenotypes. The remaining groups did not associate closely suggesting that they may represent different points of a continuum or “histo-molecular gradient” of epithelioid and sarcomatoid components. A deconvolution approach was used to identify novel insights into the intra-tumor heterogeneity of MPM by dissecting whole tissue RNA-sequencing signatures into biologically relevant components. This analysis produced two molecular signatures of 150 genes, E-score and S-score, which were related to histology and recapitulated the molecular classification. These signatures reflected the proportion of epithelioid-like and sarcomatoid-like components within each MPM tumor. In addition, the proportions of these cellular components were significantly associated with prognosis [75].
Regardless of the metric used, the whole transcriptome studies indicate that MPM is characterized by a molecular gradient associated with the EMT process. Most recently, the relationship between the C/V score [18] and other published metrics [75, 77] associated with the EMT process has been investigated [78] demonstrating a significant correlation of the C/V score with other molecular signatures. These results indicate that the ratio of just two genes can be sufficient to determine the “EMT-component” in each MPM [78].
4. Clinical significance
While further work is needed before these data can be applied directly to patient care, an understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of MPM and the mutations that contribute to different subtypes can have a meaningful impact on the direction of clinical research in this field. In 2014,
Knowledge of key mutations in MPM has guided investigations into other forms of targeted therapy, although many are still at the preclinical stage. For example, LaFave and colleagues found evidence that loss of Bap1 expression increases Ezh2 expression in xenograft and
Beyond identifying therapeutic targets, multi-omic data have enhanced the understanding of tumor biology, providing novel ways to stratify patients, determining prognosis and predicting sensitivity to existing treatments (reviewed in [80]).
We have developed a gene expression ratio-based method to translate expression profiling data into clinical tests based on the expression levels of a small number of genes [81]. This method uses standard supervised methods for microarray analysis to compare gene expression in two types of tissues differing by a single clinical parameter such as histology or outcome. Genes with the most significant difference in expression are selected and used in combination to calculate ratios of gene expression able to predict the clinical parameter associated with a random patient sample.
Using this method, a 6-gene 3-ratio test has been developed to distinguish MPM from adenocarcinoma using resection specimens and fine needle biopsies [81, 82]. A similar approach was used to generate a 4-gene 3-ratio prognostic test to identify patients likely to benefit from tumor resection in the preoperative setting [83, 84], as well as a 4-gene 3-ratio signature to distinguish the epithelioid from the sarcomatoid MPM subtype [85].
Despite rapidly decreasing sequencing costs [86], there remain several barriers to introducing the use of NGS technology in clinical practice, especially in MPM. In many solid tumors, the development of targeted sequencing panels has led to targeted therapies and prediction of survival of cancer patients. MPM is rare, making large-scale validation studies difficult to perform, and heterogeneous, characterized by mutations highly variable among tumors. In addition, loss of TSGs is a common feature of MPM making potential treatments associated with these genes difficult to be applied to real life treatment. Clinical trials focused on specific mutated genes [29, 37] have been infrequent and the results never translated to practice. Transcriptome analyses have classified MPM patients into several groups stratifying patients into categories of risk; however, a substantial margin of error in these predictions persists because the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are difficult to define [87]. Precision medicine based on cancer genomics is still far from being applied in clinical practice in MPM. Nevertheless, we are confident in the value of NGS for personalized medicine and believe additional efforts are needed for the implementation of NGS in identifying patients who might benefit from targeted treatments.
5. Conclusions
NGS has revolutionized the study of human genetics by transforming our ability to analyze the causes of disease, develop new diagnostics, and identify potential therapeutic targets. NGS studies have led to the discovery of several commonly mutated genes in MPM [13, 15]. Although analyses of transcriptome data have contributed to the understanding of the molecular biology of MPM subtypes, these studies were based on bulk profiling where tumors were profiled as a single entity averaging the gene expression of all the cells in the specimen and ignoring the intra-tumor heterogeneity that regulates many critical aspects of tumor biology [88]. The importance of intra-tumor heterogeneity in MPM is becoming evident. Future single-cell RNA sequencing work will be able to elucidate molecular roles of immune infiltrates and stroma in MPM as well as to clarify whether the molecular mechanisms associated with the genetic heterogeneity are due to subclonal mutations, epigenetic programs, or other environmental factors such as cell-cell interaction or nutrient availability.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants to RB from the National Cancer Institute (NCI 2 R01 CA120528-11A1) and the International Mesothelioma Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The study sponsors played no role in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the chapter for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors disclose no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bueno reports grants from Medgenome, grants from Roche, grants from Verastem, grants from Merck, grants from Gristone, grants from Epizyme, grants from Siemens, grants from NCI, grants from DoD, and grants from NIH. In addition, Dr. Bueno has a patent 7,622,260 licensed to BWH, a patent 8,450,057 licensed to BWH, a patent 8,551,700 licensed to BWH, and a patent 9,446,050 licensed to BWH, and Patents/Equity in Navigation Sciences.
