Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Journal Sections
    • Subscriptions
    • Reviewing
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immuno-oncology
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
    • Journal Press Releases
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • 10th Anniversary
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Discovery
Cancer Discovery
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Journal Sections
    • Subscriptions
    • Reviewing
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immuno-oncology
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
    • Journal Press Releases
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • 10th Anniversary
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

The Genomic Landscape of Pediatric Ewing Sarcoma

Brian D. Crompton, Chip Stewart, Amaro Taylor-Weiner, Gabriela Alexe, Kyle C. Kurek, Monica L. Calicchio, Adam Kiezun, Scott L. Carter, Sachet A. Shukla, Swapnil S. Mehta, Aaron R. Thorner, Carmen de Torres, Cinzia Lavarino, Mariona Suñol, Aaron McKenna, Andrey Sivachenko, Kristian Cibulskis, Michael S. Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Mara Rosenberg, Lauren Ambrogio, Daniel Auclair, Sara Seepo, Brendan Blumenstiel, Matthew DeFelice, Ivan Imaz-Rosshandler, Angela Schwarz-Cruz y Celis, Miguel N. Rivera, Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, Mark D. Fleming, Todd R. Golub, Gad Getz, Jaume Mora and Kimberly Stegmaier
Brian D. Crompton
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chip Stewart
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amaro Taylor-Weiner
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gabriela Alexe
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
3Bioinformatics Graduate Program, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kyle C. Kurek
4Department of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monica L. Calicchio
4Department of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Kiezun
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott L. Carter
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sachet A. Shukla
5Cancer Vaccine Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Swapnil S. Mehta
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron R. Thorner
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carmen de Torres
6Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cinzia Lavarino
6Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mariona Suñol
6Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron McKenna
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrey Sivachenko
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristian Cibulskis
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael S. Lawrence
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Petar Stojanov
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
7Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mara Rosenberg
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren Ambrogio
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Auclair
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Seepo
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brendan Blumenstiel
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew DeFelice
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivan Imaz-Rosshandler
8Instituto Nacional de Medicina Genómica, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angela Schwarz-Cruz y Celis
8Instituto Nacional de Medicina Genómica, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miguel N. Rivera
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
9Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark D. Fleming
4Department of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Todd R. Golub
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gad Getz
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
9Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
10Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jaume Mora
6Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberly Stegmaier
1Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
2Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kimberly_stegmaier@dfci.harvard.edu
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-1037 Published November 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Mutational landscape of Ewing sarcoma tumors. A, sample data, sequencing method, and recurrent aberrancies detected by massively parallel sequencing are indicated for 92 Ewing sarcoma tumors and 11 Ewing sarcoma cell lines. Box colors for each panel are indicated in the key. SNV, single-nucleotide variant. B, arm-level SCNAs from 92 Ewing sarcoma tumors determined by segmentation analysis of WES. C, focal SCNAs for 18 Ewing sarcoma tumors determined from SNP-array analysis. B and C, plotted are the q values for copy-number losses (blue) and gains (red) for each chromosomal arm or focal region calculated with GISTIC2.0 (33). Gains of chromosome 8 were the most significant arm-level SCNA, and CDKN2A is located at the most significant focal loss. RNASeq data demonstrated that ABCC12 was likely not expressed in any sample regardless of copy-number status. Focal deletions at 11q24.3 and 22q12.2 involve the FLI and EWS genes in the EWS–FLI rearranged samples. D, the locations of variants in STAG2 and TP53 indicated in linear protein domain models. Domain annotations are taken from recent publications (15, 73). Numbers below each protein name indicate the number of amino acids in the full-length protein. Variant details are listed in Supplementary Table S11. Solid boxes, mutations identified in tumors with normal pairs (including multiple tumors from the same patient); open triangles, variants from tumors without normal pairs after germline filtering; and open circles, variants from cell lines after filtering. Mutations: MS, missense; FS, frameshift; NS, nonsense; SS, splice site. Protein domains: STAG, STAG superfamily; SCD, stromalin conservative domain; TADI/II, transcriptional-activation I and II; DNA, DNA binding; OD, tetramerization; CTD, carboxyl terminus.