SummaryAll cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed “kataegis,” was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed.PaperClip

Purpose: BRCA1/2-mutated and some sporadic triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have DNA repair defects and are sensitive to DNA-damaging therapeutics. Recently, three independent DNA-based measures of genomic instability were developed on the basis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH), telomeric allelic imbalance (TAI), and large-scale state transitions (LST).Experimental Design: We assessed a combined homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, an unweighted sum of LOH, TAI, and LST scores, in three neoadjuvant TNBC trials of platinum-containing therapy. We then tested the association of HR deficiency, defined as HRD score !42 or BRCA1/2 mutation, with response to platinum-based therapy.

SUMMARYMultiple somatic rearrangements are often found in cancer genomes. However, the underlying processes of rearrangement and their contribution to cancer development are poorly characterised. Here, we employed a paired-end sequencing strategy to identify somatic rearrangements in breast cancer genomes. There are more rearrangements in some breast cancers than previously appreciated. Rearrangements are more frequent over gene footprints and most are intrachromosomal. Multiple architectures of rearrangement are present, but tandem duplications are common in some cancers, perhaps reflecting a specific defect in DNA maintenance. Short overlapping sequences at most rearrangement junctions suggest that these have been mediated by non-homologous end-joining DNA repair, although varying sequence patterns indicate that multiple processes of this type are operative. Several expressed in-frame fusion genes were identified but none were recurrent. The study provides a new perspective on cancer genomes, highlighting the diversity of somatic rearrangements and their potential contribution to cancer development.