Tug-of-war between driver and passenger mutations in cancer and other adaptive processes

Significance During rapid adaptation, populations start in hostile conditions and must evolve new traits to survive. Development of cancer from a population of precancerous cells within a body is an example of such rapid adaptation. New traits required for cancer progression are acquired by driver mutations in a few key genes. Most mutations, however, are unimportant for progression and can be damaging to cancer cells, termed “passengers.” The role these damaging passengers play in cancer and other adaptive processes is unknown. Here we show that driver mutations engage in a tug-of-war with damaging passengers. This tug-of-war explains many phenomena in oncology, suggesting how to develop new therapies and target existing therapies to exploit damaging passengers. Cancer progression is an example of a rapid adaptive process where evolving new traits is essential for survival and requires a high mutation rate. Precancerous cells acquire a few key mutations that drive rapid population growth and carcinogenesis. Cancer genomics demonstrates that these few driver mutations occur alongside thousands of random passenger mutations—a natural consequence of cancer’s elevated mutation rate. Some passengers are deleterious to cancer cells, yet have been largely ignored in cancer research. In population genetics, however, the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations has been shown to cause population meltdown. Here we develop a stochastic population model where beneficial drivers engage in a tug-of-war with frequent mildly deleterious passengers. These passengers present a barrier to cancer progression describable by a critical population size, below which most lesions fail to progress, and a critical mutation rate, above which cancers melt down. We find support for this model in cancer age–incidence and cancer genomics data that also allow us to estimate the fitness advantage of drivers and fitness costs of passengers. We identify two regimes of adaptive evolutionary dynamics and use these regimes to understand successes and failures of different treatment strategies. A tumor’s load of deleterious passengers can explain previously paradoxical treatment outcomes and suggest that it could potentially serve as a biomarker of response to mutagenic therapies. The collective deleterious effect of passengers is currently an unexploited therapeutic target. We discuss how their effects might be exacerbated by current and future therapies.

[1]  H. Ohtsuki,et al.  Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Jeff Gore,et al.  Turning ecology and evolution against cancer , 2014, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[3]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Genetic Progression and the Waiting Time to Cancer , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  G. Bell,et al.  Evolutionary rescue can prevent extinction following environmental change. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[5]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Systematic Genetic Analysis with Ordered Arrays of Yeast Deletion Mutants , 2001, Science.

[6]  Manel Camps,et al.  Genetic Constraints on Protein Evolution , 2007, Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology.

[7]  A. Amon,et al.  Aneuploidy: cancer's fatal flaw? , 2009, Cancer research.

[8]  Zoltan Szallasi,et al.  Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer. , 2011, Cancer research.

[9]  Michael M. Desai,et al.  Dynamic Mutation–Selection Balance as an Evolutionary Attractor , 2012, Genetics.

[10]  R. Schreiber,et al.  Cancer immunoediting: antigens, mechanisms, and implications to cancer immunotherapy , 2013, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Melanie J. I. Müller,et al.  Selective sweeps in growing microbial colonies. , 2012, Physical biology.

[12]  M. Lynch The Cellular, Developmental and Population-Genetic Determinants of Mutation-Rate Evolution , 2008, Genetics.

[13]  Brian H. Dunford-Shore,et al.  Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma , 2008, Nature.

[14]  C Zeyl,et al.  MUTATIONAL MELTDOWN IN LABORATORY YEAST POPULATIONS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  Benjamin H. Good,et al.  Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  M. Nowak Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life , 2006 .

[17]  M. Nowak,et al.  Adaptive evolution of highly mutable loci in pathogenic bacteria , 1994, Current Biology.

[18]  Steven A. Roberts,et al.  Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes , 2013 .

[19]  Michael A. Gibson,et al.  Efficient Exact Stochastic Simulation of Chemical Systems with Many Species and Many Channels , 2000 .

[20]  Claus O Wilke,et al.  The Stochastic Edge in Adaptive Evolution , 2007, Genetics.

[21]  S. Sunyaev,et al.  Human allelic variation: perspective from protein function, structure, and evolution. , 2010, Current opinion in structural biology.

[22]  Shamil Sunyaev,et al.  Evolutionary constraints in conserved nongenic sequences of mammals. , 2005, Genome research.

[23]  L. McHugh,et al.  Progression to and spontaneous regression of high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in HIV-infected and uninfected men , 2013, AIDS.

[24]  Chris Sander,et al.  The molecular diversity of Luminal A breast tumors , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[25]  P. Maini,et al.  Mathematical modeling of cell population dynamics in the colonic crypt and in colorectal cancer , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  J. Haigh The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population--Muller's Ratchet. , 1978, Theoretical population biology.

[27]  John Quackenbush,et al.  Profiles of Genomic Instability in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Predict Treatment Outcome , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[28]  G. Getz,et al.  GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers , 2011, Genome Biology.

