Don’t judge every tumor by its tissue, scientists say.


For most cancer patients and their doctors, the most important things to know about a tumor are where it arose in the body and how much it’s grown. But in some cases, understanding a tumor’s genomic profile is more likely to lead to an effective treatment, according to a study published online Thursday by the journal Cell.

DNA in cell nucleus

After performing a thorough analysis of 3,527 tumor specimens representing a dozen types of cancers, scientists concluded that 10% of patients could find better therapies if they had information about their tumor’s unique DNA and how it is expressed.

The genetic analysis can give doctors “clinically relevant prognostic information above and beyond tumor stage and primary tissue-of-origin,” they wrote. “If used to guide therapeutic decisions, this reclassification would affect a significant number of patients to be considered for nonstandard treatment regimens.”

The findings draw on years of work by the Cancer Genome Atlas Project, a massive collaboration between the National Institutes of Health, hospitals, universities and other research institutions across the country. Scientists working with TCGA, as the program is known, have studied various properties of each tumor in their vast collection. They have cataloged the small variations in their DNA code, which genes are turned on and off, and the assortment of proteins present in the tumor cells.

At first, they worked through each type of cancer, one by one. Then they noticed that some tumors started to seem familiar.

“As we looked at more and more tumor types, it became clear that there were some subsets of tumors that reminded us of a subset we analyzed last year,” said Josh Stuart, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz who oversaw the study. “It was obvious that we should start comparing across tumor types.”

So the team came up with a mathematical technique for grouping tumors based on their genomic similarities.

Put simply, the method classifies tumors six different ways. Then it gives one “vote” to each method. The vote tally determines how the tumor is ultimately categorized, Stuart said.

Out of the multitudes of tumors, the researchers identified 11 distinct clusters. Five of these contained only cancers of a single tissue, such as endometrial cancer or renal cell carcinoma.

However, the rest were more complicated.

Technology has made it easier than ever to sequence the genomes of tumors. (Maggie Bartlett, National Human Genome Research Institute)

Two of the clusters included tumors from several different organs, revealing hidden similarities among seemingly distinct cancers. For instance, one cluster grouped colon and rectal cancers, whose resemblance has been described in previous studies.

In other cases, cancers from one part of the body wound up in multiple clusters, revealing significant differences in tumors of a single tissue. Bladder cancers, for instance, were strewn across seven different categories because of differences in their gene activity.

Breast cancers also fell into two distinct groups that distinguished between so-called luminal and basal tumors, named after the cell layers from which they arise. The researchers were surprised by the high degree of difference between them.

“They looked like different tissues,” Stuart said.

The team members were particularly intrigued by a ragtag group of tumors that included specimens from head and neck cancers, bladder cancers and lung cancers. They dubbed this the group the “squamous-like” subtype, because all the specimens appeared to stem from squamous cells. These scaly cells are the main component of the skin’s upper layers, but they also populate the lining of the lungs and, potentially, the bladder.

The researchers say this could be an example of the “cell of origin” idea for why cancers from different parts of the body can look similar — because they arise in the same types of cells.

An alternative possibility is that the same sequence of events leads to tumor development in different tissues, a phenomenon known as a common pathway. Or, different organs could be vulnerable to the same environmental risks. For example, Stuart said squamous cells in the throat and bladder both bathe “in the same carcinogenic ‘soup’ like the mutagens from tobacco smoke.” In reality, he said, it’s probably a combination of “what they are exposed to and what they are sensitive to.”

Regardless of the cause, the researchers hope the patterns revealed in their results will eventually translate into tangible benefits for cancer patients. To accelerate this, they have made all their results available in a publicly searchable archive.

Trey Ideker, chief of medical genetics at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, said this could significantly change doctors’ behavior. This work “essentially demands that alongside the normal work-up, you’ve got to perform these layers of profiling they talk about.”

If doctors conducted any of the genomic tests used in the new study, they could use the database to classify the tumor and determine the best course of action for patients. And Ideker said the data may eventually help researchers and drug developers come up with better treatments.

“Nine out of 10 drugs fail” when they are tested in clinical trials, he said. “One of the leading hypotheses is that the subset of patients that respond have a different genetic profile. Maybe this resource has the keys to understanding that.”

John Quackenbush, a computational biologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed that the results have the potential to advance alternative interventions for hard-to-treat tumors. But, he added, they might gloss over important distinctions.

