ABSTRACT
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer share many morphologic, proteomic, and genomic alterations. Yet in contrast to invasive cancer, many DCIS tumors do not progress and may remain indolent over decades. To better understand the heterogenous nature of this disease, we reconstructed the growth dynamics of 18 DCIS tumors based on the geo-spatial distribution of their somatic mutations. The somatic mutation topographies revealed that DCIS is multiclonal and consists of spatially discontinuous subclonal lesions. Here we show that this pattern of spread is consistent with a new 'Comet' model of DCIS tumorigenesis, whereby multiple subclones arise early and nucleate the buds of the growing tumor. The discontinuous, multiclonal growth of the Comet model is analogous to the branching morphogenesis of normal breast development that governs the rapid expansion of the mammary epithelium during puberty. The branching morphogenesis-like dynamics of the proposed Comet model diverges from the canonical model of clonal evolution, and better explains observed genomic spatial data. Importantly, the Comet model allows for the clinically relevant scenario of extensive DCIS spread, without being subjected to the selective pressures of subclone competition that promote the emergence of increasingly invasive phenotypes. As such, the normal cell movement inferred during DCIS growth provides a new explanation for the limited risk of progression in DCIS and adds biologic rationale for ongoing clinical efforts to reduce DCIS overtreatment.
ABSTRACT
Premise: Robust standards to evaluate quality and completeness are lacking in eukaryotic structural genome annotation, as genome annotation software is developed using model organisms and typically lacks benchmarking to comprehensively evaluate the quality and accuracy of the final predictions. The annotation of plant genomes is particularly challenging due to their large sizes, abundant transposable elements, and variable ploidies. This study investigates the impact of genome quality, complexity, sequence read input, and method on protein-coding gene predictions. Methods: The impact of repeat masking, long-read and short-read inputs, and de novo and genome-guided protein evidence was examined in the context of the popular BRAKER and MAKER workflows for five plant genomes. The annotations were benchmarked for structural traits and sequence similarity. Results: Benchmarks that reflect gene structures, reciprocal similarity search alignments, and mono-exonic/multi-exonic gene counts provide a more complete view of annotation accuracy. Transcripts derived from RNA-read alignments alone are not sufficient for genome annotation. Gene prediction workflows that combine evidence-based and ab initio approaches are recommended, and a combination of short and long reads can improve genome annotation. Adding protein evidence from de novo assemblies, genome-guided transcriptome assemblies, or full-length proteins from OrthoDB generates more putative false positives as implemented in the current workflows. Post-processing with functional and structural filters is highly recommended. Discussion: While the annotation of non-model plant genomes remains complex, this study provides recommendations for inputs and methodological approaches. We discuss a set of best practices to generate an optimal plant genome annotation and present a more robust set of metrics to evaluate the resulting predictions.
