Copy-number and gene dependency analysis reveals partial copy loss of wild-type SF3B1 as a novel cancer vulnerability

  1. Brenton R Paolella  Is a corresponding author
  2. William J Gibson
  3. Laura M Urbanski
  4. John A Alberta
  5. Travis I Zack
  6. Pratiti Bandopadhayay
  7. Caitlin A Nichols
  8. Pankaj K Agarwalla
  9. Meredith S Brown
  10. Rebecca Lamothe
  11. Yong Yu
  12. Peter S Choi
  13. Esther A Obeng
  14. Dirk Heckl
  15. Guo Wei
  16. Belinda Wang
  17. Aviad Tsherniak
  18. Francisca Vazquez
  19. Barbara A Weir
  20. David E Root
  21. Glenn S Cowley
  22. Sara J Buhrlage
  23. Charles D Stiles
  24. Benjamin L Ebert
  25. William C Hahn
  26. Robin Reed  Is a corresponding author
  27. Rameen Beroukhim  Is a corresponding author
  1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. Harvard Medical School, United States
  3. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, United States
  4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, United States

Abstract

Genomic instability is a hallmark of human cancer, and results in widespread somatic copy number alterations. We used a genome-scale shRNA viability screen in human cancer cell lines to systematically identify genes that are essential in the context of particular copy-number alterations (copy-number associated gene dependencies). The most enriched class of copy-number associated gene dependencies was CYCLOPS (Copy-number alterations Yielding Cancer Liabilities Owing to Partial losS) genes, and spliceosome components were the most prevalent. One of these, the pre-mRNA splicing factor SF3B1, is also frequently mutated in cancer. We validated SF3B1 as a CYCLOPS gene and found that human cancer cells harboring partial SF3B1 copy-loss lack a reservoir of SF3b complex that protects cells with normal SF3B1 copy number from cell death upon partial SF3B1 suppression. These data provide a catalog of copy-number associated gene dependencies and identify partial copy-loss of wild-type SF3B1 as a novel, non-driver cancer gene dependency.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Brenton R Paolella

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    brenton_paolella@dfci.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3394-828X
  2. William J Gibson

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laura M Urbanski

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. John A Alberta

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Travis I Zack

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Pratiti Bandopadhayay

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Caitlin A Nichols

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pankaj K Agarwalla

    Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Meredith S Brown

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rebecca Lamothe

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yong Yu

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter S Choi

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Esther A Obeng

    Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Dirk Heckl

    Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Guo Wei

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Belinda Wang

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Aviad Tsherniak

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3797-1877
  18. Francisca Vazquez

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Barbara A Weir

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. David E Root

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Glenn S Cowley

    Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Sara J Buhrlage

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Charles D Stiles

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Benjamin L Ebert

    Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. William C Hahn

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2840-9791
  26. Robin Reed

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    robin_reed@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Rameen Beroukhim

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    Rameen_Beroukhim@dfci.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Cancer Institute (F32 CA180653)

  • Brenton R Paolella

National Cancer Institute (P50 CA165962)

  • Charles D Stiles

The Sontag Foundation

  • Rameen Beroukhim

The Grey Matters Foundation

  • Rameen Beroukhim

The Pediatric Low Grade Astrocytoma Foundation

  • Pratiti Bandopadhayay
  • Charles D Stiles
  • Rameen Beroukhim

Friends for Life Fellowship

  • Brenton R Paolella

National Cancer Institute (R01 CA188228)

  • Rameen Beroukhim

National Cancer Institute (U01 CA176058)

  • William C Hahn

National Cancer Institute (F30 CA192725)

  • William J Gibson

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM043375)

  • Robin Reed

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This work was conducted in accordance with and approved by the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#15-014) of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Copyright

© 2017, Paolella 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

  • 4,539
    views
  • 1,048
    downloads
  • 67
    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. Brenton R Paolella
  2. William J Gibson
  3. Laura M Urbanski
  4. John A Alberta
  5. Travis I Zack
  6. Pratiti Bandopadhayay
  7. Caitlin A Nichols
  8. Pankaj K Agarwalla
  9. Meredith S Brown
  10. Rebecca Lamothe
  11. Yong Yu
  12. Peter S Choi
  13. Esther A Obeng
  14. Dirk Heckl
  15. Guo Wei
  16. Belinda Wang
  17. Aviad Tsherniak
  18. Francisca Vazquez
  19. Barbara A Weir
  20. David E Root
  21. Glenn S Cowley
  22. Sara J Buhrlage
  23. Charles D Stiles
  24. Benjamin L Ebert
  25. William C Hahn
  26. Robin Reed
  27. Rameen Beroukhim
(2017)
Copy-number and gene dependency analysis reveals partial copy loss of wild-type SF3B1 as a novel cancer vulnerability
eLife 6:e23268.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23268

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23268

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ashley L Cook, Surojit Sur ... Nicolas Wyhs
    Research Article

    Despite exciting developments in cancer immunotherapy, its broad application is limited by the paucity of targetable antigens on the tumor cell surface. As an intrinsic cellular pathway, nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) conceals neoantigens through the destruction of the RNA products from genes harboring truncating mutations. We developed and conducted a high-throughput screen, based on the ratiometric analysis of transcripts, to identify critical mediators of NMD in human cells. This screen implicated disruption of kinase SMG1’s phosphorylation of UPF1 as a potential disruptor of NMD. This led us to design a novel SMG1 inhibitor, KVS0001, that elevates the expression of transcripts and proteins resulting from human and murine truncating mutations in vitro and murine cells in vivo. Most importantly, KVS0001 concomitantly increased the presentation of immune-targetable human leukocyte antigens (HLA) class I-associated peptides from NMD-downregulated proteins on the surface of human cancer cells. KVS0001 provides new opportunities for studying NMD and the diseases in which NMD plays a role, including cancer and inherited diseases.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Medicine
    Patrick Brandt, Dawayne Whittington ... Rebekah L Layton
    Research Article

    A doctoral-level internship program was developed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with the intent to create customizable experiential learning opportunities for biomedical trainees to support career exploration, preparation, and transition into their postgraduate professional roles. We report the outcomes of this program over a 5-year period. During that 5-year period, 123 internships took place at over 70 partner sites, representing at least 20 academic, for-profit, and non-profit career paths in the life sciences. A major goal of the program was to enhance trainees’ skill development and expertise in careers of interest. The benefits of the internship program for interns, host/employer, and supervisor/principal investigator were assessed using a mixed-methods approach, including surveys with closed- and open-ended responses as well as focus group interviews. Balancing stakeholder interests is key to creating a sustainable program with widespread support; hence, the level of support from internship hosts and faculty members were the key metrics analyzed throughout. We hypothesized that once a successful internship program was implemented, faculty culture might shift to be more accepting of internships; indeed, the data quantifying faculty attitudes support this. Furthermore, host motivation and performance expectations of interns were compared with results achieved, and this data revealed both expected and surprising benefits to hosts. Data suggests a myriad of benefits for each stakeholder group, and themes are cataloged and discussed. Program outcomes, evaluation data, policies, resources, and best practices developed through the implementation of this program are shared to provide resources that facilitate the creation of similar internship programs at other institutions. Program development was initially spurred by National Institutes of Health pilot funding, thereafter, successfully transitioning from a grant-supported model, to an institutionally supported funding model to achieve long-term programmatic sustainability.