For instance, the analysis grouped two distinct types of breast cancer — one that feeds on estrogen and another on an epidermal growth factor captured by a receptor called HER2 — that require very different treatments into the same category. In this case, the data “missed something big,” Quackenbush said.

Stuart said he hoped the study would prompt other scientists to try to understand why some cancers show strong associations with their tissues while other do not.

“This is by no means an endpoint,” Stuart said.

 

Building a Biobank to Explore Mysteries of the Genome.


GTEx is collecting multiple tissue samples from an estimated 1,000 individual donors for genetic research. (Image from the National Disease Research Interchange GTEx Team)

The architects of the biobank wanted nothing left to chance and everything well documented.

That’s why they developed 150 standard operating procedures to ensure that tissue samples were collected, processed, and stored in exactly the same way. And that’s why they are collecting data on the best temperatures for shipping the samples across the United States.

All that planning is paying off for the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, which will use the samples to investigate how genes are regulated in health and disease. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the project has nearly 4,400 samples of “normal” human tissue from about 175 donors. By collecting many more samples, the project aims to be a resource for studying genetic variation and the regulation of genes in specific tissues.

“This project is an attempt to understand how normal genetic variation influences the expression of genes throughout the body,” said the study’s leader, Dr. Jeffery Struewing of the National Human Genome Research Institute. NCI and the National Institute of Mental Health are also playing lead roles in the effort.

Normal tissue—that is, tissue with no signs of disease—is not routinely collected for research. GTEx is the first large-scale project to collect high-quality samples of up to 32 tissue types from many individual donors.

During a pilot study that began last year, investigators with NCI’s cancer Human Biobank (caHUB) and their collaborators were responsible for acquiring and managing the biospecimens. On average, each organ and tissue donor has contributed 25 types of postmortem tissue, including heart, muscle, and skin. Surgical donors have also contributed tissues.

A Bigger Biobank

Based on the success of the pilot, the NIH Common Fund is scaling up GTEx, with a goal of reaching 1,000 donors in 3 years. This larger number of donors and samples will provide the statistical power that is needed to ask fundamental questions about the genome, the researchers said.

All cells in the human body contain essentially the same complement of genes, but these genes are activated, or expressed, differently in different types of cells. For the first time, GTEx will allow researchers to investigate how common genetic variants influence the regulation of gene expression using a set of reference tissues.

The relationship between genetic variants and gene regulation in different tissues is “a fascinating biology question, but it is also relevant in medicine,” said Dr. Barbara Stranger of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who studies genes and complex diseases but is not involved in GTEx.

“Healthy individuals will have some of the same regulatory processes as people with a complex disease,” Dr. Stranger continued. Understanding these processes could provide information about a variety of diseases.

Donors and Families

“No one really knew if this would work,” said Dr. Sherilyn Sawyer, who co-led the development of the GTEx biobank and until recently was part of NCI’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research (OBBR). “So we’re ecstatic that the infrastructure we put in place through caHUB has resulted in the specimens that have produced an amazing collection of data.”

GTEx works with organizations involved in tissue and organ donation in several cities. When an organ or tissue donor who is eligible for GTEx passes away, one of these organizations contacts the deceased person’s family to ask permission to collect tissues from their loved one for the study.

“It’s a sensitive time, so care is taken,” said Anna M. Smith of the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, who works on ethical, legal, and regulatory affairs for GTEx. “It goes without saying that there would be no biobank without the donors and families.”

 

GTEx minimizes changes to tissue by using standard procedures to collect, process, and store the samples. (Image from the National Disease Research Interchange GTEx Team)

Once specimens are collected, they are preserved and shipped to the Van Andel Institute in Grand Rapids, MI, which is the central repository of materials. By collecting, processing, and storing the tissue samples in a controlled and uniform way, the researchers hope to maintain them in a nearly natural state and minimize alterations.

“The quality of the biospecimen is extraordinarily important,” said Dr. Sawyer. Collecting tissues with uniformly high RNA and DNA quality helps ensure that the information gained from analyzing the samples will “be as accurate to the biology of the tissues as possible,” she explained.

GTEx staff regularly scrutinize tissue samples to be sure that they are of high quality. “GTEx has a higher degree of quality-control management over the whole process than other projects we have done,” noted Dr. Scott Jewell, who directs the Program for Biospecimen Science at the Van Andel Institute.

Whether the same amount of quality control that went into GTEx will be required for all biobank projects is not yet known, Dr. Jewell added. But the lessons learned from GTEx could guide future efforts. Toward this end, researchers have released approximately 150 standard operating procedures related to biobanking.

Logistical Challenges

“This project turned out to be a hugely complex logistical challenge,” said Dr. Jim Vaught, deputy director of OBBR. But with these challenges have come opportunities to ask important questions about biobanking.

For example, no one knows the best temperatures for shipping biospecimens. The GTEx team developed shipping containers that have “data loggers” to record the temperature at every minute. These data could help reveal the optimal temperatures for shipping biospecimens.

A Universe of Data

The GTEx project will more than triple its pool of donors in the next 3 years. Success will depend on a robust and flexible information technology system, noted Charles Shive, director of software development at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.

A web-based application developed by Shive and his colleagues allows project members with various levels of access to data to communicate and monitor the progress of specimen processing and data collection in real time. “We know where specimens are at all times in the GTEx pipeline,” said Shive.

Pathologists review images of all tissue samples to assess the quality of biospecimens. Using the web application, pathologists can add their comments to “the universe of data associated with each sample,” Shive said.

“Unless the research is done and the data are generated, no one is ever going to know the answers,” said Smith.

Another question GTEx could help answer is how long tissues remain scientifically useful after the blood flow to an organ has been cut off. During the pilot study, GTEx researchers at the Broad Institute, in Cambridge, MA, observed a drop-off in RNA quality that was linked to the interval between death and tissue collection. Degradation depends on the type of tissue and how much time has passed since blood flow to the tissue ceased, the researchers found.

“For some tissues, the RNA will stay good for many hours after blood flow to the organ stops,” said Dr. Wendy Winckler, co-leader of the Broad GTEx team, which conducts molecular studies, including RNA sequencing. “But in the pancreas and the spleen, for example, if you don’t get the tissue within a few hours [after death] you’re not going to get [useful RNA].”

Despite these challenges, the researchers are optimistic. “Getting biospecimens for any research project is a tremendous challenge,” said Dr. Kristin Ardlie, also a leader of the GTEx work at the Broad. “We’ve been surprised by how well the process has worked in this project.”

The Broad researchers deposit their data quarterly in the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGP). Investigators can apply for access to the data, which have been stripped of identifying information to protect the anonymity of the donors. In addition, the project plans to make extra samples available to researchers in 2013.

Many Questions to Explore

GTEx data will likely be used to interpret genome-wide association studies. In recent years, these studies have identified inherited genetic variants associated with common diseases. The variants, however, often map to regions of the genome that lack genes, raising questions among researchers about how the variants influence disease risk.

A logical explanation could be that these variants influence the regulation of genes and thereby increase (or decrease) the risk of disease.

“Many common variants associated with common human diseases may be more about affecting the regulation of gene expression than about changing protein structure,” said Dr. Nancy Cox of the University of Chicago, who is developing statistical tools for analyzing data generated by GTEx. “This is one reason we believe the GTEx project is so important.”

With samples of so many tissues, GTEx could also help researchers look at changes in gene expression throughout the body. “A disease process might not be limited to one particular cell type or tissue type,” said Dr. Stranger.

“People will be using data from this project for a long time and in different ways,” she added. “There are all kinds of people waiting to see the GTEx results.”

Watch the video on youtube: URL  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MLlqYdu6jY4

 

Source: NCI

The ENCODE Project: ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements.


ENCODE Overview

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) launched a public research consortium named ENCODE, the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements, in September 2003, to carry out a project to identify all functional elements in the human genome sequence. The project started with two components – a pilot phase and a technology development phase.

The pilot phase tested and compared existing methods to rigorously analyze a defined portion of the human genome sequence (See: ENCODE Pilot Project). The conclusions from this pilot project were published in June 2007 in Nature and Genome Research [genome.org]. The findings highlighted the success of the project to identify and characterize functional elements in the human genome. The technology development phase also has been a success with the promotion of several new technologies to generate high throughput data on functional elements.

With the success of the initial phases of the ENCODE Project, NHGRI funded new awards in September 2007 to scale the ENCODE Project to a production phase on the entire genome along with additional pilot-scale studies. Like the pilot project, the ENCODE production effort is organized as an open consortium and includes investigators with diverse backgrounds and expertise in the production and analysis of data (See: ENCODE Participants and Projects). This production phase also includes a Data Coordination Center [genome.ucsc.edu] to track, store and display ENCODE data along with a Data Analysis Center to assist in integrated analyses of the data. All data generated by ENCODE participants will be rapidly released into public databases (See: Accessing ENCODE Data) and available through the project’s Data Coordination Center.

Source: genome.gov