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
    • 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
    • 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

Epigenomic Promoter Alterations Amplify Gene Isoform and Immunogenic Diversity in Gastric Adenocarcinoma

Aditi Qamra, Manjie Xing, Nisha Padmanabhan, Jeffrey Jun Ting Kwok, Shenli Zhang, Chang Xu, Yan Shan Leong, Ai Ping Lee Lim, Qianqao Tang, Wen Fong Ooi, Joyce Suling Lin, Tannistha Nandi, Xiaosai Yao, Xuewen Ong, Minghui Lee, Su Ting Tay, Angie Tan Lay Keng, Erna Gondo Santoso, Cedric Chuan Young Ng, Alvin Ng, Apinya Jusakul, Duane Smoot, Hassan Ashktorab, Sun Young Rha, Khay Guan Yeoh, Wei Peng Yong, Pierce K.H. Chow, Weng Hoong Chan, Hock Soo Ong, Khee Chee Soo, Kyoung-Mee Kim, Wai Keong Wong, Steven G. Rozen, Bin Tean Teh, Dennis Kappei, Jeeyun Lee, John Connolly and Patrick Tan
Aditi Qamra
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
2Department of Physiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manjie Xing
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
4NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nisha Padmanabhan
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey Jun Ting Kwok
5Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shenli Zhang
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chang Xu
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yan Shan Leong
6Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ai Ping Lee Lim
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qianqao Tang
7Laboratory of Cancer Epigenome, Department of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wen Fong Ooi
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joyce Suling Lin
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tannistha Nandi
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaosai Yao
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xuewen Ong
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Minghui Lee
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Su Ting Tay
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angie Tan Lay Keng
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erna Gondo Santoso
7Laboratory of Cancer Epigenome, Department of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cedric Chuan Young Ng
7Laboratory of Cancer Epigenome, Department of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alvin Ng
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
4NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Apinya Jusakul
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Duane Smoot
8Department of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hassan Ashktorab
9Department of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sun Young Rha
10Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Khay Guan Yeoh
11Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore.
12Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wei Peng Yong
13Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Hospital of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pierce K.H. Chow
14Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
15Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Weng Hoong Chan
16Department of Upper Gastrointestinal & Bariatric Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hock Soo Ong
16Department of Upper Gastrointestinal & Bariatric Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Khee Chee Soo
15Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kyoung-Mee Kim
17Department of Pathology & Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wai Keong Wong
16Department of Upper Gastrointestinal & Bariatric Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven G. Rozen
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
18SingHealth/Duke-NUS Institute of Precision Medicine, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bin Tean Teh
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
6Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
7Laboratory of Cancer Epigenome, Department of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore.
18SingHealth/Duke-NUS Institute of Precision Medicine, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dennis Kappei
6Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeeyun Lee
19Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Connolly
5Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore.
20Institute of Biomedical Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Tan
1Cancer Therapeutics and Stratified Oncology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore.
3Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
6Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
18SingHealth/Duke-NUS Institute of Precision Medicine, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore.
21Cellular and Molecular Research, National Cancer Centre, Singapore.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: gmstanp@duke-nus.edu.sg
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1022 Published June 2017
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Promoter elements play important roles in isoform and cell type–specific expression. We surveyed the epigenomic promoter landscape of gastric adenocarcinoma, analyzing 110 chromatin profiles (H3K4me3, H3K4me1, H3K27ac) of primary gastric cancers, gastric cancer lines, and nonmalignant gastric tissues. We identified nearly 2,000 promoter alterations (somatic promoters), many deregulated in various epithelial malignancies and mapping frequently to alternative promoters within the same gene, generating potential pro-oncogenic isoforms (RASA3). Somatic promoter–associated N-terminal peptides displaying relative depletion in tumors exhibited high-affinity MHC binding predictions and elicited potent T-cell responses in vitro, suggesting a mechanism for reducing tumor antigenicity. In multiple patient cohorts, gastric cancers with high somatic promoter usage also displayed reduced T-cell cytolytic marker expression. Somatic promoters are enriched in PRC2 occupancy, display sensitivity to EZH2 therapeutic inhibition, and are associated with novel cancer-associated transcripts. By generating tumor-specific isoforms and decreasing tumor antigenicity, epigenomic promoter alterations may thus drive intrinsic tumorigenesis and also allow nascent cancers to evade host immunity.

Significance: We apply epigenomic profiling to demarcate the promoter landscape of gastric cancer. Many tumor-specific promoters activate different promoters in the same gene, some generating pro-oncogenic isoforms. Tumor-specific promoters also reduce tumor antigenicity by causing relative depletion of immunogenic peptides, contributing to cancer immunoediting and allowing tumors to evade host immune attack. Cancer Discov; 7(6); 630–51. ©2017 AACR.

This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 539

Introduction

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of global cancer mortality with high prevalence in many East Asian countries (1). Patients with gastric cancer often present with late-stage disease (2, 3), and clinical management remains challenging, as exemplified by several recent negative phase II and phase III clinical trials (4–7). At the molecular level, studies have identified characteristic gene mutations (8, 9), copy-number alterations, gene fusions (10), and transcriptional patterns in gastric cancer (11, 12). However, few of these have been clinically translated into targeted therapies, with the exception of HER2-positive gastric cancer and trastuzumab (13). There is thus a strong need for additional and more comprehensive explorations of gastric cancer, as these may highlight new biomarkers for disease detection, predicting patient prognosis or responses to therapy, as well as new therapeutic modalities.

Promoter elements are cis-regulatory elements that function to link gene transcription initiation to upstream regulatory stimuli, integrating inputs from diverse signaling pathways (14). Promoters represent an important reservoir of biological, functional, and regulatory diversity, as current estimates suggest that 30% to 50% of genes in the human genome are associated with multiple promoters (15), which can be selectively activated as a function of developmental lineage and cellular state (16). Differential usage of alternative promoters causes the generation of distinct 5′ untranslated regions (5′ UTR) and first exons in transcripts, which in turn can influence mRNA expression levels (17), translational efficiencies (18, 19), and the generation of different protein isoforms through gain and loss of 5′ coding domains (15, 20). In cancer, alternative promoters in genes such as ALK (21), TP53 (22), LEF1 (23), and CYP19A1 (24) have been reported, producing cancer-specific isoform variants with oncogenic properties. To date, promoter alterations in cancer have been largely studied on a gene-by-gene basis, and very little is known about the global extent of promoter-level diversity in gastric cancer and other solid malignancies.

Promoters in the genome can be experimentally identified by various methods. Broadly divided into RNA-based or epigenomic approaches, the former involves technologies such as RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), CAP analysis gene expression (CAGE), and global run-on sequencing (25–27). For the latter, active promoters have been shown to exhibit characteristic chromatin modifications, specifically H3K4me3 positivity, H3K27ac positivity, and H3K4me1 depletion (28–31). Compared with transcriptome sequencing (25), using histone modifications to identify promoters carries certain advantages. First, epigenome-guided promoter identification allows genomic localization of the promoter element itself, rather than the ensuing transcript product. Second, particularly for clinical samples, epigenome-guided promoter identification is less prone to transcript degradation artifacts caused by 5′ RNA exonucleases (32). Epigenome-marked promoters may also highlight transcript classes not easily detectible by other means, such as promoters originating via recapping events, short-lived RNAs (27), or unstable RNAs with greater sensitivity to exosome-mediated decay, such as promoter upstream transcripts (33) and/or enhancer RNAs (34–36).

In this work, we analyzed a gastric cancer cohort of primary samples and cell lines to survey the landscape of altered promoter elements in gastric cancer. Our study applied microscale histone modification profiling [Nano–chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (Nano-ChIP-seq)] to profile primary cancers (37, 38), which allows the measurement of epigenomic modifications in vivo, compared with laboratory-cultured cell lines that may harbor epigenomic artifacts due to in vitro culture (39, 40). By comparing the epigenomic promoter profiles of primary gastric cancers and matched normal tissues, we observed pervasive alterations in promoter usage in gastric cancer, and an important role for somatic promoters in enhancing gastric cancer transcript, protein isoform, and immunogenic diversity. We also found that many somatic promoters observed in gastric cancer are deregulated in other cancer types, supporting a generalized role for somatic promoters in solid malignancies. To our knowledge, our study represents one of the largest and most comprehensive surveys of somatic promoters in any single tumor type.

Results

Identifying Epigenomic Promoter Alterations in Gastric Cancer

Using Nano-ChIP-seq (37), we profiled three histone modification marks (H3K4me3, H3K27ac, and H3K4me1) across 17 gastric cancers, matched normal gastric mucosae (34 samples), and 13 gastric cancer cell lines, generating 110 epigenomic profiles (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 provide clinical and sequencing metrics; Fig. 1A). Quality control of the Nano-ChIP-seq data was performed using two independent methods: ChIP enrichment at known promoters and employing the ChIP-seq quality control and validation tool ChIP-seq analytics and confidence estimation (CHANCE; ref. 41). Comparisons of Nano-ChIP-seq read densities at 1,000 promoters associated with highly expressed protein-coding genes confirmed successful enrichment in all H3K27ac and H3K4me3 libraries. CHANCE analysis also revealed that the large majority (81%) of samples exhibited successful enrichment (Supplementary Table S2). We have previously also shown that Nano-ChIP signals exhibit a good concordance with orthogonal ChIP-qPCR results (38).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Somatic promoters in primary gastric adenocarcinoma. A, Example of an unaltered gastric cancer (GC) promoter. The UCSC genome track of the RHOA TSS (shaded box) highlights similar H3K4me3 signals in gastric cancer and matched normal samples. Similar signals are seen in gastric cancer lines. The bottom two tracks display similar levels of RNA expression in the same gastric cancer and matched normal samples (RNA-seq). B, Example of a gained somatic promoter. The UCSC genome track of the CEACAM6 TSS (shaded box) highlights gain of H3K4me3 signals in gastric cancer samples and gastric cancer lines, compared with matched normal samples. In contrast, no changes are observed at the TSS of CEACAM5, an adjacent gene. Concordant tumor-specific gain of RNA expression is shown in the bottom two tracks displaying RNA-seq profiles of the same gastric cancer and matched normal samples. C, Example of a lost somatic promoter. The UCSC genome track of the ATP4A TSS (shaded box) highlights loss of H3K4me3 signals in gastric cancer samples and gastric cancer lines compared with matched normal samples. Concordant tumor-specific loss of RNA expression is shown in the bottom two tracks displaying RNA-seq profiles of the same gastric cancer and matched normal samples. D, Heat map of H3K4me3 read densities (row scaled) of somatic promoters (rows) in primary gastric cancer and matched normal samples. E, Correlation between H3K4me3 promoter signals and H3K27ac activity signals in primary gastric samples (r = 0.91, P < 0.001). Each data point corresponds to a single H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo region. Gold points, all promoters; blue points, somatic promoters. Analysis was performed using data from 16 N/T pairs (Supplementary Table S2). F, Top five gene sets associated with canonical gained and lost somatic promoters. Gene sets associated with genes upregulated and downregulated in gastric cancer are rediscovered. Also note that gene sets related to H3K27me3 and SUZ12, a PRC2 component, are enriched. ESC, embryonic stem cell; HCP, high-CpG promoter.

To enable accurate promoter identification, we integrated data from multiple histone modifications, selecting H3K4me3 regions simultaneously codepleted for H3K4me1 (“H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo regions”; Supplementary Fig. S1; Methods; ref. 42). Comparisons against data from external sources, including GENCODE reference transcripts, ENCODE chromatin state models, and CAGE databases, validated the vast majority of H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo regions as true promoter elements (Supplementary Text; Supplementary Fig. S1). Because primary gastric tissues comprise several different tissue types, including epithelial cells, immune cells, and stroma, we further confirmed that our promoter profiles were reflective of bona fide gastric epithelia by comparison against Epigenome Roadmap data for gastric and nongastric tissues. Gastric tumor and matched normal promoter profiles exhibited the highest correlations to Roadmap gastric mucosae and were distinct from other gastrointestinal tissues (small intestine, colon mucosa, colon sigmoid), stomach-associated muscle, skin, and blood (CD14; Supplementary Fig. S2). Primary tissue promoter profiles also showed a significant overlap with promoter profiles of gastric cancer cell lines (87%), which are purely epithelial in origin, compared with gastrointestinal fibroblast lines (58%–69%), and colon carcinoma lines (59%–74%; Supplementary Fig. S2).

In total, we mapped approximately 23,000 promoter elements in the Nano-ChIP-seq cohort. Visual exploration of these promoter elements identified three main promoter categories: unaltered promoters, promoters gained in tumors (gained somatic or tumor-specific promoters), and promoters present in normal gastric tissues but lost or decreased in gastric cancer (lost somatic or normal-specific promoters; Fig. 1A–C). Representative examples of unaltered promoters included RHOA (Fig. 1A), whereas CEACAM6, an intracellular adhesion gene, exhibited somatic promoter gain at the CEACAM6 transcription start site (TSS) in tumor samples and cell lines (Fig. 1B). Conversely, ATP4A, a parietal cell–associated H+/K+ ATPase with decreased expression in gastric cancer (43), exhibited somatic promoter loss (Fig. 1C). Both CEACAM6 and ATP4A promoter alterations were correlated with increased and decreased CEACAM6 and ATP4A gene expression in the same samples, respectively (Fig. 1B and C).

Previous studies have established distinct molecular subtypes of gastric cancer (11, 12, 44). Because of limited sample sizes, however, we elected in the current study to identify promoter alterations (“somatic promoters”; ref. 45–47) present in multiple gastric cancer tissues relative to control tissues irrespective of subtype. Focusing on recurrent alterations also has the benefit of reducing potential artifacts due to “private” epigenomic variation or individual sample-specific technical errors. Using two complementary read count–based algorithms commonly used for analysis of ChIP-seq data (48–50), we identified approximately 2,000 highly recurrent somatic promoters, of which 75% were gained in gastric cancers [fold change (FC) ≥ 1.5, q < 0.1]. Two-dimensional heat map clustering and principal component analysis (PCA) plots based on somatic promoters confirmed a separation of gastric cancer samples from normal samples (Fig. 1D; Supplementary Fig. S3). Somatic promoter H3K4me3 levels were also highly correlated with H3K27ac signals, commonly regarded as a marker of active regulatory activity (42, 51). This correlation was observed across all somatic promoters (r = 0.84, P < 0.001, Fig. 1E), and also when gained somatic promoters and lost somatic promoters were analyzed separately (r = 0.78, P < 0.001 for gained somatic; r = 0.82, P < 0.001 for lost somatic, Supplementary Fig. S3). Pathway analysis revealed that both gained somatic promoters and lost somatic promoters were significantly associated with expression gene sets previously reported to be upregulated and downregulated in gastric cancer, respectively (Fig. 1F). These included upregulated oncogenes (MET, ABL2), cell adhesion genes (CEACAM6), and claudin family members (CLDN7, CLDN3). Fifteen percent to 18% of somatic promoters mapped to noncoding RNAs, including HOTAIR and PVT1, previously associated with gastric cancer (Supplementary Table S3; refs. 52, 53). Additional analyses at increasing thresholds of stringency (FC from 1.5 to 2 and FDR from 0.1 to 0.001) yielded similar results, supporting the robustness of this analysis (Supplementary Fig. S3). These results demonstrate that normal gastric epithelia and gastric cancers can be distinguished on the basis of epigenomic promoter profiles.

Somatic Promoters in Gastric Cancer Exhibit Deregulation in Diverse Cancer Types

To explore relationships between epigenomic promoter alterations and gene expression, we analyzed RNA-seq data from the same discovery cohort (∼106 million reads/sample), quantifying RNA-seq transcript reads mapping to the epigenome-guided promoter regions or directly downstream. Examining somatic promoter regions (Fig. 2A provides an illustrative example of a gained somatic promoter), we observed significantly increased expression at gained somatic promoters in gastric cancers and significantly decreased expression at lost somatic promoters, compared with either all promoters (P < 0.001; Fig. 2B), or unaltered promoters (P < 0.001; Supplementary Fig. S4; refs. 27, 51, 54). Among other types of epigenetic modifications, previous studies have also reported a reciprocal relationship between active regulatory regions and DNA methylation (54, 55). Using Infinium 450K DNA methylation arrays, we identified 7,505 CpG sites overlapping the somatic promoter regions (5,213 sites for gained somatic promoters; 2,292 sites for lost somatic promoters). Promoters gained in gastric cancer were significantly hypomethylated compared with all promoters (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test), whereas promoters lost in gastric cancer were hypermethylated (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test; Fig. 2B, bottom). As DNA methylation typically occurs in CpG-rich regions (56), we then repeated the analysis focusing only on CpG island–bearing promoters (Methods). Similar to the original results, CpG island–bearing promoters gained in gastric cancer were significantly hypomethylated compared with all CpG island–bearing promoters (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test), whereas CpG island–bearing promoters lost in gastric cancer were hypermethylated (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test; Supplementary Fig. S5).

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

Association of somatic promoters with gene expression in gastric cancer (GC) and other tumor types. A, Example of a gastric cancer somatic promoter (red, H3K4me3 signal in gastric cancer; blue, H3K4me3 signal in gastric normal). Example is for illustrative purposes only. B, Changes in RNA-seq expression (top) and DNA methylation (bottom) in discovery samples between somatic promoters and all promoters. Top, box plot depicting changes in RNA-seq expression between 9 paired primary gastric cancer and gastric normal samples at genomic regions exhibiting somatic promoters (gained and lost; ***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). Bottom, box plot depicting changes in DNA methylation (β-values) at regions exhibiting somatic promoters between 20 paired gastric cancer and gastric normal samples, compared with all promoters (***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). C, Independent validation cohorts. Box plot depicting changes in RNA-seq expression at genomic regions exhibiting somatic promoters across 354 (321 gastric cancer, 33 normal) TCGA stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) samples, compared with all promoters (***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). D, Somatic promoters in other cancer types. Box plot depicting changes in RNA-seq expression at genomic regions exhibiting gastric cancer somatic promoters compared against all promoters, across 326 TCGA colon adenocarcinoma (COAD) samples (286 COAD, 40 normal; ***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test), 170 TCGA kidney ccRCC samples (98 ccRCC and 72 normal; ***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test), and 115 TCGA LUAD samples (58 LUAD, 57 normal; ***, P < 0.001 somatic gain vs. all promoters and somatic gain vs. somatic loss, Wilcoxon test). T/N, tumor/normal.

To validate the somatic promoters in a larger independent gastric cancer cohort and also to examine their behavior in other cancer types, we proceeded to query RNA-seq data of 354 gastric cancer samples from the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) consortium (n = 321 gastric cancer samples, n = 33 matched normals). To perform this analysis, RNA-seq reads from TCGA samples were mapped against the epigenome-guided somatic promoter regions defined by the discovery samples and normalized to calculate fold-change differences in expression between gastric cancer samples versus normal samples (see Methods). Similar to the discovery series, we observed that TCGA gastric cancer samples also exhibited significantly increased expression at gained somatic promoters, whereas lost somatic promoters exhibited decreased expression, relative to either all promoters (P < 0.001; Fig. 2C) or unaltered promoters (P < 0.001; Supplementary Fig. S4). We further tested the tissue specificity of the gastric cancer somatic promoters by querying RNA-seq data from other tumor types, including colon cancer, kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD; Fig. 2D). Almost two thirds (n = 1,231, 63%, FC ≥ 1.5) of gastric cancer somatic promoters were also differentially regulated in TCGA colon cancer samples, and similarly, a significant proportion of gastric cancer somatic promoters were also associated with differential RNA-seq expression in TCGA ccRCC (n = 939, 48%, FC ≥ 1.5) and LUAD samples (n = 1,059, 54%, FC ≥ 1.5; Fig. 2D). This result suggests that many gastric cancer somatic promoters are also likely associated with deregulated promoter activity in other solid epithelial malignancies.

