Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 2003 Oct;165(2):695–705. doi: 10.1093/genetics/165.2.695

Likelihood models of somatic mutation and codon substitution in cancer genes.

Ziheng Yang 1, Simon Ro 1, Bruce Rannala 1
PMCID: PMC1462779  PMID: 14573481

Abstract

The role of somatic mutation in cancer is well established and several genes have been identified that are frequent targets. This has enabled large-scale screening studies of the spectrum of somatic mutations in cancers of particular organs. Cancer gene mutation databases compile the results of many studies and can provide insight into the importance of specific amino acid sequences and functional domains in cancer, as well as elucidate aspects of the mutation process. Past studies of the spectrum of cancer mutations (in particular genes) have examined overall frequencies of mutation (at specific nucleotides) and of missense, nonsense, and silent substitution (at specific codons) both in the sequence as a whole and in a specific functional domain. Existing methods ignore features of the genetic code that allow some codons to mutate to missense, or stop, codons more readily than others (i.e., by one nucleotide change, vs. two or three). A new codon-based method to estimate the relative rate of substitution (fixation of a somatic mutation in a cancer cell lineage) of nonsense vs. missense mutations in different functional domains and in different tumor tissues is presented. Models that account for several potential influences on rates of somatic mutation and substitution in cancer progenitor cells and allow biases of mutation rates for particular dinucleotide sequences (CGs and dipyrimidines), transition vs. transversion bias, and variable rates of silent substitution across functional domains (useful in detecting investigator sampling bias) are considered. Likelihood-ratio tests are used to choose among models, using cancer gene mutation data. The method is applied to analyze published data on the spectrum of p53 mutations in cancers. A novel finding is that the ratio of the probability of nonsense to missense substitution is much lower in the DNA-binding and transactivation domains (ratios near 1) than in structural domains such as the linker, tetramerization (oligomerization), and proline-rich domains (ratios exceeding 100 in some tissues), implying that the specific amino acid sequence may be less critical in structural domains (e.g., amino acid changes less often lead to cancer). The transition vs. transversion bias and effect of CpG dinucleotides on mutation rates in p53 varied greatly across cancers of different organs, likely reflecting effects of different endogenous and exogenous factors influencing mutation in specific organs.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (129.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Akashi H. Synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster: natural selection and translational accuracy. Genetics. 1994 Mar;136(3):927–935. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.3.927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett W. P., Hussain S. P., Vahakangas K. H., Khan M. A., Shields P. G., Harris C. C. Molecular epidemiology of human cancer risk: gene-environment interactions and p53 mutation spectrum in human lung cancer. J Pathol. 1999 Jan;187(1):8–18. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199901)187:1<8::AID-PATH232>3.0.CO;2-Y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bishop J. M. Molecular themes in oncogenesis. Cell. 1991 Jan 25;64(2):235–248. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90636-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brash D. E., Rudolph J. A., Simon J. A., Lin A., McKenna G. J., Baden H. P., Halperin A. J., Pontén J. A role for sunlight in skin cancer: UV-induced p53 mutations in squamous cell carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Nov 15;88(22):10124–10128. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.22.10124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bálint E E., Vousden K. H. Activation and activities of the p53 tumour suppressor protein. Br J Cancer. 2001 Dec 14;85(12):1813–1823. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chène P. The role of tetramerization in p53 function. Oncogene. 2001 May 10;20(21):2611–2617. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooper D. N., Youssoufian H. The CpG dinucleotide and human genetic disease. Hum Genet. 1988 Feb;78(2):151–155. doi: 10.1007/BF00278187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. DeLeo A. B., Jay G., Appella E., Dubois G. C., Law L. W., Old L. J. Detection of a transformation-related antigen in chemically induced sarcomas and other transformed cells of the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 May;76(5):2420–2424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.5.2420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hanahan D., Weinberg R. A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000 Jan 7;100(1):57–70. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hollstein M., Rice K., Greenblatt M. S., Soussi T., Fuchs R., Sørlie T., Hovig E., Smith-Sørensen B., Montesano R., Harris C. C. Database of p53 gene somatic mutations in human tumors and cell lines. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Sep;22(17):3551–3555. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hussain S. P., Harris C. C. p53 mutation spectrum and load: the generation of hypotheses linking the exposure of endogenous or exogenous carcinogens to human cancer. Mutat Res. 1999 Jul 16;428(1-2):23–32. doi: 10.1016/s1383-5742(99)00028-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jeffrey P. D., Gorina S., Pavletich N. P. Crystal structure of the tetramerization domain of the p53 tumor suppressor at 1.7 angstroms. Science. 1995 Mar 10;267(5203):1498–1502. doi: 10.1126/science.7878469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jiang M., Axe T., Holgate R., Rubbi C. P., Okorokov A. L., Mee T., Milner J. p53 binds the nuclear matrix in normal cells: binding involves the proline-rich domain of p53 and increases following genotoxic stress. Oncogene. 2001 Sep 6;20(39):5449–5458. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Levine A. J., Wu M. C., Chang A., Silver A., Attiyeh E. F., Lin J., Epstein C. B. The spectrum of mutations at the p53 locus. Evidence for tissue-specific mutagenesis, selection of mutant alleles, and a "gain of function" phenotype. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 Sep 30;768:111–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb12115.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lin J., Chen J., Elenbaas B., Levine A. J. Several hydrophobic amino acids in the p53 amino-terminal domain are required for transcriptional activation, binding to mdm-2 and the adenovirus 5 E1B 55-kD protein. Genes Dev. 1994 May 15;8(10):1235–1246. doi: 10.1101/gad.8.10.1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Linzer D. I., Levine A. J. Characterization of a 54K dalton cellular SV40 tumor antigen present in SV40-transformed cells and uninfected embryonal carcinoma cells. Cell. 1979 May;17(1):43–52. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90293-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Pietenpol J. A., Tokino T., Thiagalingam S., el-Deiry W. S., Kinzler K. W., Vogelstein B. Sequence-specific transcriptional activation is essential for growth suppression by p53. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Mar 15;91(6):1998–2002. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.6.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ponder B. A. Cancer genetics. Nature. 2001 May 17;411(6835):336–341. doi: 10.1038/35077207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodin S. N., Rodin A. S. Human lung cancer and p53: the interplay between mutagenesis and selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct 24;97(22):12244–12249. doi: 10.1073/pnas.180320897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Roemer K. Mutant p53: gain-of-function oncoproteins and wild-type p53 inactivators. Biol Chem. 1999 Jul-Aug;380(7-8):879–887. doi: 10.1515/BC.1999.108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Slatkin M., Rannala B. The sampling distribution of disease-associated alleles. Genetics. 1997 Dec;147(4):1855–1861. doi: 10.1093/genetics/147.4.1855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Soussi T., Béroud C. Assessing TP53 status in human tumours to evaluate clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2001 Dec;1(3):233–240. doi: 10.1038/35106009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Soussi T., Caron de Fromentel C., May P. Structural aspects of the p53 protein in relation to gene evolution. Oncogene. 1990 Jul;5(7):945–952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Venkitaraman Ashok R. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell. 2002 Jan 25;108(2):171–182. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00615-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Vogelstein B., Fearon E. R., Hamilton S. R., Kern S. E., Preisinger A. C., Leppert M., Nakamura Y., White R., Smits A. M., Bos J. L. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 1;319(9):525–532. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198809013190901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Walker D. R., Bond J. P., Tarone R. E., Harris C. C., Makalowski W., Boguski M. S., Greenblatt M. S. Evolutionary conservation and somatic mutation hotspot maps of p53: correlation with p53 protein structural and functional features. Oncogene. 1999 Jan 7;18(1):211–218. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1202298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Waterman J. L., Shenk J. L., Halazonetis T. D. The dihedral symmetry of the p53 tetramerization domain mandates a conformational switch upon DNA binding. EMBO J. 1995 Feb 1;14(3):512–519. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1995.tb07027.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES