Somatic evolution of prostate cancer: mutation, selection, and epistasis across disease stages
Rajaei, M.; Yang, A.; Glasmacher, K. A.; Cross, C. N.; Fisk, N.; Perry, E. B.; Mandell, J. D.; Gaffney, S. G.; Yamaguchi, T. N.; Livingstone, J.; Costa, J.; Humphrey, P.; Cannataro, V. L.; Boutros, P. C.; Townsend, J. P.
Show abstract
BackgroundSomatic mutations involved in prostate cancer tumorigenesis and disease progression have been identified, but their evolutionary dynamics--including differential selective pressures across oncogenesis and metastatic spread--remain poorly understood. No prior study has systematically quantified the adaptive landscape from prostate organogenesis through tumor initiation and progression to metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), nor characterized the selective epistatic interactions that structure this evolutionary trajectory. Methods and FindingsTo address this gap, we analyzed 2,704 low- and high-risk primary tumors and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers to quantify the mutation rates, mutational processes, and scaled selection coefficients of somatic mutations across disease stages. Trinucleotide mutational patterns were stable, but both mutation load and mutation rates increased with progression. In parallel, selective pressures on specific somatic mutations changed substantially, revealing a dynamic adaptive landscape. Stage-specific selective effects were associated with significant synergistic and antagonistic selective epistasis among key driver genes. Early selection on SPOP mutations in the BRD3 binding domain were under strong positive selection, and they increased selection for subsequent RHOA mutations while decreasing selection for TP53 mutations. Antagonistic selective epistasis was evident between mutations of CUL3 and both SPOP and PIK3CA. Mutations in KMT2C increased the selection for mutations in TP53, consistent with their frequent co-occurrence. Synergistic epistatic interactions between mutations of PTEN and both PIK3CA and AR support a strong therapeutic rationale for combined inhibition of PI3K/AR pathway in PTEN-deficient prostate cancers. ConclusionsThese findings provide a comprehensive map of the evolving selective and epistatic forces that shape prostate cancer progression across clinical stages. By distinguishing shifts in selection from changes in mutation rate and revealing the extents of cooperative and conflicting relationships among driver mutations, our work identifies critical points of vulnerability and informs that design of therapeutic strategies that anticipate and intercept the somatic evolutionary trajectory of prostate cancer.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining cellular population dynamics at single cell resolution during prostate cancer progression 94%
- Validation of a Multi-ancestry Polygenic Risk Score and Age-Specific Risks of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis Within Diverse Populations 93%
- GCN2 eIF2 kinase promotes prostate cancer by maintaining amino acid homeostasis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Convergent alterations in the tumor microenvironment of MYC-driven human and murine prostate cancer 94%
- Non-coding genetic variants underlying higher prostate cancer risk in men of African ancestry 93%
- The genomic landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers reveals multiple distinct genotypes with potential clinical impact 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Association Study of Over 200,000 Subjects Detects Novel Rare Variants, Functional Elements, and Polygenic Architecture of Prostate Cancer Susceptibility 94%
- Androgen receptor drives polyamine synthesis creating a vulnerability for prostate cancer 93%
- Macrophage-derived cholesterol contributes to therapeutic resistance in prostate cancer 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.