Cancer

Caroline F. Thorn, Ph.D. [email protected]

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Overview

• Host and cancer genome • Etiology of cancer/genetics of cancer predisposition • Whole genome approaches – Patient samples / ex vivo – Cell lines / in vitro

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Host Genome and Cancer Genome

• What is the cancer genome? • How is cancer cell different from host cell? – genetic change(s) in cancer cell may alter its response to drug

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Host Genome and Cancer Genome

What makes a cancer cell different? • Loss of cell cycle control so cancer cell is not contact inhibited and can replicate • Evasion of normal methods of cell death, loss of tumour suppressors, decreased apoptosis • Amplification of detoxifying pathways, increased activity of drug transporters • Increase in growth factor receptors – E.g. Her-2/neu

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Host Genome and Cancer Genome

• So what if we target drugs to those differences ?

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Her/neu and

• Her-2 oncogene, over expressed in ~30% breast cancers • Associated with aggressive tumours and poor prognosis • Is expressed on cancer cell surface • Drug is antibody to target it - trastuzumab aka Herceptin, • Limits toxicity as targets only the cancer cells = successful example

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Gefitinib (Iressa)

• Inhibits the growth factor receptor EGFR • Promising early trials - but only improved survival in subset of patients, 10-15% – Female, – Japanese – Non-smokers

Example that shows we have to remember about the host genome as well

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Gefitinib (Iressa)

• Iressa works better in those with variant EGFR that makes it more susceptible to the drug

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Etiology of cancer

• 2-hit hypothesis, Knudsen : mutation (may be germ line) in one tumour suppressor or oncogene can be tolerated, but second somatic change then tips balance from controlled growth to uncontrolled growth • More likely to be several hits

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Cancer predisposition

• Even though all cancer has genetic changes and there are several well known examples of inherited genetic risk factors e.g. BRCA1 and breast cancer, only 5-10% of cancer is inherited • Most cancers come from random mutations over lifetime – mistake when cells are going through cell division – response to injuries from environmental agents such as radiation or chemicals. – viruses

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Other omics

• Worth mentioning efforts to examine gene-environment interactions of importance in cancer research – Nutrigenomics, interaction between diet and – Toxigenomics, interactions between toxins (e.g. Carcinogens in environment) and genes

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Whole genome approaches

• Can’t test cancer drugs on healthy volunteers in same way as other drug classes so need to exploit other methods for PGx discovery – Expression profiling in patient samples – In vitro drug response in cell lines From McLeod review, JCO 2005 – mouse models (will not cover in this course)

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Expression profiling

• Using microarray or RT-PCR in high- throughput system to find a set of genes that respond to drug (up or down regulated) or are found in certain disease type and give characteristic “signature”

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Expression profiling on patient samples

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

Background • Recap- leukemia therapy effective for ~80% patients • but reason why the 20% fail is unclear • Leukemia usually treated with cocktail of drugs in successive phases

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

• Tested leukemia cells with 4 antineoplastic drugs with different mechanisms of action • Measured sensitivity/resistance to – asparaginase (breaks down amino acid) – daunorubicin (inhibits DNA and RNA synthesis) – prednisolone (steroid/anti-inflammatory), – vincristine (cell cycle arrest),

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

• Run microarrays of gene expression • Identify differenially expressed genes – Supervised clustering using Wilcoxon rank-sum test • Build model on 2/3 and test on 1/3 with 1000 iterations • Validate in second group of patients

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

Identified 40 genes that discriminate between vincristine sensitive and resistant cells

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

• Of the 124 differentially expressed genes identified only 3 had previously been linked with resistance to doxorubicin or vincristine

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Evans/Relling group, NEJM, 2004

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Whole genome approaches

• Expression profiling in patient samples • In vitro drug response in cell lines

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Watters et al, PNAS 2004

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program In vitro drug response in cell lines

• Example phenotype: drug cytotoxicity • Easy to measure - Cells counted, plated at 1 x 104 /well - Cells incubated with increasing concentrations of drug - Alamar blue vital dye indicator added - Viability relative to untreated control calculated by spectrophotometry

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Which cells to use?

• Repository of publicly available cell lines and DNA samples from families from defined populations • Major benefit of using these samples - they have been extensively genotyped • CEPH data has pedigree (family relationship) data

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Centre d’ Etude du Polymorphisme Human

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Are the CEPH cell lines a good model?

• Why not just use tumour cell lines? – Not enough from the same tissue of origin, don’t have genetics data • But do these cells behave the same way as tumour cells? – Ran tests to show CEPH cells had the same IC50 as some publicly available tumour cell lines – Both CEPH cells and publicly available tumour cell lines responded to toxicity by same pathway of apoptosis

