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.

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.

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.