Peter Marynen

Bio: Peter Marynen is an academic researcher from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The author has contributed to research in topics: Gene & Fluorescence in situ hybridization. The author has an hindex of 75, co-authored 288 publications receiving 20979 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter Marynen include University of Navarra & Ghent University Hospital.

Allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors

Abstract: We present an allele-specific copy number analysis of the in vivo breast cancer genome. We describe a unique bioinformatics approach, ASCAT (allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors), to accurately dissect the allele-specific copy number of solid tumors, simultaneously estimating and adjusting for both tumor ploidy and nonaberrant cell admixture. This allows calculation of “ASCAT profiles” (genome-wide allele-specific copy-number profiles) from which gains, losses, copy number-neutral events, and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) can accurately be determined. In an early-stage breast carcinoma series, we observe aneuploidy (>2.7n) in 45% of the cases and an average nonaberrant cell admixture of 49%. By aggregation of ASCAT profiles across our series, we obtain genomic frequency distributions of gains and losses, as well as genome-wide views of LOH and copy number-neutral events in breast cancer. In addition, the ASCAT profiles reveal differences in aberrant tumor cell fraction, ploidy, gains, losses, LOH, and copy number-neutral events between the five previously identified molecular breast cancer subtypes. Basal-like breast carcinomas have a significantly higher frequency of LOH compared with other subtypes, and their ASCAT profiles show large-scale loss of genomic material during tumor development, followed by a whole-genome duplication, resulting in near-triploid genomes. Finally, from the ASCAT profiles, we construct a genome-wide map of allelic skewness in breast cancer, indicating loci where one allele is preferentially lost, whereas the other allele is preferentially gained. We hypothesize that these alternative alleles have a different influence on breast carcinoma development.

Gene prioritization through genomic data fusion.

Abstract: The identification of genes involved in health and disease remains a challenge. We describe a bioinformatics approach, together with a freely accessible, interactive and flexible software termed Endeavour, to prioritize candidate genes underlying biological processes or diseases, based on their similarity to known genes involved in these phenomena. Unlike previous approaches, ours generates distinct prioritizations for multiple heterogeneous data sources, which are then integrated, or fused, into a global ranking using order statistics. In addition, it offers the flexibility of including additional data sources. Validation of our approach revealed it was able to efficiently prioritize 627 genes in disease data sets and 76 genes in biological pathway sets, identify candidates of 16 mono- or polygenic diseases, and discover regulatory genes of myeloid differentiation. Furthermore, the approach identified a novel gene involved in craniofacial development from a 2-Mb chromosomal region, deleted in some patients with DiGeorge-like birth defects. The approach described here offers an alternative integrative method for gene discovery.

Duplication of the MECP2 region is a frequent cause of severe mental retardation and progressive neurological symptoms in males.

Abstract: Loss-of-function mutations of the MECP2 gene at Xq28 are associated with Rett syndrome in females and with syndromic and nonsyndromic forms of mental retardation (MR) in males. By array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH), we identified a small duplication at Xq28 in a large family with a severe form of MR associated with progressive spasticity. Screening by real-time quantitation of 17 additional patients with MR who have similar phenotypes revealed three more duplications. The duplications in the four patients vary in size from 0.4 to 0.8 Mb and harbor several genes, which, for each duplication, include the MR-related L1CAM and MECP2 genes. The proximal breakpoints are located within a 250-kb region centromeric of L1CAM, whereas the distal breakpoints are located in a 300-kb interval telomeric of MECP2. The precise size and location of each duplication is different in the four patients. The duplications segregate with the disease in the families, and asymptomatic carrier females show complete skewing of X inactivation. Comparison of the clinical features in these patients and in a previously reported patient enables refinement of the genotype-phenotype correlation and strongly suggests that increased dosage of MECP2 results in the MR phenotype. Our findings demonstrate that, in humans, not only impaired or abolished gene function but also increased MeCP2 dosage causes a distinct phenotype. Moreover, duplication of the MECP2 region occurs frequently in male patients with a severe form of MR, which justifies quantitative screening of MECP2 in this group of patients.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data

Abstract: Infiltrating stromal and immune cells form the major fraction of normal cells in tumour tissue and not only perturb the tumour signal in molecular studies but also have an important role in cancer biology. Here we describe 'Estimation of STromal and Immune cells in MAlignant Tumours using Expression data' (ESTIMATE)--a method that uses gene expression signatures to infer the fraction of stromal and immune cells in tumour samples. ESTIMATE scores correlate with DNA copy number-based tumour purity across samples from 11 different tumour types, profiled on Agilent, Affymetrix platforms or based on RNA sequencing and available through The Cancer Genome Atlas. The prediction accuracy is further corroborated using 3,809 transcriptional profiles available elsewhere in the public domain. The ESTIMATE method allows consideration of tumour-associated normal cells in genomic and transcriptomic studies. An R-library is available on https://sourceforge.net/projects/estimateproject/.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

MET Amplification Leads to Gefitinib Resistance in Lung Cancer by Activating ERBB3 Signaling

Abstract: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib are effective treatments for lung cancers with EGFR activating mutations, but these tumors invariably develop drug resistance. Here, we describe a gefitinib-sensitive lung cancer cell line that developed resistance to gefitinib as a result of focal amplification of the MET proto-oncogene. inhibition of MET signaling in these cells restored their sensitivity to gefitinib. MET amplification was detected in 4 of 18 (22%) lung cancer specimens that had developed resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib. We find that amplification of MET causes gefitinib resistance by driving ERBB3 (HER3)–dependent activation of PI3K, a pathway thought to be specific to EGFR/ERBB family receptors. Thus, we propose that MET amplification may promote drug resistance in other ERBB-driven cancers as well.