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Loss of STAG2 expression in Ewing sarcoma. A, IHC staining for STAG2 in Ewing sarcoma cell lines and tumors demonstrates a loss of STAG2 expression in mutated samples (red asterisk). The A673 Ewing cell line, expressing wild-type STAG2, stained positive for STAG2 expression, whereas TC32, mutated at STAG2, does not express STAG2 protein. Also shown are two primary Ewing sarcoma tumor samples stained for STAG2 expression. The tumor with a STAG2 mutation does not stain for STAG2 expression, whereas the tumor with wild-type STAG2 stains positive for STAG2 expression. B, Western immunoblot analysis of STAG2 protein expression in Ewing sarcoma cell lines with mutated (black box), rearranged (green box), and wild-type (white box) STAG2. Mutations and rearrangements of STAG2 result in loss of expression of protein, but some cell lines with wild-type STAG2 also have loss of protein expression. C, top, schematic illustrating novel STAG2–MAP7D3 fusion transcripts detected by RNASeq in the Ewing sarcoma cell line TTC466. Bottom, RT-PCR detected the presence of both STAG2–MAP7D3 fusion forms in TTC466 but not in CADO-ES1 (negative control) Ewing sarcoma cell lines. D, scatter plot of tumor ploidy for tumors staining positive for STAG2 versus STAG2 loss (mean: 2.12 vs. 2.02; P = 0.585 by Mann–Whitney test). E, scatter plot of the fraction of the genome affected by SCNAs in all Ewing tumors staining positive for STAG2 versus STAG2 loss by IHC (mean: 0.15 vs. 0.36, respectively; P = 0.009 by Mann–Whitney test). F, the fraction of genome affected by SCNAs in TP53 wild-type diagnostic tumors staining positive for STAG2 versus STAG2 loss (mean: 0.14 vs. 0.27; P = 0.108 by Mann–Whitney test). G, 88% of patients with STAG2 loss by IHC at diagnosis presented with metastatic disease compared with 27% of patients whose diagnostic tumors expressed STAG2 (P = 0.002 by Fisher exact test). H, heatmap of ssGSEA enrichment z scores for the significant gene sets (SNR ≥ 1.5 and FDR q value <0.05) positively correlated with STAG2 loss (top) or STAG2 expression (bottom). Geneset names are listed in Supplementary Table S13. I and J, GSEA plots of running enrichment scores for two metastatic signatures (j and k) significantly enriched in STAG2 loss samples. **, P < 0.01.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Wild-type ETS genes are not expressed in Ewing sarcoma. A, schematic depicts the generation of gene-level and pre/postfusion RPKMs for EWS and ETS genes (FLI and ERG) from Ewing sarcoma tumor samples. Gene-level RPKMs for ETS genes (green) are derived from all exons for that gene. Reads generated from the wild-type allele or translocated allele cannot be distinguished. Prefusion EWS RPKMs (blue) are generated from all reads that map to the exons before the site of the EWS–ETS breakpoint (reads from rearranged and wild-type alleles cannot be distinguished). Postfusion EWS RPKMs (top, black) map to exons after the breakpoint. Prefusion ETS RPKMs (bottom, black) are derived from alleles before the EWS–ETS breakpoint. Postfusion ETS RPKMs (red) are derived from exons after the breakpoint (reads from the rearranged and wild-type alleles cannot be distinguished). B, left, gene-level RPKMs for FLI are plotted for each tumor with available RNASeq data. Tumors are grouped by whether they express a EWS–FLI or EWS–ERG fusion. Right, gene-level RPKMs for ERG are plotted for each tumor and grouped by fusion type. C, left, prefusion and postfusion EWS RPKMs for all tumors with RNASeq data. Because postfusion exons are not involved in the EWS–ETS rearrangement, expression of these exons indicates the expression of the wild-type EWS allele. Middle, prefusion and postfusion FLI RPKMs for EWS–FLI rearranged tumors. Right, prefusion and postfusion ERG RPKMs for EWS–ERG rearranged tumors. Expression of prefusion ETS exons depends on the wild-type promoter. Thus, prefusion RPKMs reflect expression of wild-type ETS alleles.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Ewing sarcoma tumors acquire somatic aberrancies with treatment. A, coding mutations in 24 Ewing sarcoma tumor samples identified from WES and WGS of patient tumors and paired normal tissue with available clinical data. Bars indicate the number of coding-region mutations in each tumor and are grouped by disease state (diagnostic or treated) and ordered by number of mutations (high to low) within each group. B, the rate of coding mutations is higher in tumors sequenced after treatment than in tumors from diagnostic samples. Plotted are the average mutation rates for diagnostic and treated samples ± the standard deviation (SD), P = 0.0017 by Mann–Whitney test. C, treated tumors have a lower fraction of *CpG to T transitions and a higher fraction of substitutions at cytosines in TpC dinucleotides. The NpN nomenclature indicates the dinucleotide sequence involved in the indicated mutation and * indicates the mutated base. Plotted are the fractions of SNVs for each mutational category ± the 95% CI; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01 by z test. D, shown is the rate of SNVs by 3-base context from tumors acquired at diagnosis (left) or after treatment (right). Colors indicate the single-nucleotide change, and the location of each bar in the matrix indicates the flanking bases. E and F, circos plots of seven tumors sequenced by WGS. Chromosomes displaying cytobands are arranged end-to-end in the outer ring with the inner ring showing segmented copy-number variations generated from exome sequencing. Interchromosomal rearrangements are displayed as purple arcs and intrachromosomal as green arcs. Rearrangements at t(21;22)(q22;q12) in SJDES010 and SJDES018-R indicate the EWS–ERG fusions in these samples. All other tumors demonstrate a translocation at t(11;22)(q24;q12), consistent with the EWS–FLI fusion.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Characteristics of Ewing sarcoma cell lines. A, frequency of molecular aberrancies and gender in Ewing sarcoma cell lines (red) compared with tumor samples (black). STAG2 loss refers to absence of protein expression by Western blot analysis or IHC. There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of cell lines with STAG2 mutation (P = 0.016), STAG2 loss (P = 0.0006), TP53 mutations (P < 0.0001), CDKN2A loss (P = 0.028), and chromosome 1q gain (P = 0.011) compared with tumor samples by Fisher exact test. *, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001. B, projection on the first two components of a principal component analysis applied to RNASeq data from Ewing sarcoma tumors and cell lines. Principal components are ordered on the basis of the percentage of explained variance in the data. Black dots indicate tumor samples and red indicate cell lines. Cell lines and tumors separate into distinct clusters. C, plot of the normalized P value (by −log10) of Student t tests comparing the principal component scores for tumors versus cell lines. The red line indicates a P = 0.05. Only PC1 has a significant P value. D, plot of FDR q value (normalized by −log10) versus normalized enrichment score (NES) of ssGSEA applied to genes (ranked by PC1-weight) to identify Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) canonical pathways enriched by differences in Ewing sarcoma tumors versus cell lines. A negative NES indicates a pathway enriched in tumors and a positive NES indicates a pathway enriched in cell lines. Black dots indicate significant pathways (FDR q value < 0.05) associated with environmental interactions with the extracellular membrane, transmembrane signaling, and the immune system. Red dots indicate significant pathways associated with cellular proliferation including cell division, growth, and metabolism. Significantly enriched signatures are listed in Supplementary Table S17.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Clonal evolution in Ewing sarcoma. A and B, Venn diagrams indicate the number of SNVs and indels detected in paired tumor samples by WES for mutations occurring at bases with adequate coverage to power mutation detection in both tumors. Purple circles include mutations identified in the tumor sequenced from the 26 tumor–normal cohort, and the blue circles include mutations identified in the subsequent relapse. “Cloud plots” indicate the cancer cell fraction (CCF) of these mutations by a central dot surrounded by a cloud. Light dots indicate single mutations. Black dots indicate multiple mutations with the same CCFs in both tumors. Clouds depict the 90% CI of each CCF estimate (smaller clouds represent higher certainty). A, left and middle, cloud plots demonstrate the overlap of mutations identified in 2 patients from whom we sequenced a diagnostic tumor and relapsed metastatic tumor. Right top, MRI and CT images of primary pelvic tumor at diagnosis and lung metastasis at relapse for patient SJDES004. Right bottom, a model depicting the proposed evolution of a metastatic relapsed tumor from a primary tumor. Blue circles represent Ewing sarcoma cells. Symbols within cells represent clusters of mutations (circles) or specific mutations. Time moves from left to right with tumor sampling indicated by vertical lines. The large teardrop indicates the evolving relapsed cell population. Smaller, multicolored teardrops indicate subclonal populations of cells. The absence of some mutations at relapse that are estimated to be clonal at diagnosis indicates that metastatic (met) spread likely occurs after tumor initiation but before the emergence of the dominant clone in the primary tumor. B, left and middle, cloud plots demonstrate mutations identified in two separate locally relapsed tumors from patients with Ewing sarcoma. Right top, MRI and PET images (left to right) from diagnosis, relapse 1 (R1), and relapse 2 (R2) from patient SJDES007 with Ewing sarcoma involving the scapula. Right bottom, schematic depicts the proposed mechanism of evolution from diagnosis to each relapse for tumors from patient SJDES007. At diagnosis, tumors likely contain a mutation in STAG2 (extrapolated from IHC demonstrating loss of STAG2 expression) that cannot be 100% clonal due to the presence of different STAG2 mutations at R1 and R2. The presence of clonal mutations in R1 that are not present in R2 (and vice versa) suggest that local relapses emerge from cells that have diverged from the primary tumor.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • Table 1.

