Back

Mutation Rate Evolution Drives Immune Escape In Mismatch Repair-Deficient Cancer

Kayhanian, H.; Barmpoutis, P.; Lakatos, E.; Cross, W. C. H.; Caravagna, G.; Zapata, L.; Litchfield, K.; Steele, C. D.; Waddingham, W.; Patel, D.; Milite, S.; Jin, C.; Baker, A.-M.; Ross, C.; Alexander, D.; Khan, K.; Hochhauser, D.; Novelli, M.; Werner, B.; Guppy, N.; Linares, J.; Genomics England Research Consortium, ; Ligtenberg, M.; Nagtegaal, I.; Sottoriva, A.; Graham, T. A.; Pillay, N.; Rodriguez-Justo, M.; Shiu, K.-K.; Jansen, M.

2022-03-07 cancer biology
10.1101/2022.03.06.482973 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mutation rate optimisation drives evolution and immune evasion of bacteria and lentiviral strains, including HIV. Whether evolving cancer lineages similarly adapt mutation rates to increase tumour cell fitness is unknown. Here, by mapping the clonal topography of mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) colorectal cancer, we show that genomic MMRd mutability co-evolves with neoantigen selection to drive intratumour diversification and immune escape. Mechanistically, we find that microsatellite instability modulates subclonal DNA repair by toggling two hypermutable mononucleotide homopolymer runs in the mismatch repair genes MSH6 and MSH3 (C8 and A8, respectively) through stochastic frameshift switching. Spontaneous mutation and reversion at these evolvability switches modulates subclonal mutation rate, mutation bias, and clonal HLA diversity during MMRd cancer evolution. Combined experimental and simulation studies demonstrate that subclonal immune selection favours incremental MMR mutations. MMRd cancers thus fuel intratumour heterogeneity by adapting subclonal mutation rate and mutation bias to immune selection, revealing a conserved co-evolutionary arms race between neoantigen selection and adaptive genomic mutability. Our work reveals layers of mutational complexity and microsatellite biology in MMRd cancer evolution previously hidden in bulk analyses.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.