All cancers are caused by somatic mutations. However, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here, we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, kataegis, is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer with potential implications for understanding of cancer etiology, prevention and therapy.

We analysed whole genome sequences of 560 breast cancers to advance understanding of the driver mutations conferring clonal advantage and the mutational processes generating somatic mutations. 93 protein-coding cancer genes carried likely driver mutations. Some non-coding regions exhibited high mutation frequencies but most have distinctive structural features probably causing elevated mutation rates and do not harbour driver mutations. Mutational signature analysis was extended to genome rearrangements and revealed 12 base substitution and six rearrangement signatures. Three rearrangement signatures, characterised by tandem duplications or deletions, appear associated with defective homologous recombination based DNA repair: one with deficient BRCA1 function; another with deficient BRCA1 or BRCA2 function; the cause of the third is unknown. This analysis of all classes of somatic mutation across exons, introns and intergenic regions highlights the repertoire of cancer genes and mutational processes operative, and progresses towards a comprehensive account of the somatic genetic basis of breast cancer.

SummaryAll cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed “kataegis,” was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed.PaperClip

SUMMARY Cancer evolves dynamically as clonal expansions supersede one another driven by shifting selective pressures, mutational processes, and disrupted cancer genes. These processes mark the genome, such that a cancer’s life history is encrypted in the somatic mutations present. We developed algorithms to decipher this narrative and applied them to 21 breast cancers. Mutational processes evolve across a cancer’s lifespan, with many emerging late but contributing extensive genetic variation. Subclonal diversification is prominent, and most mutations are found in just a fraction of tumor cells. Every tumor has a dominant subclonal lineage, representing more than 50% of tumor cells. Minimal expansion of these subclones occurs until many hundreds to thousands of mutations have accumulated, implying the existence of long-lived, quiescent cell lineages capable of substantial proliferation upon acquisition of enabling genomic changes. Expansion of the dominant subclone to an appreciable mass may therefore represent the final rate-limiting step in a breast cancer’s development, triggering diagnosis.

The pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes The expansion of whole-genome sequencing studies from individual ICGC and TCGA working groups presented the opportunity to undertake a meta-analysis of genomic features across tumour types. To achieve this, the PCAWG Consortium was established. A Technical Working Group implemented the informatics analyses by aggregating the raw sequencing data from different working groups that studied individual tumour types, aligning the sequences to the human genome and delivering a set of high-quality somatic mutation calls for downstream analysis (Extended Data Fig. 1). Given the recent meta-analysis

Approximately 1-5% of breast cancers are attributed to inherited mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and are selectively sensitive to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Germline and/or somatic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 in other cancer types also confer selective sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. Thus, assays to detect BRCA1/BRCA2 deficient tumours have been sought. Recently, somatic substitution, insertion/deletion and rearrangement patterns or mutational signatures were associated with BRCA1/BRCA2 dysfunction. We used a supervised lasso logistic regression model to identify six critically distinguishing mutational signatures predictive of BRCA1/BRCA2 deficiency. A weighted model called HRDetect was developed to accurately detect BRCA1/BRCA2 deficient samples. HRDetect identifies BRCA1/BRCA2 deficient tumours with 98.7% sensitivity (AUC 0.98). Application of this model in a cohort of 560 breast cancer patients with 22 known germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers, allowed us to identify an additional 22 somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 null tumours and 47 tumours with functional BRCA1/BRCA2-deficiency where no mutation was detected. We validated HRDetect on independent cohorts of breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, and demonstrate efficacy on alternative sequencing strategies. Integrating all classes of mutational signatures thus reveals a larger proportion of breast cancer patients (of up to 22%) than hitherto appreciated (~1-5%) that could have selective therapeutic sensitivity to PARP-inhibition.

Sequencing cancer genomes may enable tailoring of therapeutics to the underlying biological abnormalities driving a particular patient’s tumor. However, sequencing-based strategies rely heavily on representative sampling of tumors. To understand the subclonal structure of primary breast cancer, we applied whole genome and targeted sequencing to multiple samples from each of 50 patients’ tumors (total 303). The extent of subclonal diversification varied among cases and followed spatial patterns. No strict temporal order was evident, with point mutations and rearrangements affecting the most common breast cancer genes, including PIK3CA, TP53, PTEN, BRCA2 and MYC, occurring early in some tumors and late in others. In 13/50 cancers, potentially targetable mutations were subclonal. Landmarks of disease progression, such as resisting chemotherapy and acquiring invasive or metastatic potential, arose within detectable subclones of antecedent lesions. These findings highlight the importance of including analyses of subclonal structure and tumor evolution in clinical trials of primary breast cancer.

Long interspersed nuclear element–1 (L1) retrotransposons are mobile repetitive elements that are abundant in the human genome. L1 elements propagate through RNA intermediates. In the germ line, neighboring, nonrepetitive sequences are occasionally mobilized by the L1 machinery, a process called 3′ transduction. Because 3′ transductions are potentially mutagenic, we explored the extent to which they occur somatically during tumorigenesis. Studying cancer genomes from 244 patients, we found that tumors from 53% of the patients had somatic retrotranspositions, of which 24% were 3′ transductions. Fingerprinting of donor L1s revealed that a handful of source L1 elements in a tumor can spawn from tens to hundreds of 3′ transductions, which can themselves seed further retrotranspositions. The activity of individual L1 elements fluctuated during tumor evolution and correlated with L1 promoter hypomethylation. The 3′ transductions disseminated genes, exons, and regulatory elements to new locations, most often to heterochromatic regions of the genome.