Role of Alternative Promoters

By comparing the somatic promoters against the reference GENCODE database (V19; ref. 57), we discovered extensive use of alternative promoters (18%) in gastric cancers, defined as situations where a common unaltered promoter is present in both normal tissues and tumors (canonical promoter) but a secondary tumor-specific promoter is engaged in the latter (alternative promoter). The remaining 82% of somatic promoters corresponded to single major isoforms or unannotated transcripts (see below). Fifty-seven percent of the alternative promoters occurred downstream of the canonical promoter. Using multiple RNA-seq analysis methods, we confirmed that transcript isoforms driven by alternative promoters are overexpressed in gastric cancers to a significantly greater degree than canonical promoters in the same gene (Methods; Supplementary Fig. S6). For example, HNF4A, a transcription factor overexpressed in gastric cancer (58–61), is driven by two promoters (P1 and P2). At the HNF4A canonical promoter (“P2”), we observed equal promoter signals in gastric cancer tissues and normal tissues; however, we also further observed gain of an additional promoter in gastric cancers at a TSS 45 kb downstream (“P1”). Similarly, HNF4A P1 promoter gains were also observed in gastric cancer cell lines (Fig. 3A), with RNA-seq analysis supporting expression of the HNF4A P1 isoform in gastric cancers. Alternative promoter usage was also observed at the EPCAM gene, frequently used to identify circulating tumor cells, causing expression of EPCAM transcript ENST00000263735.4 (Fig. 3B). Notably, both the HNF4A and EPCAM alternative isoforms exhibited significantly greater cancer overexpression compared with their canonical isoforms (Supplementary Fig. S6). Other genes associated with tumor-specific alternative promoters, many reported for the first time, include NKX6-3 (FC = 1.83, q < 0.05) and GRIN2D (FC = 1.9, q < 0.001). A complete list of gastric cancer tumor–specific promoters is provided in Supplementary Table S4.

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

Alternative promoters in gastric cancer (GC). A, UCSC browser track of the HNF4A gene. Gastric cancer and matched gastric normal samples have equal H3K4me3 signals at the canonical HNF4A promoter. However, an alternative promoter, seen by H3K4me3 gain, can be observed at a downstream TSS in gastric cancers compared with matched normals. At the RNA level, both in-house and TCGA STAD samples also show gain of gene expression at the alternate promoter TSS compared with normal samples. B, UCSC browser track of the EPCAM gene. Another example of alternative promoter usage at a downstream TSS. Gain of H3K4me3 is observed at a TSS downstream of the canonical promoter, while the canonical promoter exhibits equal H3K4me3 signals in gastric cancer and gastric normal. Gain of RNA-seq expression can also be observed in gastric cancer at the alternative promoter–driven transcript in both in-house and TCGA STAD samples. C, UCSC browser track of the RASA3 gene, demonstrating H3K4me3 and RNA-seq signals highlighting gain of promoter activity at an unannotated TSS (dark gray box) corresponding to a novel N-terminal truncated RASA3 transcript. Expression of this variant transcript was validated through 5′ Rapid Amplification of cDNA Ends (RACE) in gastric cancer lines (bottom). D, Functional domains of the translated RASA3 canonical and alternate isoform. The alternate transcript is predicted to encode a RASA3 protein missing the RASGAP domain. E, Effect of overexpression of RASA3 canonical (CanT) and alternate (SomT) isoforms on the migration capability of SNU1967 (top) and GES1 (bottom) cells. Representative images of RASA3-Ctl (empty vector), RASA3-CanT, and RASA3-SomT in migration assays (n = 3). Bar plots show the percentage area of migrated cells versus the area of Transwell membrane. Data are shown as mean ± SD; n = 3 (**, P < 0.01; Student one sided t test).

To explore the influence of alternative promoters on protein diversity, we identified 714 tumor-specific promoter alterations predicted to change N-terminal protein composition and also supported by both H3K4me3 and RNA-seq data. The vast majority of these alterations (>95%) were in-frame to that of the canonical protein. Of these, 47% (n = 338) were predicted to cause gains of new N-terminal peptides in tumors (see Methods). To confirm protein-level expression of these N-terminal peptides in gastrointestinal cancer, we queried publicly available peptide spectral data of 90 TCGA colorectal cancer and 60 normal colon samples (62, 63). Colorectal cancer data were used for this analysis, as large-scale proteomic data of primary gastric cancers are not currently available, and because many gastric cancer somatic promoters are also observed in colorectal cancer (Fig. 2D). Across all proteins detected, proteins with gained promoters were overexpressed in cancer to a significantly greater extent than proteins without gained promoters (P < 0.001; 63% vs. 54%; Fisher test). Then, examining specific N-terminal peptides predicted to be gained in tumors, we confirmed protein expression of 33% (112/338) in the colorectal cancer data (Supplementary Table S5), of which 51.8% were overexpressed in colorectal cancer samples relative to normal colon samples (FDR, 10%). In a separate experiment, we further investigated whether these N-terminal peptides also exhibit tumor overexpression in proteomic data from 3 gastric cancer cell lines and 1 normal gastric epithelial line (GES1; see Methods). Similar to the colorectal cancer data, 48% of the N-terminal peptides were overexpressed in the gastric cancer lines relative to normal GES1 gastric cells, and again, a significantly greater proportion of proteins with gained promoters were overexpressed in cancer compared with proteins without gained promoters (P < 0.001; Fisher test). Taken collectively, these analyses suggest that alternative promoters may contribute significantly toward proteomic diversity in gastrointestinal cancer.

To examine possible functions of somatic promoters in cancer development, we focused on RASA3, which encodes a RAS GTPase-activating protein required for Gαi-induced inhibition of MAPK (64). In both gastric cancers (50%) and gastric cancer lines, we observed gain of promoter activity at an intronic region 127 kb downstream apart from the canonical RASA3 TSS (Fig. 3C, top; Supplementary Fig. S7). RNA-seq and 5′ Rapid Amplification of cDNA Ends (RACE) analysis confirmed expression of this shorter RASA3 isoform (Fig. 3C, bottom), and expression of this shorter RASA3 isoform was also observed in TCGA RNA-seq data (Fig. 3C). Using isoform-specific quantitative PCR, we confirmed that although both the canonical full-length RASA3 and shorter RASA3 isoform are overexpressed in gastric cancer tissues relative to matched normal tissues (P < 0.01 Student one sided t test), the shorter RASA3 isoform is overexpressed to a significantly greater extent (FC = 2.64, P = 0.01, Student one sided t test; Supplementary Fig. S7). Compared with the canonical full-length RASA3 protein (CanT), the shorter 31-kDa RASA3 somatic isoform (SomT) is predicted to lack the N-terminal RASGAP domain (Fig. 3D). Consistent with these predictions, transfection of RASA3 CanT into GES1 normal gastric epithelial cells induced lower levels of active GTP-bound RAS compared with either empty vector or RASA3 SomT transfected cells, indicating that RASA3 CanT has higher RASGAP activity (Supplementary Fig. S7).

To address functions of RASA3 SomT, we transfected the RASA3 CanT and SomT isoforms into SNU1967 gastric cancer cells. Compared with untransfected cells, transfection of RASA3 SomT into SNU1967 cells significantly stimulated migration (P < 0.01) and invasion (P < 0.01), whereas RASA3 CanT significantly suppressed invasion (P < 0.001; Fig. 3E, Supplementary Fig. S7). Similarly, transfection of RASA3 SomT into GES1 cells significantly stimulated migration (P < 0.01, Fig. 3E) and invasion (P < 0.01, Supplementary Fig. S7), whereas RASA3 CanT did not. When tested on KRAS-mutated AGS gastric cancer cells that are innately highly migratory, expression of RASA3 CanT potently suppressed migration, whereas RASA3 SomT exhibited significantly less attenuation (P = 0.03, Supplementary Fig. S7). These results suggest that tumor-specific use of RASA3 SomT is likely to increase gastric cancer cell migration and invasion. Notably, RASA3 CanT and SomT transfections did not alter SNU1967, GES1, or AGS cellular proliferation rates (Supplementary Fig. S7). To confirm that these observations are not due to nonphysiologic in vitro expression levels, we then examined NCC24 gastric cancer cells, which normally express high endogenous levels of RASA3 SomT and minimal RASA3 CanT (Supplementary Fig. S7). Silencing of endogenous RASA3 SomT using two independent siRNA constructs significantly inhibited NCC24 migration and invasion (P < 0.01–0.001; Supplementary Fig. S7), consistent with RASA3 SomT playing a role in promoting cancer migration and invasion.

In an earlier study (38), we reported a transcript isoform of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase driven by an internal alternative promoter, which has been independently confirmed in other cancer types (65). However, functional implications of this MET variant (Var) remain unclear. RNA-seq and 5′ RACE analysis confirmed transcript expression of this shorter isoform, predicted to harbor a truncated SEMA domain (Supplementary Fig. S8). To assess functional differences between wild-type (WT) and Var MET, we performed transient transfections of MET-WT and MET-Var into HEK293 cells. In both untreated and HGF-treated conditions, MET-Var transfected cells exhibited significantly higher levels of pGAB1 (Y627), a key mediator of MET signaling [e.g., 2.48- to 3.95-fold comparing MET-Var vs. MET-WT, P = 0.003 (untreated), P < 0.05 (T15 and T30); ref. 66]. In addition, in HGF-untreated samples, cells transfected with MET-Var also exhibited higher pERK1/2 levels (2.74-fold) and higher pSTAT3 (Y705; refs. 67–70) levels (1.80-fold) compared with MET-WT [P = 0.023 and P = 0.026 for pERK and pSTAT3 (Y705), respectively]. These results suggest that expression of the MET-Var isoform may promote MET downstream signaling kinetics in a manner important for gastric cancer tumorigenesis.

Somatic Promoters Correlate with Tumor Immunity

Cancer immunoediting is a process where developing tumors sculpt their immunogenic and antigenic profile to evade host immune surveillance (71, 72). Mechanisms of cancer immunoediting are diverse, including upregulation of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-L1 (72). To explore potential contributions of somatic promoters to tumor immunity, we identified somatic promoter–associated N-terminal peptides with high predicted affinity binding to various MHC class I HLA alleles (Supplementary Tables S6 and S7), which are required for antigen presentation to CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (IC50 ≤ 50 nmol/L, Fig. 4A; ref. 73). Analysis of recurrent somatic promoter–associated peptides using the NetMHCpan-2.8 (74) algorithm against patient-specific MHC class I alleles revealed a significant enrichment in high-affinity MHC I binding compared with multiple control peptide populations, including canonical gastric cancer peptides (average 36% vs. 24%; P < 0.01), randomly selected peptides (P < 0.001), and C-terminal peptides (P < 0.01; Fig. 4B shows HLA-A, B, and C combined; Supplementary Fig. S9A depicts data for HLA-A only). The majority of these high-affinity somatic promoter–associated peptides corresponded to situations where the somatic transcript lacking the N-terminal peptide is overexpressed in tumors relative to normal tissues (78% lost; 76/97 high-affinity peptides, Fig. 4C), and the proportion of high-affinity MHC-binding peptides among lost peptides was significantly greater than among gained peptides (37% vs. 21%, P < 0.05, Fisher test). Notably, because transcripts driven by the N-terminal lacking somatic TSSs are also overexpressed in tumors to a significantly greater degree than transcripts driven by the canonical TSS (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon one-sided test; Supplementary Fig. S6), such a scenario would be expected to result in relative depletion of N-terminal immunogenic peptides in tumors. Interestingly, an analogous N-terminal analysis using RNA-seq data alone (in the absence of epigenomic data) revealed that epigenome-guided N-terminal peptides exhibited significantly higher predicted immunogenicity scores compared with RNA-seq–only identified peptides (36.10% vs. 27% for MHC presentation,P = 0.02, Fisher test), suggesting that epigenome-guided promoter identification can provide complementary value to RNA-seq–only guided analyses (Supplementary Fig. S9).

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

Somatic promoters correlate with immunoediting signatures. A, Schematic outlining alternative promoter usage [H3K4me3 box, overlapping gastric cancer (GC) in red and normal gastric tissue in blue] leading to alternative transcript usage (transcript box) and N-terminally truncated protein isoforms (protein box). B, Bar plot showing the average percentage of peptides with predicted high-affinity binding to MHC class I (HLA-A, B, and C, IC50 ≤ 50 nmol/L). N-terminal peptides associated with recurrent somatic promoters (alternative promoters) show significantly enriched predicted MHC I binding compared with canonical gastric cancer peptides (P < 0.01, Fisher test), random peptides from the human proteome (P < 0.001), and C-terminal peptides (P < 0.01) derived from the same genes exhibiting the N-terminal alterations. Canonical peptides refer to peptides derived from protein-coding genes overexpressed in gastric cancer through nonalternative promoters. C, Percentage (%) of high-affinity peptides predicted to bind different patient-specific HLA alleles categorized by somatic gain or loss. Most alleles have a greater number of N-terminal lost peptides predicted to have high binding affinity. The percentage of patients bearing specific HLA alleles is denoted inside the brackets. D, Quantification of somatic promoter expression using NanoString profiling. Top, distinct NanoString probes were designed to measure the expression of alternate and canonical promoter–driven transcripts. Two probes were designed for each gene, a canonical probe at the 5′ transcript marked by unaltered H3K4me3, and an alternate probe at the 5′ transcript of the somatic promoter. Bottom, heat map of alternative promoter expression from 95 gastric cancer and matched normal samples. Gastric cancer samples have been ordered left to right by their levels of somatic promoter usage. E, Association between somatic promoters and T-cell immune correlates. NS, not significant. Samples with high somatic promoter usage are in red, whereas those with low usage are in blue. Top left, expression of T-cell markers CD8A (P = 0.1443) and the T-cell cytolytic markers GZMA (P = 0.0001) and PRF1 (P = 0. 00806) in gastric cancer samples with either high or low somatic promoter usage (SG cohort). Samples with high alternative promoter usage show lower expression of immune markers. All P values are from Wilcoxon one-sided test. Top right, Kaplan–Meier analysis comparing overall survival curves between validation samples with high somatic promoter usage (top 25%) and low somatic promoter usage (bottom 25%; HR = 2.56, P = 0.02). Bottom left, expression of T-cell markers CD8A (P = 0.02), GZMA (P = 0.01), and PRF1 (P = 0.03) in TCGA STAD with either high or low somatic promoter usage. T-cell markers were evaluated by RNA-seq [transcripts per million (TPM)]. Bottom right, expression of T-cell markers CD8A (P = 0.035), GZMA (P = 0.001), and PRF1 (P = 0.025) in Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) gastric cancer samples with either high or low somatic promoter usage. All P values are from Wilcoxon one-sided test. F, EPIMAX heat map of total cytokine responses (fold change relative to actin) for 15 peptide pools against 9 donors. G, Individual cytokine responses against 15 peptides for two individual donors (donor 2 and donor 3) showing complex cytokine responses (FC ≥ 2). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001.

To explore whether somatic promoters might contribute to reducing tumor antigen burden and immunoreactivity in vivo, we proceeded to examine correlations between promoter alterations and intratumor T-cell activity in various primary gastric cancer cohorts. First, to detect promoter alterations in a cohort of 95 gastric cancer–normal pairs [Singapore (SG) cohort], we generated a customized NanoString panel targeting the top 95 recurrent gastric cancer somatic promoters, measuring transcripts associated with either the canonical promoter or the alternative promoter. There was a significant correlation between the NanoString data and RNA-seq (Supplementary Fig. S10, r = 0.65, P < 0.001), with approximately 35% of transcripts driven by alternate promoters upregulated in more than half of the gastric cancers (Fig. 4D). Second, to examine markers of T-cell activity in these same gastric cancer samples, we analyzed previously published microarray data (75) to measure CD8A (a measure of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes), and granzyme A (GZMA) and perforin (PRF1; refs. 76–78), which are both T-cell effectors and validated markers of T-cell cytolytic activity. We confirmed that these three genes (CD8A, GZMA, and PRF1) were not themselves associated with somatic promoters. Comparing the top and bottom quartiles, gastric cancers with high somatic promoter usage exhibited significantly lower GZMA and PRF1 levels (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, Wilcoxon test) indicating lower T-cell cytolytic activity (Fig. 4E, top left), and also a trend toward lower CD8A levels (P = 0.14, Wilcoxon one-sided test). These findings support a lower level of tumor antigenicity in gastric cancers with high somatic promoter usage, as recurrent N-terminal peptides lost through somatic promoters are predicted to be collectively more immunogenic than peptides gained through somatic promoters (Fig. 4C). Using two different algorithms (ASCAT, ref. 79, and ESTIMATE, ref. 80), we further confirmed that the decreased GZMA and PRF1 levels are independent of tumor purity differences between gastric cancers (Supplementary Fig. S10). Similar results were obtained upon splitting the gastric cancer samples based on median promoter usage score (GZMA, P < 0.001; and PRF1, P = 0.03). Patients with gastric cancers exhibiting high somatic promoter usage (top 25%) also showed poor survival compared with patients with gastric cancers with low somatic promoter usage (bottom 25%; Fig. 4E, top right, HR = 2.56, P = 0.02). Again, dividing patients by their median somatic promoter usage score also showed similar survival differences (Supplementary Fig. S10, HR = 1.81, P = 0.04).

To validate these findings, we then analyzed two other prominent gastric cancer cohorts: one from TCGA and another from the Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG). In the TCGA cohort, availability of RNA-seq data allowed us to infer somatic promoter usage directly from next-generation sequencing data (Fig. 2C). Similar to the Singapore cohort, TCGA gastric cancers with high somatic promoter usage (top 25%) exhibited decreased CD8A (P = 0.002, Wilcoxon one-sided test), GZMA (P = 0.001, Wilcoxon one-sided test), and PRF1 levels (P = 0.005, Wilcoxon one-sided test, Fig. 4E, bottom left) compared with gastric cancers with low somatic promoter usage (bottom 25%) in a manner independent of tumor purity (Supplementary Fig. S10). Notably, as previous studies have suggested that somatic mutation burden may also correlate with intratumor T-cell cytolytic response (81), we further repeated the analysis after adjusting for the total number of missense mutations in each sample using a regression-based approach. Even after correcting for somatic mutation burden, we still observed decreased CD8A (P = 0.02, Wilcoxon one-sided test), GZMA (P = 0.01, Wilcoxon one-sided test), and PRF1 expression (P = 0.03, Wilcoxon one-sided test) in samples with high somatic promoter usage (top 25% against bottom 25%; Supplementary Fig. S10).

We leveraged a third independent cohort of gastric cancersamples from ACRG (11). Using NanoString to target 89 canonical and alternative promoters along with various immune markers, we profiled 264 primary gastric cancer samples from the ACRG cohort (11). Forty percent of alternative promoter transcripts showed tumor-specific expression in more than half of the samples (Supplementary Fig. S10). Once again, samples with high somatic promoter usage (top 25%) showed significantly lower expression of T-cell cytolytic activity markers, including CD8A (P = 0.035, Wilcoxon one-sided test), CD4A (P = 0.005, Wilcoxon one-sided test), GZMA (P = 0.001, Wilcoxon one-sided test), and PRF1 (P = 0.025, Wilcoxon one-sided test; Fig. 4E, bottom right; Supplementary Fig. S10). Similar results were obtained upon splitting the gastric cancer samples based on median promoter usage score (Supplementary Table S8). Also, after adjusting for mutational burden (for cases where information is available), samples with high somatic promoter usage still showed decreased CD8A (P = 0.167, Wilcoxon one-sided test), GZMA (P = 0.009, Wilcoxon one-sided test), and PRF1 (P = 0.03, Wilcoxon one-sided test) expression (Supplementary Fig. S10). Taken collectively, these results, observed across multiple gastric cancer cohorts and assessed using diverse technologies (microarray, RNA-seq, NanoString), all support a significant association between somatic promoter usage and reduced tumor immunity levels. Importantly, the decreased levels of T-cell cytolytic activity associated with somatic promoter usage are likely independent of tumor purity and mutational load.

Somatic Promoter–Associated Peptides Are Immunogenic In Vitro

To functionally test the ability of N-terminal peptides depleted in gastric cancer to elicit immune responses, we conducted in vitro assays using the high-throughput Epitope Maximum (EPIMAX) platform (82, 83), which allows multiepitope testing for both T-cell proliferation and cytokine production. First, we identified N-terminal peptides predicted to exhibit high HLA-binding affinities across a pool of healthy peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) donors. Second, selecting 15 alternative promoter–associated peptides for testing, we generated peptide pools for each peptide (Supplementary Tables S9 and S10; Methods), which were then used to stimulate PBMCs from 9 healthy donors. T-cell proliferation and cytokine production levels were measured and benchmarked against control peptides (Supplementary Table S11). Across all 135 exposures (15 peptides across 9 donors), we observed strong cytokine responses for 79 peptide pools (58%; FC ≥ 2 relative to actin peptides; Fig. 4F and G) inducing complex Th1, Th2, and Th17 polarizations in a donor-dependent fashion (Supplementary Fig. S11).

To test the immunogenic capacity of specific N-terminal peptides in a more cellular setting, we then assessed responses of T cells previously primed to recognize either altered or WT peptides, when cocultured with HLA-matched isogenic gastric cancer cells expressing either altered or WT peptides, respectively (Supplementary Fig. S11). Similar approaches have been used by previous investigators to investigate protein and peptide immunogenicity (84–86). By MHC-I affinity screening, a VMCDIFFSL nonamer in the WT RASA3 N-terminus was predicted to exhibit high MHC-I affinity binding for both the HLA-A02:01 (IC50 = 6.93 nm) and HLA-A02:06 (IC50 = 9.74 nm) alleles. Using HLA-A*02:06 T cells that are cross-reactive to HLA-A*02:01–positive AGS cells (87, 88), we tested the release of IFNγ from primed T cells after exposure to AGS lysates expressing either RASA3 CanT or SomT isoforms. ELISA assays demonstrated that T cells primed to recognize RASA3 CanT released significantly more IFNγ when cocultured with RASA3 CanT–expressing AGS cells than when cocultured with RASA3 SomT–expressing AGS cells. In contrast, T cells primed with RASA3 SomT did not exhibit appreciable IFNγ release when cocultured with RASA3 SomT–expressing AGS cells (Supplementary Fig. S11). Thus, under similar in vitro conditions, RASA3 CanT is capable of eliciting a stronger immune response than RASA3 SomT, consistent with the RASA3 CanT N-terminus being more immunogenic. Taken collectively, these in vitro results demonstrate that peptides predicted to exhibit relative depletion in gastric cancers through somatic promoters can produce immunogenic responses, with the magnitude of immune responses depending on both peptide sequence and host immune background.

Somatic Promoters Are Associated with EZH2 Occupancy

To identify potential oncogenic mechanisms driving the somatic promoters, we intersected the genomic locations of the somatic promoters with transcription factor binding sites of 237 transcription factors from 83 different tissues (89). Regions exhibiting somatic promoters were significantly enriched in regions associated with EZH2 (P < 0.01) and SUZ12 (P < 0.01) binding (Fig. 5A; Supplementary Table S12), confirming earlier findings on a smaller cohort (38). Both EZH2 and SUZ12 are components of the Polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC2) epigenetic regulator complex, which is upregulated in many cancer types, including gastric cancer (90–95). To validate these findings, we then performed EZH2 ChIP-seq on HFE-145 normal gastric epithelial cells (Methods). Concordant with the previous findings, we observed significant enrichment of EZH2 binding sites at somatic promoters compared with all promoters (enrichment score 27 vs. 13 for all promoters, P < 0.01), and this EZH2 enrichment remained significant when the gained somatic (enrichment score 28,P < 0.01) and lost somatic promoters (enrichment score 24,P < 0.01) were analyzed separately (Supplementary Fig. S12).

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

Somatic promoters are associated with EZH2 occupancy. A, Binding enrichment of ReMap-defined transcription factor–binding sites at genomic regions exhibiting somatic promoters. Transcription factors were sorted according to their binding frequency at all H3K4me3-defined promoter regions. EZH2 and SUZ12 binding sites significantly overlap regions exhibiting somatic promoters (gained and lost; P < 0.01, empirical distribution test). B, Proportion of RNA transcripts associated with somatic promoters changing upon GSK126 treatment in IM95 cells, compared with RNA transcripts associated with unaltered promoters. The top somatic promoter figure is for illustrative purposes only. Unaltered promoters were defined as all gene promoters except the somatic promoters. The proportion of genes changing upon treatment, as a proportion of all genes, is also shown. Somatic promoters are more likely to change expression after GSK126 treatment relative to unaltered promoters (OR = 1.46, P < 0.001) or all GSK126-regulated genes (OR = 9.21, P < 0.001, Fisher test). ***, P < 0.001. C, UCSC browser track of the SLC9A9 TSS, a gene with loss of promoter activity [overlapping gastric cancer (GC; red) and normal gastric tissue (blue) H3K4me3]. Gain of expression is seen after inhibition of EZH2 using GSK126 in IM95 cells at both day 6 (D6) and day 9 (D9) treatment. D, UCSC browser track of the PSCA TSS, with loss of promoter activity [GC (red) and normal gastric tissue (blue) H3K4me3]. Gain of expression is seen after inhibition of EZH2 using GSK126 in IM95 cells at both day 6 (D6) and day 9 (D9) treatment.

To experimentally test whether inhibiting EZH2/PRC2 activity might modulate somatic promoter usage in gastric cancer, we treated IM95 gastric cancer cells with GSK126, a highly selective small-molecule inhibitor of EZH2 methyltransferase activity (90, 96). This line was selected because it has previously been shown to be sensitive to EZH2 depletion (Supplementary Fig. S12; ref. 97). RNA-seq analysis of GSK126-treated IM95 cells at two treatment time points (days 6 and 9) confirmed that genes upregulated upon EZH2 inhibition are enriched in previously identified PRC2 target gene sets (Supplementary Fig. S12). GSK126 treatment caused deregulation of 2,134 promoters in total. Of 1,959 promoters exhibiting somatic alterations in primary gastric cancers (Fig. 1D), GSK126 treatment caused deregulation of 251 somatic promoters in IM95 cells (12.8%). This proportion was significantly greater than the proportion of unaltered promoters exhibiting deregulation after GSK126 challenge (8.8%, OR = 1.46, P < 0.001, Fisher test, Fig. 5B), suggesting heightened sensitivity of somatic promoters to EZH2 inhibition. The proportion of somatic promoters deregulated after EZH2 inhibition was also greater than the total proportion of genes (as defined by GENCODE) regulated by GSK126 (1.5%, OR = 9.21, P < 0.001, Fig. 5B). Of those promoters exhibiting both GSK126 deregulation and also mapping to somatic promoters lost in primary gastric cancer, 89.6% were reactivated following GSK126 administration (78/87, FC ≥ 2, q < 0.1; Methods), consistent with EZH2 functioning to repress these promoters. For example, Fig. 5C and D highlights two lost somatic promoters (SLC9A9 and PSCA), exhibiting expression gain after GSK126 treatment (Fig. 5). These results thus suggest a role for EZH2 in regulating somatic promoters in gastric cancer.

Somatic Promoters Reveal Novel Cancer-Associated Transcripts

Finally, when analyzing the altered somatic promoters with respect to proximity to known genes, we found that somatic promoters could be classified into annotated and unannotated categories. Annotated promoters were defined as promoters mapping close (<500 bp) to a known GENCODE TSS, whereas unannotated promoters were those mapping to genomic regions devoid of known GENCODE TSSs. The majority of promoters present in nonmalignant tissues, and also promoters unchanged between tumors and normal tissues, mapped closely to previously annotated TSSs (72%–92%). In contrast, only 41% of somatic promoters mapped to annotated promoter locations, whereas the remaining 59% mapped to “unannotated” locations, distant from GENCODE TSSs and in many cases 2 to 10 kb away (Fig. 6A).

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

Somatic promoters reveal novel cancer-associated transcripts. A, Distribution of distances for different promoter categories to the nearest annotated TSSs. Left, the first bar plot shows distance distributions for promoters present in gastric normal tissues, the second for promoters present in gastric cancer (GC) samples, and the third for promoters exhibiting somatic alterations (i.e., different in tumor vs. normal). Right, the bar plots present distance distributions associated with either lost or gained somatic promoters. A substantial proportion of gained somatic promoters occupy locations distant from previously annotated TSSs (red, green, purple, blue, orange). B, Median functional scores of unannotated promoters as predicted by GenoSkyline across 7 different tissues. Unannotated promoters exhibited high functional scores for gastrointestinal, fetal, and embryonic stem cell (ESC) tissues. C, Box plot depicting average RNA-seq reads for CAGE-validated promoters, comparing either all promoters or somatic promoters and also supported by CAGE data (***, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon one-sided test). Somatic promoters are observed to have lower levels of RNA-seq expression. D, Cartoon depicting proposed effects of dynamic range on Nano-ChIP-seq and RNA-seq sensitivity in detecting lowly expressed transcripts. NGS, next-generation sequencing. Because of a more restricted dynamic range, epigenomic profiling may detect active promoters missed by RNA-seq, due to the random sampling of abundantly expressed genes by RNA-seq. E, Down-sampling and up-sampling analysis. The y-axis depicts the number of transcripts detected that overlap either all promoters (blue line) or somatic promoters (red line) at varying RNA-seq depths. Original primary sample RNA-seq data were sequenced at approximately 106 M reads, which were down-sampled to 20, 40, and 60 M reads. Deep RNA-seq data were additionally generated at approximately 139 M read depth. F, Cancer-associated transcripts detected at deep but not regular RNA-seq depth. The UCSC genome browser track for ABCA13 shows an example of a novel transcript detected by Nano-ChIP-seq at a read depth of 20 M but detected by RNA-seq only at a read depth of approximately 139 M (deep sequencing GC). This transcript is not detected by regular-depth RNA-seq (GC).

To test the functional relevance of these unannotated promoters, we used GenoCanyon, a nucleotide-level quantification of genomic functional potential that integrates multiple levels of conservation and epigenomic information (98). We observed that 81% of the unannotated promoter regions exhibited a maximum genome-wide functional score of greater than 0.9 (range 0–1), indicating high functional potential. To ascertain tissue-type specificities, we then applied tissue-specific annotations using GenoSkyline (99), an extension of the GenoCanyon framework integrating Roadmap Epigenomics data (54). We observed that gastrointestinal tissues had the third highest median score after embryonic stem cell (ESC) and fetal tissues, consistent with our tumors being gastric in lineage and also dedifferentiated (Fig. 6B). In a separate analysis, recent studies have also suggested that endogenous repeat elements in the human genome may contribute significantly to regulatory element variation (100), and hypomethylation of repeat elements can induce cancer-associated transcription (101). We found that unannotated promoters were also significantly enriched for the repeat elements ERV1 (P < 0.0001 unannotated vs. all) and L1 (P < 0.0001 unannotated vs. all; Supplementary Fig. S13).

Compared with annotated promoters, unannotated promoters exhibited weaker H3K27ac signals, suggesting that the former might have lower activity and decreased gene expression levels (Supplementary Fig. S13). Supporting this, somatic promoters, even those supported by CAGE tags (indicating true promoters), exhibited significantly lower RNA-seq expression levels compared with all CAGE tag–supported promoters (Fig. 6C). We thus hypothesized that unannotated promoters might be associated with low transcript levels, thereby rendering them more challenging to detect by conventional depth transcriptome sequencing given the very wide dynamic range of cellular transcriptomes (10–10,000 transcripts per cell for different genes; Fig. 6D; ref. 102). To test this possibility, we employed both down-sampling and up-sampling analysis. Not surprisingly, decreasing levels of RNA-seq depth caused a concomitant decrease in detected somatic promoter transcripts. For example, down-sampling to approximately 40 M reads caused approximately 250 transcripts (FPKM > 0; Fig. 6E) to be rendered undetectable at somatic promoters. More convincingly, in the reciprocal experiment, we experimentally generated deep RNA-seq data for 5 matched gastric cancer/normal pairs (average read depth 140 M compared with standard 100 M) and confirmed the additional detection of 435 new somatic promoter–associated transcripts (FPKM > 0; Fig. 6E). We estimate that usage of deep RNA-seq data allowed us to discover additional transcripts for 22% of the unannotated promoters, not previously detectable at regular depth RNA-seq (Fig. 6F). These results demonstrate that despite being associated with bona fide cancer-associated transcripts, many somatic promoters defined by epigenomic profiling may have been missed by conventional-depth RNA-seq.

Discussion

Identifying somatically altered cis-regulatory elements and understanding how these elements direct cancer-associated gene expression (103) represents a critical scientific goal (104, 105). Here, we defined close to 2,000 promoters exhibiting altered activity in gastric cancer, indicating that somatic promoters in gastric cancer are pervasive. Promoters are traditionally defined as proximal cis-regulatory elements that recruit general transcription factors to initiate transcription (106, 107). However, selection and activation of TSSs by RNA polymerase at core promoters is dependent on multiple factors. Core promoters are differentially distributed between genes of different functions (15, 106), and chromatin distributions and epigenetic landscapes of core promoter regions can also differ in a tissue-specific manner (15, 108–110). Presence of multiple transcription initiation sites within the same gene can generate distinct transcript isoforms with different 5′ UTRs that can act to regulate gene expression (111–113), and usage of alternative 5′ UTRs can also affect both translation and protein stability of cancer-associated genes such as BRCA1, TGFβ, and ERG (18, 114–117). Such findings demonstrate that specific promoter element activity is complex and cell-context dependent, with impact on downstream transcriptional, translational, and functional processes.

A significant proportion (∼18%) of somatic promoters corresponded to alternative promoters. In cancer, alternative promoter utilization is of major relevance, as increasing numbers of genes (e.g., LEF1, TP53, TGFB3) are now being shown to exhibit distinct alternative promoter–associated isoforms that differentially affect malignant growth (21, 118). In the current study, we identified alternative promoters in genes both known and novel to gastric cancer biology with significant clinical and translational implications. For example, we discovered an alternative promoter at the EPCAM gene locus specifically activated in gastric tumors. In gastric cancer, EPCAM encodes a transmembrane glycoprotein that has been proposed as a marker for circulating tumor cells (119), and EPCAM expression levels have been correlated with prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (120). However, little is known about the specific cellular mechanisms driving high EPCAM expression in gastric cancer. Our finding that EPCAM is regulated in gastric cancer not through its canonical promoter, but instead through a cancer-specific alternative promoter may lend credence to recent reports suggesting that in addition to acting as an experimentally convenient surface marker, EPCAM may actually play a more direct pro-oncogenic role in stimulating cellular proliferation (121).

Another novel example of an alternative promoter–associated gene, identified for the first time in our study, is RASA3. Although a functional role for RASA3 in cancer remains to be definitively established, studies from other biological fields have shown that RASA3 can inhibit RAP1 (122), which in turn has been implicated in invasion and metastasis in various cancers (123, 124). RASA3 depletion can enhance signaling by integrins (125) and MAPK (64), and the possibility that RASA3 can act as a tumor suppressor has also been recently suggested through independent cross-species cancer studies (126). Our results suggest that RASA3 may play a more complex role in cancer, as the expression of WT RASA3 inhibited cell migration and invasion in gastric cancer cell lines, whereas N-terminal Var RASA3 enhanced migration and invasion. A third example of an alternative promoter–driven gene is MET, which has been extensively investigated as a target for cancer therapy (127–129). Although we and others have previously reported (38, 65) the expression of an N-terminal truncated MET-Var in cancer, functional implications of this truncated MET-Var have remained unclear. In this study, experimental assessment of MET WT and Var signaling revealed that truncated MET variants may have different downstream signaling effects compared with full-length MET isoforms. Under the experimental conditions used, we observed significant differences in phosphorylation patterns of ERK, STAT3, and GAB1, in a manner consistent with MET-Var being more pro-oncogenic compared with MET-WT, as both ERK, STAT3, and GAB1 have been shown to facilitate MET-induced signaling (130–132). The MET signaling pathway is known to be particularly complex, with multiple feedback loops (133), and understanding how expression of the N-terminal short MET isoform might promote downstream survival signaling will be an important subject of future research, particularly in light of recent clinical trials targeting MET in lung cancer using antibodies that have been unsuccessful (5).

Our study also revealed an unexpected relationship between somatic promoters and tumor immunity. Specifically, we discovered that alternative promoter isoforms overexpressed in gastric cancer were significantly depleted of N-terminal peptides predicted to be potentially immunogenic, based on computational predictions of high-affinity MHC class I binding and other immunologic assays. We believe that finding is relevant to cancer immunity, as it builds on previous findings from the literature establishing the existence of self-reactive T cells, the potential immunogenicity of overexpressed tumor antigens, and the process of tumor immunoediting. First, although the majority of self-reactive T cells are clonally deleted during early development, numerous groups have also demonstrated the frequent persistence of self-reactive T cells in the periphery (134). For example, analysis of transgenic mice has shown that 25% to 40% of autoreactive T cells are likely to escape clonal deletion even in the presence of the deleting ligand (135), and in humans, Yu and colleagues have demonstrated that clonal deletion prunes the T-cell repertoire but does not fully eliminate self-reactive T-cell clones (136). Importantly, although such self-reactive T cells are typically low-avidity and are not capable of recognizing self-antigens under normal physiologic conditions (137–140), they still retain the ability to become activated and to produce effector and memory cells under conditions of appropriate stimulation, such as infection and the mounting of antitumor responses (141, 142).

Second, in cancer, several studies have shown that self-reactive T cells can exhibit immunologic activity toward overexpressed tumor antigens, even if these antigens are also expressed at lower levels in normal tissues. One well-known example is the melanocyte differentiation antigen Melan-A/MART1, which is both expressed by normal melanocytes and overexpressed in malignant melanoma cells (143–147). T-cell recognition of Melan-A/MART1 has been detected in 50% of patients with melanoma (148), and even healthy individuals have been shown to exhibit a disproportionately high frequency of Melan-A/MART1–specific T cells in the peripheral blood (148). Besides Melan-A/MART1, other examples of tumor-associated self-antigens (149–151) inducing immunologic recognition in both healthy individuals and patients with cancer (152) include tyrosinase-related proteins (TRP1 and TRP2; refs. 153–159) and glycoprotein (gp) 100 (147, 160–163) in melanoma, and P1A in mastocytoma cells (164). Such examples clearly demonstrate that in certain cases, normally expressed proteins can still become immunogenic when overexpressed in cancer. Third, tumor immunoediting, the acquired capacity of developing tumors to escape immune control, is a recognized hallmark of cancer (165–172). Tumor immune escape can occur via different mechanisms, such as through upregulation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-L1) and altered transcription of antigen-presenting genes (173–176) or tumor-specific antigens. For example, decreased expression of melanoma antigens (e.g., gp100, MART1, and P1A) has been associated with melanoma progression to later disease stages (177). Besides overt downregulation of the entire gene, it is thus highly plausible that transcriptional changes affecting splice forms and promoter variants may also contribute to tumor immunoediting. For example, very recent work (178) in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia has described the production of N-terminally truncated CD19 variants in response to CD19 CART (chimeric antigen receptor–armed T cells) therapy, clearly showing that promoter transcript variants can indeed arise as a consequence of immunologic pressure. Taken collectively, we believe that these previously established findings all point to a plausible role for alternative promoters in reducing the immunogenic potential of tumors. In this regard, our observation that somatic promoter regions exhibit a significant overlap with binding targets of the PRC2 epigenetic regulator complex, and are particularly sensitive to EZH2 inhibition, suggests that pharmacologic approaches for reawakening somatic promoter–associated epitopes might represent an attractive strategy for increasing antitumor T-cell immunoreactivity and antitumor activity (86, 179).

In conclusion, our study indicates an important role for somatic promoters in gastric cancer. We also note that a significant portion (52%) of the somatic promoters localized to unannotated TSSs, consistent with recent studies indicating the existence of hundreds of transcript loci remaining to be annotated (180). Interestingly, a large portion of the human transcriptome has been shown to originate from repetitive elements that can exhibit promoter activity and/or express noncoding RNAs (181, 182). Unannotated promoters activated in our gastric cancer study were found to be enriched in ERV1 and L1 repeat elements that have been shown to be associated with stage-specific transcription in early human embryonic cells (183), suggesting a yet-unknown functional role for these promoters. Analysis of these unannotated promoters is likely to provide fertile ground for new and hitherto unanticipated insights into mechanisms of gastric cancer development and progression.

Methods

Primary Tissue Samples and Cell Lines

Primary patient samples were obtained from the SingHealth tissue repository with approvals from the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board and signed patient informed consent. “Normal” (nonmalignant) samples used in this study refer to samples harvested from the stomach, from sites distant from the tumor and exhibiting no visible evidence of tumor or intestinal metaplasia/dysplasia upon surgical assessment. Tumor samples were confirmed by cryosectioning to contain >60% tumor cells. FU97, IM95, MKN7, OCUM1, and RERF-GC-1B cell lines were obtained from the Japan Health Science Research Resource Bank. AGS, KATOIII and SNU16, Hs 1.Int and Hs 738.St/Int gastrointestinal fibroblast lines were obtained from the ATCC. NCC-59, NCC-24, and SNU-1967 and SNU-1750 were obtained from the Korean Cell Line Bank. YCC3, YCC7, YCC21, and YCC22 were gifts from Yonsei Cancer Centre (Seoul, South Korea). HFE145 cells were a gift from Dr. Hassan Ashktorab (Howard University, Washington, DC). GES1 cells were a gift from Dr. Alfred Cheng, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Cell line identities were confirmed by short tandem repeat DNA profiling using ANSI/ATCC ASN-0002-2011 guidelines in mid-late 2015. All cell lines were negative for Mycoplasma contamination as assessed by the MycoAlert Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza) and the MycoSensor qPCR Assay Kit (Agilent Technologies). PBMCs from healthy donors were collected under protocol CIRB ref no. 2010/720/E.

ChIP-seq

Nano-ChIP-seq was performed as described previously (38) with slight modifications (see Supplementary Text). Eight Nano-ChIP-seq libraries were multiplexed (New England Biolabs) and sequenced on 2 lanes of a HiSeq2500 sequencer (Illumina) to an average depth of 20 to 30 million reads per library. We assessed ChIP library qualities (H3K27ac, H3K4me3, and H3K4me1) using two different methods, ChIP enrichment assessment and CHANCE (see Supplementary Text; ref. 41). For EZH2 ChIP-seq, EZH2 antibodies (catalog #5246, Cell Signaling Technology) were used for ChIP. Thirty nanograms of ChIPed DNA was used for each sequencing library preparation (New England Biolabs).

Promoter Analysis

Promoter (H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo) regions were identified by calculating the H3K4me3:H3K4me1 ratio for all H3K4me3 regions merged across normal and gastric cancer samples. We estimated the required sample size to achieve 80% power and 10% type I error (http://powerandsamplesize.com/) based on the average signals of top 100 differential promoters between tumor and normal samples. This result yielded a recommended sample size of 11 (average), which is met in our study (16 N/T). Regions with H3K4me3:H3K4me1 ratios <1 in both normal and gastric cancer samples were excluded from further analysis. For all analyses performed in this study, promoter regions were defined as genomic locations exhibiting H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo signals, and for all subsequent analyses, it was only within this predefined H3K4me3hi/H3K4me1lo subset that H3K4me3 signals were compared. H3K27ac data were used for correlative analysis. H3K4me3 data (FASTQs) for colon carcinoma lines were downloaded from public databases: HCT116 and Caco2 from ENCODE and V503 and V400 from GSE36204. To compare promoter signals between gastric cancer and normal samples, we used the DESeq2 (46) and edgeR (47) bioconductor packages using a read count matrix of ChIP-seq signals, adjusting for replicate information. Regions with FCs greater than 1.5 (FDR = 0.1) were selected as significantly different. The criteria of FC = 1.5 and q < 0.1 was based on previous literature comparing ChIP-seq profiles using DESeq2 and edgeR also using similar thresholds (49, 50). Significantly altered promoters identified by DESeq2 overlapped almost completely with altered promoters found by edgeR. A regularized log transformation of the DESeq2 read counts was used to plot PCAs and heat maps.

Transcriptome Analysis

RNA-seq data were obtained from the European Genome-Phenome Archive under accession no. EGAS00001001128. Data were processed by first aligning to GENCODE v19 transcript annotations using TopHat v2.0.12 (184). Cufflinks 2.2.0 was used to generate FPKM abundance measures. For identification of novel transcripts, Cufflinks was used without employing a reference transcript annotation. Transcripts were then merged across all gastric cancer and normal samples and compared against GENCODE annotations to identify novel transcripts using Cuffmerge 2.2.0. Deep-depth strand-specific RNA-seq was also performed on 10 additional primary samples (paired-end 101 bp). TCGA datasets were downloaded from TCGA Data Portal (https://gdc.cancer.gov/) in the form of FASTQ files, which were then aligned to GENCODE v19 transcript annotations using TopHat v2.0.12. To analyze promoter-associated RNA expression, RNA-seq reads from TCGA samples (tumor and normal) were mapped against the genomic locations of promoter regions originally defined by epigenomic profiling in the discovery samples, including all promoters, gained somatic promoters, and lost somatic promoters (see Fig. 1). RNA-seq reads mapping to these epigenome-defined promoter regions were then quantified and normalized by promoter length (kilobases) and by total library size, and FCs in expression were computed between tumor and normal TCGA sample groups. Length of promoter loci was defined as the number of base pairs (bp) between the start and stop genomic coordinate of the H3K4me3 region as identified by the peak caller program CCAT v3.0 (185). Isoform level quantification for alternative promoter–driven transcripts was performed using Cufflinks (FPKM; ref. 186), Kallisto (TPM; ref. 187), and MISO (isoform-centric analysis; ref. 188). Assigned counts for each isoform were normalized by DESeq2.

Other Analyses

Other analyses, including DNA methylation analysis, survival analysis, gene set enrichment analysis, analysis of repetitive elements, functional element analysis using GenoCanyon and GenoSkyline, and analysis of transcription factor binding sites, are presented in the Supplementary Text.

Mass Spectrometry and Data Analysis

Peptide-level spectral data for 90 colon and rectal cancer samples (63) were downloaded from the CPTAC portal (https://cptac-data-portal.georgetown.edu/cptac/s/S016) generated by the Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (NCI/NIH). Spectral counts were extracted using IDPicker's idQuery tool (189). Differentially expressed peptides were identified by fitting a linear model (limma R; ref. 190) on quantile-normalized and log2-transformed spectral counts. For gastric cancer cell line mass spectrometry, AGS, GES1, SNU1750, and MKN1 proteomic profiles were generated using nanoflow liquid chromatography on an EASY-nLC 1200 system coupled to a Q Exactive HF mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Supplementary Text). The Q Exactive HF was operated with a TOP20 MS-MS spectra acquisition method per MS full scan. MS scans were conducted with 60,000 resolution and MS-MS scans with 15,000 resolution. For data analysis, raw files were processed with MaxQuant (191) version 1.5.2.8 against the UniProt annotated human protein database (192). Carbamidomethylation was set as a fixed modification, whereas methionine oxidation and protein N-acetylation were considered as variable modifications. Search results were processed with MaxQuant filtered with an FDR of 0.01. The match between run option and Label-Free Quantification (LFQ; ref. 193) was activated. LFQ intensities were filtered for potential contaminants and reverse proteins, and log2 transformed. They were then imputed using the open-source software Perseus (0.5 width, 1.8 downshift; ref. 194) and fitted using linear models (limma R; ref. 190).

Molecular Biology and Biochemistry

Procedures for 5′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (5′ RACE), gene cloning, Western blotting (MET variants), RASA3 mRNA measurement, and RAS-GTP assays are presented in the Supplementary Text.

Transfection with RASA3 siRNAs

Two RASA3 siRNAs were used to silence the RASA3 SomT transcript in NCC24 cells [hs.Ri.RASA3.13.1 TriFECTa Kit DsiRNA Duplex (Integrated DNA Technologies), and Silencer Select Pre-Designed siRNA s355 (Life Technologies)]. NCC24 cells were transfected either with the above two siRNAs or a nontargeting control (ON-TARGETplus non-targeting pool, Dharmacon) at a final concentration of 100 nmol/L for 48 hours, subsequently followed by qPCR and Western validation and migration/invasion assays.

