Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Reviews
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Top read articles
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Transcriptomic silencing as a potential mechanism of treatment resistance
Jacob J. Adashek, … , Sandeep K. Reddy, Razelle Kurzrock
Jacob J. Adashek, … , Sandeep K. Reddy, Razelle Kurzrock
Published June 4, 2020
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2020;5(11):e134824. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.134824.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Oncology

Transcriptomic silencing as a potential mechanism of treatment resistance

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has not revealed all the mechanisms underlying resistance to genomically matched drugs. Here, we performed in 1417 tumors whole-exome tumor (somatic)/normal (germline) NGS and whole-transcriptome sequencing, the latter focusing on a clinically oriented 50-gene panel in order to examine transcriptomic silencing of putative driver alterations. In this large-scale study, approximately 13% of the somatic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) were unexpectedly not expressed as RNA; 23% of patients had ≥1 nonexpressed SNV. SNV-bearing genes consistently transcribed were TP53, PIK3CA, and KRAS; those with lower transcription rates were ALK, CSF1R, ERBB4, FLT3, GNAS, HNF1A, KDR, PDGFRA, RET, and SMO. We also determined the frequency of tumor mutations being germline, rather than somatic, in these and an additional 462 tumors with tumor/normal exomes; 33.8% of germline SNVs within the gene panel were rare (not found after filtering through variant information domains) and at risk of being falsely reported as somatic. Both the frequency of silenced variant transcription and the risk of falsely identifying germline mutations as somatic/tumor related are important phenomena. Therefore, transcriptomics is a critical adjunct to genomics when interrogating patient tumors for actionable alterations, because, without expression of the target aberrations, there will likely be therapeutic resistance.

Authors

Jacob J. Adashek, Shumei Kato, Rahul Parulkar, Christopher W. Szeto, J. Zachary Sanborn, Charles J. Vaske, Stephen C. Benz, Sandeep K. Reddy, Razelle Kurzrock

×

Figure 2

Expressed versus nonexpressed somatic single nucleotide variants among genes in the Ampliseq panel.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Expressed versus nonexpressed somatic single nucleotide variants among g...
The proportion of somatic-specific single nucleotide variants (SNVs) for which transcripts were identified by RNA-Seq was determined. Tissue-specific gene expression patterns were established to ensure nonexpression of variants was not due to normal differential expression of genes (see Methods) and hence to differentiate expected versus unexpected nonexpression. At least 23% of patients had at least 1 somatic SNV that was not expressed. TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA SNVs were almost always expressed at the RNA level, whereas ALK, CSF1R, ERBB4, FLT3, GNAS, HNF1A, KDR, PDGFRA, RET, and SMO and several other SNVs were often not expressed (see also Table 2). Since Ampliseq is a hotspot gene panel of the 50 most frequently altered genes in all cancers, nonexpressed SNVs may be clinically relevant.

Copyright © 2023 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts