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.

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

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

  • 3,691
    views
  • 550
    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
    Pierre Barrat-Charlaix, Richard A Neher
    Research Article

    As pathogens spread in a population of hosts, immunity is built up, and the pool of susceptible individuals are depleted. This generates selective pressure, to which many human RNA viruses, such as influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2, respond with rapid antigenic evolution and frequent emergence of immune evasive variants. However, the host’s immune systems adapt, and older immune responses wane, such that escape variants only enjoy a growth advantage for a limited time. If variant growth dynamics and reshaping of host-immunity operate on comparable time scales, viral adaptation is determined by eco-evolutionary interactions that are not captured by models of rapid evolution in a fixed environment. Here, we use a Susceptible/Infected model to describe the interaction between an evolving viral population in a dynamic but immunologically diverse host population. We show that depending on strain cross-immunity, heterogeneity of the host population, and durability of immune responses, escape variants initially grow exponentially, but lose their growth advantage before reaching high frequencies. Their subsequent dynamics follows an anomalous random walk determined by future escape variants and results in variant trajectories that are unpredictable. This model can explain the apparent contradiction between the clearly adaptive nature of antigenic evolution and the quasi-neutral dynamics of high-frequency variants observed for influenza viruses.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.