A comparison analysis of the somatic mutations in early-onset gastric cancer and traditional gastric cancer.

TCGA database copy number variation early-onset gastric cancer somatic mutation traditional gastric cancer

Journal

Clinics and research in hepatology and gastroenterology
ISSN: 2210-741X
Titre abrégé: Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101553659

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 14 09 2023
revised: 19 01 2024
accepted: 20 01 2024
medline: 23 1 2024
pubmed: 23 1 2024
entrez: 22 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Early onset gastric cancer (EOGC) has been on the rise in recent years and differs slightly in pathology from traditional gastric cancer (TGC). Somatic mutations have an essential role in the development of gastric cancer. We aimed to investigate these two types of gastric cancers at the level of somatic mutations and to further understanding of gastric cancer development. Somatic mutation, copy number variation (CNV), and clinical information were obtained from TCGA and UCSC Xena. Samples were divided into EOGC (< 50 years old, N=28) and TGC (≥ 50 years old, N=395) groups based on age. R packages "maftools" and "sigminer" were used to identify mutation signatures, while CNV information was processed using GISTIC2.0. CDH1(21%, P = 0.030) and ARID1A (28%, P = 0.014) were more common in EOGC and TGC, respectively. The mutation frequency of ARID1A increased with age, while the opposite was true for CDH1. Sex, Lauren classifications, tumor mutation burden levels, mutation status of TP53, MUC6, NIPBL, KRAS, and copy number variation of the WOOX can affect the activity of the mutant signature. Early-onset gastric cancer and traditional gastric cancer have distinct somatic mutation signatures, each with its own relatively specific high-frequency mutated genes, and the gene's mutation frequency correlates with age. Several clinical factors and genetic status affect the activity of some mutational features in gastric cancer in both groups.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Early onset gastric cancer (EOGC) has been on the rise in recent years and differs slightly in pathology from traditional gastric cancer (TGC). Somatic mutations have an essential role in the development of gastric cancer. We aimed to investigate these two types of gastric cancers at the level of somatic mutations and to further understanding of gastric cancer development.
METHODS METHODS
Somatic mutation, copy number variation (CNV), and clinical information were obtained from TCGA and UCSC Xena. Samples were divided into EOGC (< 50 years old, N=28) and TGC (≥ 50 years old, N=395) groups based on age. R packages "maftools" and "sigminer" were used to identify mutation signatures, while CNV information was processed using GISTIC2.0.
RESULTS RESULTS
CDH1(21%, P = 0.030) and ARID1A (28%, P = 0.014) were more common in EOGC and TGC, respectively. The mutation frequency of ARID1A increased with age, while the opposite was true for CDH1. Sex, Lauren classifications, tumor mutation burden levels, mutation status of TP53, MUC6, NIPBL, KRAS, and copy number variation of the WOOX can affect the activity of the mutant signature.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Early-onset gastric cancer and traditional gastric cancer have distinct somatic mutation signatures, each with its own relatively specific high-frequency mutated genes, and the gene's mutation frequency correlates with age. Several clinical factors and genetic status affect the activity of some mutational features in gastric cancer in both groups.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38253255
pii: S2210-7401(24)00008-1
doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102287
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

102287

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Xiaoxuan Han (X)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001.

Xiaoxiao Jia (X)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001.

Chong Sheng (C)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001.

Mengyuan Li (M)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001.

Jinxi Han (J)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001.

Kaijuan Wang (K)

College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan Province, China; Key Laboratory of Tumor Epidemiology of Henan Province, State Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment, Zhengzhou University, 450001. Electronic address: kjwang@163.com.

Classifications MeSH