All cancers are caused by somatic mutations. However, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here, we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, kataegis, is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer with potential implications for understanding of cancer etiology, prevention and therapy.

BACKGROUNDRecent studies have provided a detailed census of genes that are mutated in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our next challenge is to understand how this genetic diversity defines the pathophysiology of AML and informs clinical practice. METHODSWe enrolled a total of 1540 patients in three prospective trials of intensive therapy. Combining driver mutations in 111 cancer genes with cytogenetic and clinical data, we defined AML genomic subgroups and their relevance to clinical outcomes. RESULTSWe identified 5234 driver mutations across 76 genes or genomic regions, with 2 or more drivers identified in 86% of the patients. Patterns of co-mutation compartmentalized the cohort into 11 classes, each with distinct diagnostic features and clinical outcomes. In addition to currently defined AML subgroups, three heterogeneous genomic categories emerged: AML with mutations in genes encoding chromatin, RNAsplicing regulators, or both (in 18% of patients); AML with TP53 mutations, chromosomal aneuploidies, or both (in 13%); and, provisionally, AML with IDH2 R172 mutations (in 1%). Patients with chromatin-spliceosome and TP53-aneuploidy AML had poor outcomes, with the various class-defining mutations contributing independently and additively to the outcome. In addition to class-defining lesions, other co-occurring driver mutations also had a substantial effect on overall survival. The prognostic effects of individual mutations were often significantly altered by the presence or absence of other driver mutations. Such gene-gene interactions were especially pronounced for NPM1-mutated AML, in which patterns of co-mutation identified groups with a favorable or adverse prognosis. These predictions require validation in prospective clinical trials. CONCLUSIONSThe driver landscape in AML reveals distinct molecular subgroups that reflect discrete paths in the evolution of AML, informing disease classification and prognostic stratification. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00146120.) a bs tr ac t

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