Next-generation sequencing: A frameshift in skeletal dysplasia gene discovery

In the last decade, huge breakthroughs in genetics - driven by new technology and different statistical approaches - have resulted in a plethora of new disease genes identified for both common and rare diseases. Massive parallel sequencing, commonly known as next-generation sequencing, is the latest advance in genetics, and has already facilitated the discovery of the molecular cause of many monogenic disorders. This article describes this new technology and reviews how this approach has been used successfully in patients with skeletal dysplasias. Moreover, this article illustrates how the study of rare diseases can inform understanding and therapeutic developments for common diseases such as osteoporosis. © International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2013.

Novel TBK1 truncating mutation in a familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patient of Chinese origin

Missense and frameshift mutations in TRAF family member-associated NF-kappa-B activator (TANK)-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) have been reported in European sporadic and familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cohorts. To assess the role of TBK1 in ALS patient cohorts of wider ancestry, we have analyzed whole-exome sequence data from an Australian cohort of familial ALS (FALS) patients and controls. We identified a novel TBK1 deletion (c.1197delC) in a FALS patient of Chinese origin. This frameshift mutation (p.L399fs) likely results in a truncated protein that lacks functional domains required for adapter protein binding, as well as protein activation and structural integrity. No novel or reported TBK1 mutations were identified in FALS patients of European ancestry. This is the first report of a TBK1 mutation in an ALS patient of Asian origin and indicates that sequence variations in TBK1 are a rare cause of FALS in Australia. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Whole-exome re-sequencing in a family quartet identifies POP1 mutations as the cause of a novel skeletal dysplasia

Recent advances in DNA sequencing have enabled mapping of genes for monogenic traits in families with small pedigrees and even in unrelated cases. We report the identification of disease-causing mutations in a rare, severe, skeletal dysplasia, studying a family of two healthy unrelated parents and two affected children using whole-exome sequencing. The two affected daughters have clinical and radiographic features suggestive of anauxetic dysplasia (OMIM 607095), a rare form of dwarfism caused by mutations of RMRP. However, mutations of RMRP were excluded in this family by direct sequencing. Our studies identified two novel compound heterozygous loss-of-function mutations in POP1, which encodes a core component of the RNase mitochondrial RNA processing (RNase MRP) complex that directly interacts with the RMRP RNA domains that are affected in anauxetic dysplasia. We demonstrate that these mutations impair the integrity and activity of this complex and that they impair cell proliferation, providing likely molecular and cellular mechanisms by which POP1 mutations cause this severe skeletal dysplasia. © 2011 Glazov et al.

Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of CD8+ T cells shows a distinct epigenetic signature to CD4+ T cells in multiple sclerosis patients

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is thought to be a T cell-mediated autoimmune disorder. MS pathogenesis is likely due to a genetic predisposition triggered by a variety of environmental factors. Epigenetics, particularly DNA methylation, provide a logical interface for environmental factors to influence the genome. In this study we aim to identify DNA methylation changes associated with MS in CD8+ T cells in 30 relapsing remitting MS patients and 28 healthy blood donors using Illumina 450K methylation arrays. Findings Seventy-nine differentially methylated CpGs were associated with MS. The methylation profile of CD8+ T cells was distinctive from our previously published data on CD4+ T cells in the same cohort. Most notably, there was no major CpG effect at the MS risk gene HLA-DRB1 locus in the CD8+ T cells. Conclusion CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells have distinct DNA methylation profiles. This case–control study highlights the importance of distinctive cell subtypes when investigating epigenetic changes in MS and other complex diseases.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Epigenetics Underpinning DNA Damage Repair

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that are not the result of genetic alterations. These changes include DNA methylation, histone modifications, or indeed microRNA expression. Chromatin is a tightly compacted DNA–protein complex that allows approximately two meters of DNA to be packaged inside a cell, only a few micrometers across. Although the resulting DNA structure is very stable, it is not very amiable to DNA-dependent processes, so mechanisms have to exist to allow processes such as transcription, replication, and DNA repair to occur. This chapter will look at how a cell responds to and deals with genomic instability at the epigenetic level and highlight how critical chromatin remodeling is for correct DNA repair and cell survival following DNA damage. This chapter will initially look at the DNA repair pathways that function in human cells and then at how the repair of DNA damage is controlled by epigenetics.