References
- 1.
Robinson BW, Lake RA. Advances in malignant mesothelioma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 353 (15):1591-1603 - 2.
Henley SJ, Larson TC, Wu M, et al. Mesothelioma incidence in 50 states and the District of Columbia, United States, 2003-2008. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2013; 19 (1):1-10 - 3.
Raja S, Murthy SC, Mason DP. Malignant pleural mesothelioma. Current Oncology Reports. 2011; 13 (4):259-264 - 4.
Sugarbaker DJ, Wolf AS, Chirieac LR, et al. Clinical and pathological features of three-year survivors of malignant pleural mesothelioma following extrapleural pneumonectomy. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2011; 40 (2):298-303 - 5.
Bianchi C, Bianchi T. Malignant mesothelioma: Global incidence and relationship with asbestos. Industrial Health. 2007; 45 (3):379-387 - 6.
Prazakova S, Thomas PS, Sandrini A, Yates DH. Asbestos and the lung in the 21st century: An update. The Clinical Respiratory Journal. 2014; 8 (1):1-10 - 7.
Mutsaers SE. The mesothelial cell. The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. 2004; 36 (1):9-16 - 8.
Carbone M, Kratzke RA, Testa JR. The pathogenesis of mesothelioma. Seminars in Oncology. 2002; 29 (1):2-17 - 9.
Lee WC, Testa JR. Somatic genetic alterations in human malignant mesothelioma (review). International Journal of Oncology. 1999; 14 (1):181-188 - 10.
Balsara BR, Bell DW, Sonoda G, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization and loss of heterozygosity analyses identify a common region of deletion at 15q11.1-15 in human malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 1999; 59 (2):450-454 - 11.
De Rienzo A, Balsara BR, Apostolou S, Jhanwar SC, Testa JR. Loss of heterozygosity analysis defines a 3-cM region of 15q commonly deleted in human malignant mesothelioma. Oncogene. 2001; 20 (43):6245-6249 - 12.
De Rienzo A, Jhanwar SC, Testa JR. Loss of heterozygosity analysis of 13q and 14q in human malignant mesothelioma. Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer. 2000; 28 (3):337-341 - 13.
Bueno R, Stawiski EW, Goldstein LD, et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma identifies recurrent mutations, gene fusions and splicing alterations. Nature Genetics. 2016; 48 (4):407-416 - 14.
Guo G, Chmielecki J, Goparaju C, et al. Whole-exome sequencing reveals frequent genetic alterations in BAP1 ,NF2 ,CDKN2A , and CUL1 in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 2015;75 (2):264-269 - 15.
Hmeljak J, Sanchez-Vega F, Hoadley KA, et al. Integrative molecular characterization of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Discovery. 2018; 8 (12):1548-1565 - 16.
Zhang J, Chiodini R, Badr A, Zhang G. The impact of next-generation sequencing on genomics. Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 2011; 38 (3):95-109 - 17.
Sugarbaker DJ, Richards WG, Gordon GJ, et al. Transcriptome sequencing of malignant pleural mesothelioma tumors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008; 105 (9):3521-3526 - 18.
Bueno R, De Rienzo A, Dong L, et al. Second generation sequencing of the mesothelioma tumor genome. PLoS One. 2010; 5 (5):e10612 - 19.
Carbone M, Yang H, Pass HI, Krausz T, Testa JR, Gaudino G. BAP1 and cancer. Nature Reviews. Cancer. 2013; 13 (3):153-159 - 20.
De Rienzo A, Archer MA, Yeap BY, et al. Gender-specific molecular and clinical features underlie malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 2016; 76 (2):319-328 - 21.
Nasu M, Emi M, Pastorino S, et al. High incidence of somatic BAP1 alterations in sporadic malignant mesothelioma. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2015; 10 (4):565-576 - 22.
Rai K, Pilarski R, Cebulla CM, Abdel-Rahman MH. Comprehensive review of BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome with report of two new cases. Clinical Genetics. 2016; 89 (3):285-294 - 23.
Wang A, Papneja A, Hyrcza M, Al-Habeeb A, Ghazarian D. Gene of the month: BAP1. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2016; 69 (9):750-753 - 24.
Farzin M, Toon CW, Clarkson A, et al. Loss of expression of BAP1 predicts longer survival in mesothelioma. Pathology. 2015; 47 (4):302-307 - 25.
Baumann F, Flores E, Napolitano A, et al. Mesothelioma patients with germline BAP1 mutations have 7-fold improved long-term survival. Carcinogenesis. 2015; 36 (1):76-81 - 26.
Carbone M, Adusumilli PS, Alexander HR Jr, et al. Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019; 69 (5):402-429 - 27.
Pillappa R, Maleszewski JJ, Sukov WR, et al. Loss of BAP1 expression in atypical mesothelial proliferations helps to predict malignant mesothelioma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2018; 42 (2):256-263 - 28.
Guazzelli A, Meysami P, Bakker E, et al. BAP1 status determines the sensitivity of malignant mesothelioma cells to gemcitabine treatment. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019; 20 (2):429 - 29.
Kumar N, Alrifai D, Kolluri KK, et al. Retrospective response analysis of BAP1 expression to predict the clinical activity of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy in mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2019; 127 :164-166 - 30.
Smole Z, Thoma CR, Applegate KT, et al. Tumor suppressor NF2/merlin is a microtubule stabilizer. Cancer Research. 2014; 74 (1):353-362 - 31.
Petrilli AM, Fernandez-Valle C. Role of merlin/NF2 inactivation in tumor biology. Oncogene. 2016; 35 (5):537-548 - 32.
Baser ME, De Rienzo A, Altomare D, et al. Neurofibromatosis 2 and malignant mesothelioma. Neurology. 2002; 59 (2):290-291 - 33.
Thurneysen C, Opitz I, Kurtz S, Weder W, Stahel RA, Felley-Bosco E. Functional inactivation of NF2/merlin in human mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2009; 64 (2):140-147 - 34.
Meerang M, Berard K, Friess M, et al. Low merlin expression and high Survivin labeling index are indicators for poor prognosis in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Molecular Oncology. 2016; 10 (8):1255-1265 - 35.
Lopez-Lago MA, Okada T, Murillo MM, Socci N, Giancotti FG. Loss of the tumor suppressor gene NF2, encoding merlin, constitutively activates integrin-dependent mTORC1 signaling. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2009; 29 (15):4235-4249 - 36.
Shapiro IM, Kolev VN, Vidal CM, et al. Merlin deficiency predicts FAK inhibitor sensitivity: A synthetic lethal relationship. Science Translational Medicine. 2014; 6 (237):237ra268 - 37.
Fennell DA, Baas P, Taylor P, et al. Maintenance defactinib versus placebo after first-line chemotherapy in patients with merlin-stratified pleural mesothelioma: COMMAND-A double-blind, randomized, phase II study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019; 37 (10):790-798 - 38.
Laptenko O, Prives C. Transcriptional regulation by p53: One protein, many possibilities. Cell Death and Differentiation. 2006; 13 (6):951-961 - 39.
Anbarasan T, Bourdon JC. The emerging landscape of p53 isoforms in physiology, cancer and degenerative diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019; 20 (24):6257 - 40.
Kandoth C, McLellan MD, Vandin F, et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature. 2013; 502 (7471):333-339 - 41.
Yuan W, Xie J, Long C, et al. Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein L is a subunit of human KMT3a/Set2 complex required for H3 Lys-36 trimethylation activity in vivo. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009; 284 (23):15701-15707 - 42.
Li J, Duns G, Westers H, Sijmons R, van den Berg A, Kok K. SETD2 : An epigenetic modifier with tumor suppressor functionality. Oncotarget. 2016;7 (31):50719-50734 - 43.
Duns G, Hofstra RM, Sietzema JG, et al. Targeted exome sequencing in clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumors suggests aberrant chromatin regulation as a crucial step in ccRCC development. Human Mutation. 2012; 33 (7):1059-1062 - 44.
Hylebos M, Van Camp G, Vandeweyer G, et al. Large-scale copy number analysis reveals variations in genes not previously associated with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Oncotarget. 2017; 8 (69):113673-113686 - 45.
Mar BG, Chu SH, Kahn JD, et al. SETD2 alterations impair DNA damage recognition and lead to resistance to chemotherapy in leukemia. Blood. 2017;130 (24):2631-2641 - 46.
Sheng Y, Ji Z, Zhao H, et al. Downregulation of the histone methyltransferase SETD2 promotes imatinib resistance in chronic myeloid leukaemia cells. Cell Proliferation. 2019;52 (4):e12611 - 47.
