Distinct mutational landscapes when comparing germline and somatic cancer variants in forty tumor suppressor genes.
Suhasini D. LullaiD, Deborah RitteriD, Chimene A. KesserwaniD, Sharon E. PloniD
Abstract
Germline and somatic cancer variants in tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) share loss of function mechanisms with studies of a few genes (DICER1, CEBPA) highlighting differences in variant consequence and location. To systematically assess whether TSGs display distinct mutational patterns we leveraged large public genetic databases and compared high-quality pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in ClinVar, with oncogenic/likely oncogenic (O/LO) somatic tumor variants from cBioPortal across 40 TSGs. We obtained 32,941 P/LP germline and 12,907 O/LO somatic variants. Only 3,863 (9.2%) variants were shared. Eighteen TSGs showed significant differences in distributions of variant occurrences by consequence replicated with non-overlapping somatic data from the COSMIC database (chi-squared tests, false discovery rate=5%). DICER1, TP53, and SMAD4 displayed excess somatic missense events, while 9 TSGs (e.g., RB1, APC) contained excess somatic stop-gains throughout the coding sequence. Analysis of tumor type revealed excess stop-gains in tissues exposed to environmental mutagens with corresponding mutation signatures. Germline and somatic events also distributed unevenly across cDNA location with 103 regions of preferential clustering in 39 TSGs (78 somatic, 25 germline). Twenty somatic clusters overlapped recurring frameshifts in homopolymer runs, many in tumors with microsatellite instability. Germline clusters contain more germline-exclusive variants, some driving non-cancer phenotypes reflecting genetic pleiotropy. In some TSGs (WT1), germline variants predispose to tumors representing a minority of somatic data. Altogether, germline and somatic variants of TSGs represent unique sets with substantially different patterns shaped by selection pressures including environmental, phenotypic, and functional mechanisms. Characterizing these distinctions enables more accurate clinical interpretation of cancer variants.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Germline determinants of the somatic mutation landscape in 2,642 cancer genomes
Lauri A. Aaltonen, Federico Abascal, … Johann Sebastian De Bono·NaturePeer-reviewed·Feb 5, 2020
- Comparison of germline and somatic structural variants in cancers reveal systematic differences in variant generating and selection processes
Wolu Chukwu, Siyun Lee, … Simona Dalin·bioRxiv·Oct 9, 2023
- Assessing the Gene Regulatory Landscape in 1,188 Human Tumors
C Calabrese, K Lehmann, … O Stegle·bioRxiv·Nov 29, 2017
- Substantial Batch Effects in TCGA Exome Sequences Undermine Pan-Cancer Analysis of Germline Variants
R. Rasnic, N. Brandes, … M. Linial·bioRxiv·Oct 16, 2018
- The impact of rare germline variants on human somatic mutation processes
Mischan Vali-Pour, Ben Lehner, Fran Supek·bioRxiv·Nov 14, 2021
- Shared inheritance reveals landscape of somatic and germline cancer risk in TP53
Hamish A J MacGregor, Jamie R. Blundell, Douglas F. Easton·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Aug 17, 2026