Back

Global changes in open reading frame dominance of RNAs during cancer initiation and progression

Suenaga, Y.; Kogashi, H.; Nakatani, K.; Lin, J.; Hasegawa, Y.; Kugou, K.; Kawashima, Y.; Furukawa, E.; Okumura, K.; Kita, E.; Wakabayashi, Y.; Kato, M.; Kawazu, M.; Hippo, Y.

2023-06-05 cancer biology
10.1101/2023.06.02.543339 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cancer cells express unique RNA transcripts; however, the factors determining their translation have remained unclear. We recently developed open reading frame (ORF) dominance as a measure that correlates with coding potential of RNAs. Upon calculating the ORF dominance of cancer-specific transcripts across 24 human tumor types, 14 exhibited significantly higher ORF dominance in cancer than in normal tissues. In organoid-based mouse genetic models, ORF dominance increased with carcinogenesis. Gene ontology analysis revealed that gene sets with increased ORF dominance were associated with cell proliferation, while those with decreased ORF dominance were linked to DNA damage response. Translatome analyses demonstrated that elevated ORF dominance during carcinogenesis resulted in higher translation frequencies of ribosome-bound RNAs. As cancer progressed, ORF dominance showed that the boundary between coding and noncoding transcripts became blurred prior to distant metastasis, indicating decreased proliferative cell populations and increased generation of RNA isoforms that potentially translate neoantigens before the development of metastatic tumors. These findings suggest that cancer evolution leads to dynamic changes in ORF dominance, resulting in global translational alterations in transcriptomes.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
30.8%
Similar papers in this journal
2
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
4
NAR Cancer
◐ 37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.4%
8
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.4%
9
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 27%
1.7%
11
RNA Biology
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
12
Cancers
○ 213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
Life Science Alliance
● 285 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
15
EMBO Reports
○ 263 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Frontiers in Oncology
○ 103 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Cell Systems
○ 201 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Cancer Research Communications
● 51 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
Cells
○ 249 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
Molecular Systems Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
21
Journal of Genetics and Genomics
○ 38 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
Molecular Cancer
○ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
23
Molecular Cancer Research
● 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
25
Cell Genomics
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
The EMBO Journal
○ 309 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
27
Journal of Experimental Medicine
● 119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Cancer Research
● 130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
29
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
○ 233 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"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.