Ishimoto K, Kawamata N, Uchihara Y, et al. Ubiquitination of lysine 867 of the human SETDB1 protein upregulates its histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9) methyltransferase activity. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (10):e0165766 - 48.
Karanth AV, Maniswami RR, Prashanth S, et al. Emerging role of SETDB1 as a therapeutic target. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets. 2017; 21 (3):319-331 - 49.
Kang HC, Kim HK, Lee S, et al. Whole exome and targeted deep sequencing identify genome-wide allelic loss and frequent SETDB1 mutations in malignant pleural mesotheliomas. Oncotarget. 2016; 7 (7):8321-8331 - 50.
Furth N, Aylon Y. The LATS1 andLATS2 tumor suppressors: Beyond the hippo pathway. Cell Death and Differentiation. 2017;24 (9):1488-1501 - 51.
Visser S, Yang X. LATS tumor suppressor: A new governor of cellular homeostasis. Cell Cycle. 2010; 9 (19):3892-3903 - 52.
Murakami H, Mizuno T, Taniguchi T, et al. LATS2 is a tumor suppressor gene of malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 2011;71 (3):873-883 - 53.
Quetel L, Meiller C, Assie JB, et al. Genetic alterations of malignant pleural mesothelioma: Association with tumor heterogeneity and overall survival. Molecular Oncology. 2020; 14 (6):1207-1223 - 54.
Tranchant R, Quetel L, Tallet A, et al. Co-occurring mutations of tumor suppressor genes, LATS2 andNF2 , in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clinical Cancer Research. 2017;23 (12):3191-3202 - 55.
Mizuno T, Murakami H, Fujii M, et al. YAP induces malignant mesothelioma cell proliferation by upregulating transcription of cell cycle-promoting genes. Oncogene. 2012; 31 (49):5117-5122 - 56.
Tanaka I, Osada H, Fujii M, et al. LIM-domain protein AJUBA suppresses malignant mesothelioma cell proliferation via hippo signaling cascade. Oncogene. 2015; 34 (1):73-83 - 57.
Franca R, Belfiore A, Spadari S, Maga G. Human DEAD-box ATPase DDX3 shows a relaxed nucleoside substrate specificity. Proteins. 2007; 67 (4):1128-1137 - 58.
Sharma D, Jankowsky E. The Ded1/DDX3 subfamily of DEAD-box RNA helicases. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2014; 49 (4):343-360 - 59.
Bol GM, Xie M, Raman V. DDX3, a potential target for cancer treatment. Molecular Cancer. 2015; 14 :188 - 60.
Amador FJ, Stathopulos PB, Enomoto M, Ikura M. Ryanodine receptor calcium release channels: Lessons from structure-function studies. The FEBS Journal. 2013; 280 (21):5456-5470 - 61.
Schmitt K, Molfenter B, Laureano NK, et al. Somatic mutations and promotor methylation of the ryanodine receptor 2 is a common event in the pathogenesis of head and neck cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 2019; 145 (12):3299-3310 - 62.
Lee EJ, Tournier C. The requirement of uncoordinated 51-like kinase 1 ( ULK1 ) andULK2 in the regulation of autophagy. Autophagy. 2011;7 (7):689-695 - 63.
Shukla S, Patric IR, Patil V, et al. Methylation silencing of ULK2 , an autophagy gene, is essential for astrocyte transformation and tumor growth. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2014;289 (32):22306-22318 - 64.
Choi EJ, Lee JH, Kim MS, Song SY, Yoo NJ, Lee SH. Intratumoral heterogeneity of somatic mutations for NRIP1 ,DOK1 ,ULK1 ,ULK2 ,DLGAP3 ,PARD3 andPRKCI in colon cancers. Pathology Oncology Research. 2018;24 (4):827-832 - 65.
Follo C, Cheng Y, Richards WG, Bueno R, Broaddus VC. Inhibition of autophagy initiation potentiates chemosensitivity in mesothelioma. Molecular Carcinogenesis. 2018; 57 (3):319-332 - 66.
Srivastava L, Lapik YR, Wang M, Pestov DG. Mammalian DEAD box protein Ddx51 acts in 3′ end maturation of 28S rRNA by promoting the release of U8 snoRNA. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2010; 30 (12):2947-2956 - 67.
Sun W, Cang S, Lv X, et al. DDX51 gene promotes proliferation by activating Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in breast cancer. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology. 2017;10 (11):10892-10900 - 68.