[29]  Tim G Benton,et al.  Eco-evolutionary dynamics in response to selection on life-history , 2013, Ecology letters.

[30]  C. Swanton,et al.  Modelling the evolution of genetic instability during tumour progression , 2012, Evolutionary applications.

[31]  L. Thiberville,et al.  Follow-up of bronchial precancerous lesions and carcinoma in situ using fluorescence endoscopy. , 2001, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[32]  Andrea Sottoriva,et al.  Defining Stem Cell Dynamics in Models of Intestinal Tumor Initiation , 2013, Science.

[33]  D. Hartl,et al.  Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Cyclin D2-cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 is required for efficient proliferation and tumorigenesis following Apc loss. , 2010, Cancer research.

[35]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy-number alteration , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[36]  T. Fennell,et al.  Melanoma genome sequencing reveals frequent PREX2 mutations , 2012, Nature.

[37]  David Heckerman,et al.  Adaptation of HIV-1 to human leukocyte antigen class I , 2009, Nature.

[38]  Chih-kuan Tung,et al.  Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments , 2011, Science.

[39]  Jihyoun Jeon,et al.  Age-specific incidence of cancer: Phases, transitions, and biological implications , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  P. Armitage,et al.  The Age Distribution of Cancer and a Multi-stage Theory of Carcinogenesis , 1954, British Journal of Cancer.

[41]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer , 2012, Nature.

[42]  Derek Y. Chiang,et al.  The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers , 2010, Nature.

[43]  Jason M. Sheltzer,et al.  The aneuploidy paradox: costs and benefits of an incorrect karyotype. , 2011, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[44]  H M Jensen,et al.  An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. , 1975, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[45]  Steven G. Schroeder,et al.  The Effects of Artificial Selection on the Maize Genome , 2005, Science.

[46]  C. Swanton,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity and drug resistance: personalising cancer medicine through functional genomics. , 2012, Biochemical pharmacology.

[47]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  The degeneration of asexual haploid populations and the speed of Muller's ratchet. , 2000, Genetics.

[48]  David L. Page,et al.  Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long‐term follow‐up study , 1985, Cancer.

[49]  Shamil R. Sunyaev,et al.  Impact of deleterious passenger mutations on cancer progression , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  R. Fanelli Selective heat sensitivity of cancer cells , 1977 .

[51]  Chris Sander,et al.  Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[52]  Michael M. Desai,et al.  The structure of allelic diversity in the presence of purifying selection. , 2010, Theoretical population biology.

[53]  G. Parmigiani,et al.  The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers , 2006, Science.

[54]  ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF ASEXUAL POPULATIONS UNDER MULLER'S RATCHET , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[55]  L. Loeb,et al.  Negative Clonal Selection in Tumor Evolution , 2005, Genetics.

[56]  Shamil Sunyaev,et al.  Small fitness effect of mutations in highly conserved non-coding regions. , 2005, Human molecular genetics.

[57]  Ting-Chao Chou,et al.  Theoretical Basis, Experimental Design, and Computerized Simulation of Synergism and Antagonism in Drug Combination Studies , 2006, Pharmacological Reviews.

[58]  J. S. Domingues Gompertz Model: resolution and analysis for tumors , 2012 .

[59]  T. Hubbard,et al.  A census of human cancer genes , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[60]  Penny A. Johnson,et al.  Cancer cell adaptation to chemotherapy , 2005, BMC Cancer.

[61]  A. Jackson,et al.  The mutation rate and cancer. , 1998, Genetics.

[62]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumor types , 2014, Nature.

[63]  W. Dupont,et al.  Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: A long-term follow-up study , 1986 .

[64]  Joseph K. Pickrell,et al.  A Systematic Survey of Loss-of-Function Variants in Human Protein-Coding Genes , 2012, Science.

[65]  Robert A Beckman,et al.  Cancers exhibit a mutator phenotype: clinical implications. , 2008, Cancer research.

[66]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Epitope landscape in breast and colorectal cancer. , 2008, Cancer research.

[67]  A. Børresen-Dale,et al.  The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer , 2012, Nature.

[68]  Ryan D. Hernandez,et al.  Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[69]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila , 2007, Nature.

[70]  D. Hanahan,et al.  Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation , 2011, Cell.

[71]  T. Johnson,et al.  The effect of deleterious alleles on adaptation in asexual populations. , 2002, Genetics.

[72]  J. Peck A ruby in the rubbish: beneficial mutations, deleterious mutations and the evolution of sex. , 1994, Genetics.

[73]  B. Shraiman,et al.  Fluctuations of Fitness Distributions and the Rate of Muller’s Ratchet , 2012, Genetics.

[74]  J. Engelman,et al.  ALK in lung cancer: past, present, and future. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[75]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Evolutionarily stable mutation rate in a periodically changing environment. , 1989, Genetics.