following correction should be noted. In Fig. 1b, the designed sequence of amino acids S 36 contains a typographical error in that only 35 of its 36 monomers appear. The missing amino acid is of type R and should be located between amino acids E (sixth) and G (seventh). The correct sequence is:Although this typographical error does not change the results presented in the paper because they were obtained with the correct number and sequence of amino acids, it constitutes a nuisance for anybody interested in reproducing our results, and we apologize for the inconvenience. We want to thank Prof. H. S. Chan, of the University of Toronto, for calling our attention to this error.Cell Biology. In the article "Quantitative analysis of biological membrane lipids at the low picomole level by nanoelectrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry" by B. Brügger, G. Erben, R. Sandhoff, F. T. Wieland, and W. D.Lehmann, which appeared in number 6, March 18, 1997, of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (94,(2339)(2340)(2341)(2342)(2343)(2344), Table 1

SUMMARY The Cancer Genome Atlas Network recently catalogued recurrent genomic abnormalities in glioblastoma (GBM). We describe a robust gene expression-based molecular classification of GBM into Proneural, Neural, Classical and Mesenchymal subtypes and integrate multi-dimensional genomic data to establish patterns of somatic mutations and DNA copy number. Aberrations and gene expression of EGFR, NF1, and PDGFRA/IDH1 each define Classical, Mesenchymal, and Proneural, respectively. Gene signatures of normal brain cell types show a strong relation between subtypes and different neural lineages. Additionally, response to aggressive therapy differs by subtype with greatest benefit in Classical and no benefit in Proneural. We provide a framework that unifies transcriptomic and genomic dimensions for GBM molecular stratification with important implications for future studies.

Summary We analyzed primary breast cancers by genomic DNA copy number arrays, DNA methylation, exome sequencing, mRNA arrays, microRNA sequencing and reverse phase protein arrays. Our ability to integrate information across platforms provided key insights into previously-defined gene expression subtypes and demonstrated the existence of four main breast cancer classes when combining data from five platforms, each of which shows significant molecular heterogeneity. Somatic mutations in only three genes (TP53, PIK3CA and GATA3) occurred at > 10% incidence across all breast cancers; however, there were numerous subtype-associated and novel gene mutations including the enrichment of specific mutations in GATA3, PIK3CA and MAP3K1 with the Luminal A subtype. We identified two novel protein expression-defined subgroups, possibly contributed by stromal/microenvironmental elements, and integrated analyses identified specific signaling pathways dominant in each molecular subtype including a HER2/p-HER2/HER1/p-HER1 signature within the HER2-Enriched expression subtype. Comparison of Basal-like breast tumors with high-grade Serous Ovarian tumors showed many molecular commonalities, suggesting a related etiology and similar therapeutic opportunities. The biologic finding of the four main breast cancer subtypes caused by different subsets of genetic and epigenetic abnormalities raises the hypothesis that much of the clinically observable plasticity and heterogeneity occurs within, and not across, these major biologic subtypes of breast cancer.

We explored genomic expression patterns in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae responding to diverse environmental transitions. DNA microarrays were used to measure changes in transcript levels over time for almost every yeast gene, as cells responded to temperature shocks, hydrogen peroxide, the superoxide-generating drug menadione, the sulfhydryl-oxidizing agent diamide, the disulfide-reducing agent dithiothreitol, hyper-and hypo-osmotic shock, amino acid starvation, nitrogen source depletion, and progression into stationary phase. A large set of genes (ϳ 900) showed a similar drastic response to almost all of these environmental changes. Additional features of the genomic responses were specialized for specific conditions. Promoter analysis and subsequent characterization of the responses of mutant strains implicated the transcription factors Yap1p, as well as Msn2p and Msn4p, in mediating specific features of the transcriptional response, while the identification of novel sequence elements provided clues to novel regulators. Physiological themes in the genomic responses to specific environmental stresses provided insights into the effects of those stresses on the cell.