    Demographics

    DemographicPercentage (number/total)
    Male55% (51/92)
    Mean age (min–max)11 y (4 mo–21 y)
    White96% (25/26)
    Black4% (1/26)
    Axial primary (chest, vertebrate, pelvis)42% (25/59)
    Tumors with EWS–FLI (vs. EWS–ERG)85% (22/26)
    Survival (patients sampled at diagnosis)69% (11/16)
    Survival (patients sampled after treatment failure)25% (2/8)

    NOTE: Summary of available clinical data (details are given in Supplementary Table S1).

    Additional Files

    • Figures
    • Tables
    • Supplementary Data

      Files in this Data Supplement:

      • Supplementary Methods, Figure Legends, Figures S1 - S6, Tables S1, S3 - S6, S8 - S15, S17 - This file contains supplementary methods, supplementary references, supplementary figures S1-S6, supplementary tables S1, S3-S6, S8-S15, and S17, and legends for all supplementary figures and tables. Supplementary Figure S1. Summary of Ewing sarcoma tumor and cell line cohorts. Supplementary Figure S2. RNASeq validation of mutations identified by WES and WGS. Supplementary Figure S3. Power calculations for the detection of significantly mutated genes. Supplementary Figure S4. Copy number variants in Ewing sarcoma tumors. Supplementary Figure S5. ETS1 deletions associated with EWS/FLI rearrangements. Supplementary Figure S6. Copy number variants in diagnostic vs. treated Ewing sarcoma tumors. Supplementary Figure S7. SCNAs in paired Ewing sarcoma tumor samples. Supplementary Table S1. Tissue samples. Supplementary Table S3. Multiply mutated genes. Supplementary Table S4. Rearrangements and fusions detected by WGS and RNASeq. Supplementary Table S5. Mutational significance for tumor/normal pairs. Supplementary Table S6. Rate of coding mutations in Ewing sarcoma tumors. Supplementary Table S8. Mutational significance for all tumors. Supplementary Table S9. Gene set enrichment analyses of mutated genes. Supplementary Table S10. Significance of arm-level SCNAs. Supplementary Table S11. Multiply mutated genes of interest in all sample cohorts. Supplementary Table S12. Immunohistochemical staining of STAG2 in Ewing sarcoma tumors. Supplementary Table S13. Gene set enrichment analyses of STAG2 expressing vs. STAG2 loss. Supplementary Table S14. Gene and gene-fragment RPKM Values for EWS and ETS genes. Supplementary Table S15. ETS1 copy-number changes. Supplementary Table S17. Gene set enrichment analyses of tumors vs. cell lines.
      • Supplementary Table S2 - Mutations identified from WES and WGS of 26 tumors with paired normals.
      • Supplementary Table S7 - Variants identified from WES of 92 tumors after filtering.
      • Supplementary Table S16 - Variants identified from WES of 11 cell lines after filtering.
      • Supplementary Table S18 - Mutations identified from WES of 4 subsequent relapses.
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Cancer Discovery: 4 (11)
    November 2014
    Volume 4, Issue 11
    • Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents (PDF)
    • About the Cover

    Sign up for alerts

    View this article with LENS

    Open full page PDF
    Article Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Email Article

    Thank you for sharing this Cancer Discovery article.

    NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    The Genomic Landscape of Pediatric Ewing Sarcoma
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Discovery
    (Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Discovery.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    The Genomic Landscape of Pediatric Ewing Sarcoma
    Brian D. Crompton, Chip Stewart, Amaro Taylor-Weiner, Gabriela Alexe, Kyle C. Kurek, Monica L. Calicchio, Adam Kiezun, Scott L. Carter, Sachet A. Shukla, Swapnil S. Mehta, Aaron R. Thorner, Carmen de Torres, Cinzia Lavarino, Mariona Suñol, Aaron McKenna, Andrey Sivachenko, Kristian Cibulskis, Michael S. Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Mara Rosenberg, Lauren Ambrogio, Daniel Auclair, Sara Seepo, Brendan Blumenstiel, Matthew DeFelice, Ivan Imaz-Rosshandler, Angela Schwarz-Cruz y Celis, Miguel N. Rivera, Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, Mark D. Fleming, Todd R. Golub, Gad Getz, Jaume Mora and Kimberly Stegmaier
    Cancer Discov November 1 2014 (4) (11) 1326-1341; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-1037

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    The Genomic Landscape of Pediatric Ewing Sarcoma
    Brian D. Crompton, Chip Stewart, Amaro Taylor-Weiner, Gabriela Alexe, Kyle C. Kurek, Monica L. Calicchio, Adam Kiezun, Scott L. Carter, Sachet A. Shukla, Swapnil S. Mehta, Aaron R. Thorner, Carmen de Torres, Cinzia Lavarino, Mariona Suñol, Aaron McKenna, Andrey Sivachenko, Kristian Cibulskis, Michael S. Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Mara Rosenberg, Lauren Ambrogio, Daniel Auclair, Sara Seepo, Brendan Blumenstiel, Matthew DeFelice, Ivan Imaz-Rosshandler, Angela Schwarz-Cruz y Celis, Miguel N. Rivera, Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, Mark D. Fleming, Todd R. Golub, Gad Getz, Jaume Mora and Kimberly Stegmaier
    Cancer Discov November 1 2014 (4) (11) 1326-1341; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-1037
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Introduction
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Methods
      • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
      • Authors' Contributions
      • Grant Support
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    Advertisement

    Related Articles

    Cited By...

    More in this TOC Section

    • Genetically Defined High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Models
    • Personalized Antibodies for Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma
    • Fibroblastic NetG1 Promotes Pancreatic Cancer
    Show more Research Articles
    • Home
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Privacy Policy
    Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

    Articles

    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues

    Info For

    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Librarians

    About Cancer Discovery

    • About the Journal
    • Editors
    • Journal Sections
    • Permissions
    • Submit a Manuscript
    AACR logo

    Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

    Cancer Discovery
    eISSN: 2159-8290
    ISSN: 2159-8274

    Advertisement