No abstract

SUMMARY Hotspot mutations in splicing factor genes have been recently reported at high frequency in hematological malignancies, suggesting the importance of RNA splicing in cancer. We analyzed whole-exome sequencing data across 33 tumor types in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and we identified 119 splicing factor genes with significant non-silent mutation patterns, including mutation over-representation, recurrent loss of function (tumor suppressor-like), or hotspot mutation profile (oncogene-like). Furthermore, RNA sequencing analysis revealed altered splicing events associated with selected splicing factor mutations. In addition, we were able to identify common gene pathway profiles associated with the presence of these mutations. Our analysis suggests that somatic alteration of genes involved in the RNA-splicing process is common in cancer and may represent an underappreciated hallmark of tumorigenesis.

SUMMARYFor the past decade, cancer genomic studies have focused on mutations leading to splice-site disruption, overlooking those having splice-creating potential. Here, we applied a bioinformatic tool, MiSplice, for the large-scale discovery of splice-site-creating mutations (SCMs) across 8,656 TCGA tumors. We report 1,964 originally mis-annotated mutations having clear evidence of creating alternative splice junctions. TP53 and GATA3 have 26 and 18 SCMs, respectively, and ATRX has 5 from lower-grade gliomas. Mutations in 11 genes, including PARP1, BRCA1, and BAP1, were experimentally validated for splice-site-creating function. Notably, we found that neoantigens induced by SCMs are likely several folds more immunogenic compared to missense mutations, exemplified by the recurrent GATA3 SCM. Further, high expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 was observed in tumors with SCMs, suggesting candidates for immune blockade therapy. Our work highlights the importance of integrating DNA and RNA data for understanding the functional and the clinical implications of mutations in human diseases.

Tumor acidity is one of the cancer hallmarks and is associated with metabolic reprogramming and the use of glycolysis, which results in a high intracellular lactic acid concentration. Cancer cells avoid acid stress major by the activation and expression of proton and lactate transporters and exchangers and have an inverted pH gradient (extracellular and intracellular pHs are acid and alkaline, respectively). The shift in the tumor acid–base balance promotes proliferation, apoptosis avoidance, invasiveness, metastatic potential, aggressiveness, immune evasion, and treatment resistance. For example, weak-base chemotherapeutic agents may have a substantially reduced cellular uptake capacity due to “ion trapping”. Lactic acid negatively affects the functions of activated effector T cells, stimulates regulatory T cells, and promotes them to express programmed cell death receptor 1. On the other hand, the inversion of pH gradient could be a cancer weakness that will allow the development of new promising therapies, such as tumor-targeted pH-sensitive antibodies and pH-responsible nanoparticle conjugates with anticancer drugs. The regulation of tumor pH levels by pharmacological inhibition of pH-responsible proteins (monocarboxylate transporters, H+-ATPase, etc.) and lactate dehydrogenase A is also a promising anticancer strategy. Another idea is the oral or parenteral use of buffer systems, such as sodium bicarbonate, to neutralize tumor acidity. Buffering therapy does not counteract standard treatment methods and can be used in combination to increase effectiveness. However, the mechanisms of the anticancer effect of buffering therapy are still unclear, and more research is needed. We have attempted to summarize the basic knowledge about tumor acidity.

No abstract