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Watters et al, PNAS 2004

• Used Random Coefficient Regression model to assign coefficient for slope of each individual's cells response • Used SEGPATH to

assess heritability of Response curve for one individual response and linkage

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Linkage on chromosome 9

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program New candidate genes

RAD23B NM_002874 Hs.159087 RAD23 homolog B (S. cerevisiae) 105472558-105473090 FCMD NM_006731 Hs.55777 Fukuyama type congenital muscular dystrophy (fukutin) 103782702-103783131 CDW92 AW165999 Hs.414728 CDw92 antigen 103525239-103527612 ABCA1 NM_005502 Hs.147259 ATP-binding cassette, sub-family A (ABC1), member 1 102923739-102924215 SMC2L1 AU154486 Hs.119023 SMC2 structural maintenance of chromosomes 2-like 1 (yeast) 102282761-102283241 RNF20 AK022532 Hs.168095 ring finger protein 20 99704963-99705433 ZNF189 NM_003452 Hs.50123 zinc finger protein 189 99552272-99552713 MRPL50 BG028213 Hs.288224 mitochondrial ribosomal protein L50 99532436-99532607 INVS AF039217 Hs.150744 inversin 98439227-98443060 TXNDC4 BC005374 Hs.154023 thioredoxin domain containing 4 (endoplasmic reticulum) 98124676-98149788 SEC61B NM_006808 Hs.191887 Sec61 beta subunit 97370032-97372556 ALG2 BE967331 Hs.40919 asparagine-linked glycosylation 2 homolog (yeast, alpha-1,3-mannosyltransferase) 97359553-97359942 TGFBR1 AA604375 Hs.28005 transforming growth factor, beta receptor I (activin A receptor type II-like kinase, 53kDa) 97295384-97295719 NANS NM_018946 Hs.274424 N-acetylneuraminic acid synthase (sialic acid synthase) 96222949-96225118 ANP32B NM_006401 Hs.459987 acidic (leucine-rich) nuclear phosphoprotein 32 family, member B 96157636-96158013 XPA NM_000380 Hs.288867 xeroderma pigmentosum, complementation group A 95817102-95817607 NCBP1 BC001450 Hs.439203 nuclear cap binding protein subunit 1, 80kDa 95808875-95813344 TMOD1 NM_003275 Hs.374849 tropomodulin 1 95742775-95743279 PCTAIRE2BP AW129593 Hs.416543 tudor repeat associator with PCTAIRE 2 95629328-95638103 CDC14B AI921238 Hs.22116 CDC14 cell division cycle 14 homolog B (S. cerevisiae) 94656602-94657833 HABP4 AF241831 Hs.301839 hyaluronan binding protein 4 94630336-94632501 SLC35D2 AJ005866 Hs.386278 solute carrier family 35, member D2 94462851-94463372 FANCC NM_000136 Hs.253236 Fanconi anemia, complementation group C 93202851-93203264 ZNF169 BC019228 Hs.387623 zinc finger protein 169 92382458-92396707 PHF2 AB014562 Hs.93868 PHD finger protein 2 91782703-91783231 C9orf10 AF214738 Hs.446534 chromosome 9 open reading frame 10 91634518-91635068 BICD2 AI934125 Hs.436939 coiled-coil protein BICD2 90815152-90815659 IARS NM_013417 Hs.172801 isoleucine-tRNA synthetase 90314089-90326264 SPTLC1 BC007085 Hs.90458 serine palmitoyltransferase, long chain base subunit 1 90183077-90183244 NFIL3 NM_005384 Hs.79334 nuclear factor, interleukin 3 regulated 89512814-89513311 AUH NM_001698 Hs.81886 AU RNA binding protein/enoyl-Coenzyme A hydratase 89317590-89318101 SYK BF593625 Hs.192182 spleen tyrosine kinase 89001692-89002111 SBP2 BC001189 Hs.59804 SECIS binding protein 2 87430383-87439113 CKS2 NM_001827 Hs.83758 CDC28 protein kinase regulatory subunit 2 87415644-87421033 HFSE-1 AF072164 Hs.137570 HFSE-1 protein 87258704-87259146 SPIN AL136719 Hs.439052 spindlin 86550195-86550700 DAPK1 NM_004938 Hs.244318 death-associated protein kinase 1 85780116-85780511

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Public phenotype data on CEPH cell lines

Coming soon

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program Summary

• Complex diseases and their treatments require complex studies with variety of approaches • As yet (October 2005) no one has published clear pharmacogenetic relationship of SNP to phenotype derived from whole genome approach

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program acknowledgments

• Howard McLeod, Pharm.D. Functional Polymorphism Analysis in Drug Pathways (CREATE) Washington University

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program References

• Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, Gurubhagavatula S, Okimoto RA, Brannigan BW, Harris PL, Haserlat SM, Supko JG, Haluska FG, Louis DN, Christiani DC, Settleman J, Haber DA. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 20;350(21):2129-39. Epub 2004 Apr 29. PMID: 15118073 • Walgren RA, Meucci MA, McLeod HL.Pharmacogenomic Discovery Approaches: Will the Real Genes Please Stand Up? J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 6; PMID: 16145062 • Cheok MH, Yang W, Pui CH, Downing JR, Cheng C, Naeve CW, Relling MV, Evans WE. Treatment-specific changes in gene expression discriminate in vivo drug response in human leukemia cells. Nat Genet. 2003 May;34(1):85-90. Erratum in: Nat Genet. 2003 Jun;34(2):231. PMID: 12704389 • Watters JW, Kraja A, Meucci MA, Province MA, McLeod HL. Genome-wide discovery of loci influencing cytotoxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11809-14. Epub 2004 Jul 28. PMID: 15282376

Stanford – South Africa Biomedical Informatics Program