Taylor KH, Pena-Hernandez KE, Davis JW, et al. Large-scale CpG methylation analysis identifies novel candidate genes and reveals methylation hotspots in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Research. 2007; 67 (6):2617-2625 - 69.
Wang X, Liu H, Zhao C, Li W, Xu H, Chen Y. The DEAD-box RNA helicase 51 controls non-small cell lung cancer proliferation by regulating cell cycle progression via multiple pathways. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6 :26108 - 70.
Zhao L, Lee VHF, Ng MK, Yan H, Bijlsma MF. Molecular subtyping of cancer: Current status and moving toward clinical applications. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2019; 20 (2):572-584 - 71.
Gordon GJ, Rockwell GN, Jensen RV, et al. Identification of novel candidate oncogenes and tumor suppressors in malignant pleural mesothelioma using large-scale transcriptional profiling. The American Journal of Pathology. 2005; 166 (6):1827-1840 - 72.
de Reynies A, Jaurand MC, Renier A, et al. Molecular classification of malignant pleural mesothelioma: Identification of a poor prognosis subgroup linked to the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Clinical Cancer Research. 2014; 20 (5):1323-1334 - 73.
Shen R, Olshen AB, Ladanyi M. Integrative clustering of multiple genomic data types using a joint latent variable model with application to breast and lung cancer subtype analysis. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25 (22):2906-2912 - 74.
Vaske CJ, Benz SC, Sanborn JZ, et al. Inference of patient-specific pathway activities from multi-dimensional cancer genomics data using PARADIGM. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26 (12):i237-i245 - 75.
Blum Y, Meiller C, Quetel L, et al. Dissecting heterogeneity in malignant pleural mesothelioma through histo-molecular gradients for clinical applications. Nature Communications. 2019; 10 (1):1333 - 76.
Lopez-Rios F, Chuai S, Flores R, et al. Global gene expression profiling of pleural mesotheliomas: Overexpression of aurora kinases and P16/ CDKN2A deletion as prognostic factors and critical evaluation of microarray-based prognostic prediction. Cancer Research. 2006;66 (6):2970-2979 - 77.
Creighton CJ, Gibbons DL, Kurie JM. The role of epithelial-mesenchymal transition programming in invasion and metastasis: A clinical perspective. Cancer Management and Research. 2013; 5 :187-195 - 78.
Severson DT, De Rienzo A, Bueno R. Mesothelioma in the age of “Omics”: Before and after the cancer genome atlas. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020; S0022-5223, 20 :30998 - 79.
Szlosarek PW, Steele JP, Nolan L, et al. Arginine deprivation with Pegylated arginine deiminase in patients with argininosuccinate synthetase 1-deficient malignant pleural mesothelioma: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncology. 2017; 3 (1):58-66 - 80.
Kuperstein I, Grieco L, Cohen DP, Thieffry D, Zinovyev A, Barillot E. The shortest path is not the one you know: Application of biological network resources in precision oncology research. Mutagenesis. 2015; 30 (2):191-204 - 81.
Gordon GJ, Jensen RV, Hsiao LL, et al. Translation of microarray data into clinically relevant cancer diagnostic tests using gene expression ratios in lung cancer and mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 2002; 62 (17):4963-4967 - 82.
De Rienzo A, Dong L, Yeap BY, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsies for gene expression ratio-based diagnostic and prognostic tests in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clinical Cancer Research. 2011; 17 (2):310-316 - 83.
Gordon GJ, Dong L, Yeap BY, et al. Four-gene expression ratio test for survival in patients undergoing surgery for mesothelioma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009; 101 (9):678-686 - 84.
Gordon GJ, Jensen RV, Hsiao LL, et al. Using gene expression ratios to predict outcome among patients with mesothelioma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2003; 95 (8):598-605 - 85.
De Rienzo A, Richards WG, Yeap BY, et al. Sequential binary gene ratio tests define a novel molecular diagnostic strategy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clinical Cancer Research. 2013; 19 (9):2493-2502 - 86.
Payne K, Gavan SP, Wright SJ, Thompson AJ. Cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic and genomic diagnostic tests. Nature Reviews. Genetics. 2018; 19 (4):235-246 - 87.
Pass HI. Commentary: Tasting individual ingredients of meso soup: Can ’omics bring out the flavor? The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020; 160 (4):1084-1085 - 88.
Suva ML, Tirosh I. Single-cell RNA sequencing in cancer: Lessons learned and emerging challenges. Molecular Cell. 2019; 75 (1):7-12