Cell Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion Assays

For cell proliferation, 3 × 103 GES1, SNU1967, and AGS cells were plated into 96-well plates in media with 10% FBS and left overnight to attach. The next day (day 0), cells were transiently transfected with WT and Var RASA3 constructs using Lipofectamine 3000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The amount of the constructs was 40 ng per well for AGS and 100 ng per well for GES1 and SNU1967 cells. Cell proliferation was measured by the WST-8 assay (Cell Counting Kit-8, Dojindo) from 24 to 120 hours posttransfection. WST-8 solution (10 μL) was added per well, and the absorbance reading was measured at 450 nm after 2 hours of incubation in a humidified incubator. To determine cell-migratory capacities, RASA3 WT and Var-transfected GES1, SNU1967, and AGS cells and siRNA-treated NCC24 cells were tested using Corning Costar 6.5-mm Transwell with 8.0-μm Pore Polycarbonate Membrane Inserts (3422, Corning). AGS cells (2.5 × 104), GES1 cells (2 × 104), SNU1967 cells (3 × 104), and NCC24 cells (5 × 104) were suspended in 0.1 mL serum-free RPMI medium and added to the top of the Transwell insert. RPMI (0.6 mL) containing 10% FBS was added into the bottom well as a chemoattractant. After incubation for 24 hours at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator, cells were fixed with 3.7% formaldehyde and permeabilized with 100% methanol. Nonmigrated cells were scraped off with cotton swabs from the upper surface of the membrane. Migrated cells were stained with 0.5% crystal violet. The number of migrated cells was represented as the total area of migrated cells versus the area of Transwell membrane calculated using ImageJ software. For cell invasion assays, the above Transwell inserts were coated with 0.1 mL (300 μg/mL) Corning Matrigel matrix (354234, Corning) for 2 to 4 hours at 37°C before use.

Altered Peptide and Antigen Prediction

Altered peptides were defined as variant N-terminal protein sequences arising from somatic alterations in alternative promoter usage. The following filters were applied to select the pool of altered peptides: (i) FC of at least 1.5 for alternate versus canonical RNA-seq expression; (ii) only one canonical and one alternate isoform per gene loci; and (iii) annotated transcripts confirmed as protein coding by GENCODE. Canonical promoters were defined as regions exhibiting unaltered H3K4me3 peaks. Random peptides from the human proteome were generated from amino acid sequences of GENCODE coding transcripts. N-terminal peptide gains were identified as cases in which the alternative transcript was associated with a different 5′ region predicted to result in a different translated protein sequence compared with the canonical transcript. For each N-terminal altered protein, we evaluated binding of 9-mer peptides using the NetMHCpan 2.8 using a strict threshold of IC50 ≤ 50 nmol/L to identify strong MHC binders (74, 195). Antigen predictions were performed against patient-specific HLA types of gastric cancer samples predicted using OptiType (196). OptiType was run using default parameters, except BWA mem was used as an aligner for prefiltering reads aligning to the OptiType-provided reference sequences.

Association of Cytolytic Markers with Alternative Promoter Usage

Local immune cytolytic activity was evaluated using the expression of GZMA and PRF1 as previously used by Rooney and colleagues (81). Tumor content was estimated using two algorithms, ASCAT (aberrant cell fraction; ref. 79) and ESTIMATE (tumor purity; ref. 80). Expression data for the SG series were downloaded (GSE15460) and normalized using the robust multiarray average algorithm in the “affy” R package (197) and log2 transformed. Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0 data for the SG series were downloaded from GSE31168 and GSE85466. Mutation frequencies for TCGA stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) samples were downloaded from the TCGA STAD publication data (https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/docs/publications/stad_2014/; ref. 198) using level 2 curated MAF files (QCv5_blacklist_Pass.aggregated.capture.tcga.uuid.curated.somatic.maf) filtered for “Missense” variant classification. Expression data for TCGA STAD samples (TPM) were computed using the Kallisto algorithm (187). Raw SNP Array 6.0.CEL files for TCGA gastric cancers (STAD) were downloaded from the GDC data portal (https://gdc-portal.nci.nih.gov/). Access to this dataset was obtained using Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) credentials and an ID issued by eRA commons. Precomputed ESTIMATE scores for TCGA STAD were downloaded from http://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org/estimate/ and converted to tumor purity using the formula cos (0.6049872018 + 0.0001467884 × ESTIMATE score; ref. 80). Preprocessed expression data for the ACRG series were downloaded from GSE62254, and precomputed ASCAT scores were obtained from collaborators (J. Lee). Expression of cytolytic markers was adjusted for missense mutation and tumor purity frequencies using a spline regression model.

EPIMAX Assays

Peptides for 15 representative alternative promoters were synthesized by GenScript (Supplementary Table S10). Control peptide pools for human actin were purchased from JPT [PM-ACTS, PepMix Human (Actin) JPT]. PBMCs were obtained from 9 healthy volunteers, of which 8 PBMC samples were HLA typed (Supplementary Table S9). PBMCs were labeled with 1 μmol/L CFSE (Life Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and cultured at a density of 2 × 105 cells per well in complete culture medium [cRPMI comprising RPMI-1640 medium (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific), 15 mmol/L HEPES (Gibco), 1% nonessential amino acid (Gibco), 1 mmol/L sodium pyruvate (Gibco), 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Gibco), 2 mmol/L l-glutamine (Gibco), 50 μmol/L β2-mercaptoethanol (Sigma, Merck), and 10% heat-inactivated FCS (HyClone)] for 5 days. Individual peptide pools of each alternative promoter were added at the start of the culture at a concentration of 1 μg/mL for each peptide. At the end of day 5, cells were stained with LIVE/DEAD Fixable Near-IR Dead Cell Stain Kit (Life Technologies) and labeled with CD4-BUV737 (BD Biosciences), CD8-PacificBlue (BD Biosciences), CD3-PE (BioLegend), CD19-PE/TexasRed (Beckman Coulter), and CD56-APC (BD Biosciences). In addition, magnetic bead–based cytokine multiplex analysis (human cytokine panel 1, Millipore, Merck) was performed on cell culture supernatants to measure secreted cytokine levels.

IFNf Assays

To test the immunogenicity of the RASA3 WT and Var protein sequences, CD14+ monocytes were isolated from an HLA-A*02:06 donor by positive selection using magnetic beads (Miltenyi Biotec). Dendritic cells (DC) were generated by GM-CSF (1,000 IU/mL) and IL4 (400 IU/mL) and further matured by TNF (10 ng/mL), IL1b (10 ng/mL), IL6 (10 ng/mL; Miltenyi Biotec), and PGE2 (1 μg/mL; Stemcell Technologies) for 24 hours. The DCs were then primed with AGS cell lysates expressing WT RASA3 or Var RASA3 for 24 hours, before being cocultured with T cells from the same donor at the ratio of 1:5. After 5 days of coculture with DCs, T cells were isolated by positive selection using CD3 magnetic beads (Miltenyi Biotec) and cocultured with AGS cells expressing either WT or Var RASA3 at the ratio of 20:1 for 2 days. Supernatants were harvested and IFNγ release was measured by ELISA (R&D Systems).

NanoString Analysis

NanoString nCounter Reporter CodeSets were designed for 95 genes (83 upregulated in gastric cancer and 11 downregulated) and 5 housekeeping genes (AGPAT1, CLTC, B2M, POL2RL, and TBP covering a broad expression range) on the SG series samples. For each gene, we designed three probes, targeting (i) the 5′ end of the alternate promoter location; (ii) the 5′ end of the canonical promoter (defined by promoter regions of equal enrichment in both GC and normal samples or the longest protein-coding transcript); and (iii) a common downstream probe. A separate NanoString assay was designed for 88 genes on the ACRG cohort, using similar criteria. Vendor-provided nCounter software (nSolver) was used for data analysis. Raw counts were normalized using the geometric mean of the internal positive control probes included in each CodeSet.

EZH2 Inhibition

IM95 cells were treated with GSK126 (Selleck Chemicals), a selective EZH2 inhibitor (96, 199), at a concentration of 5 μmol/L. Cell proliferation was monitored in 96-well plates posttreatment with GSK126 using the CellTiter-Glo Luminescent Cell Viability Assay (Promega) for three independent experiments. For RNA-seq analysis, total RNA was extracted using the Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions. Cells were treated with GSK126 (Selleck Chemicals; dissolved in DMSO) at a concentration of 5 μmol/L. Control cells were treated with the same concentration of DMSO (0.1%). RNA-seq differential analysis for promoter loci was carried out using edgeR (47) on read counts mapping to H3K4me3 regions estimated using featureCounts (200). RNA-seq gene level differential analysis was performed using cuffdiff2.2.1.

Accession Codes

Genomic data for this study have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology GEO database, under accession numbers GSE51776 and GSE75898 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?token=kfoxqeamzfetpal&acc=GSE75898).

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

P. Tan has ownership interest (including patents) in ASTAR. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: A. Qamra, M. Xing, N. Padmanabhan, P.K.H. Chow, B.T. Teh, P. Tan

Development of methodology: M. Xing, J.J.T. Kwok, J.S. Lin, X. Yao, B.T. Teh, P. Tan

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): M. Xing, N. Padmanabhan, S. Zhang, C. Xu, Y.S. Leong, A.P.L. Lim, Q. Tang, X. Yao, X. Ong, M. Lee, S.T. Tay, E.G. Santoso, C.C.Y. Ng, A. Jusakul, D. Smoot, S.Y. Rha, K.G. Yeoh, W.P. Yong, P.K.H. Chow, W.H. Chan, H.S. Ong, K.C. Soo, K.-M. Kim, W.K. Wong, B.T. Teh, D. Kappei, J. Lee, P. Tan

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): A. Qamra, M. Xing, J.J.T. Kwok, Q. Tang, W.F. Ooi, J.S. Lin, T. Nandi, X. Yao, A. Ng, S.Y. Rha, S.G. Rozen, D. Kappei, J. Connolly, P. Tan

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: A. Qamra, M. Xing, J.J.T. Kwok, A. Ng, S.Y. Rha, K.G. Yeoh, W.P. Yong, P.K.H. Chow, S.G. Rozen, B.T. Teh, J. Connolly, P. Tan

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): A.P.L. Lim, A.T.L. Keng, H. Ashktorab, S.G. Rozen, B.T. Teh, P. Tan

Study supervision: P.K.H. Chow, P. Tan

Other (provided the cell lines): H. Ashktorab

Grant Support

This work was supported by a core institutional grant from the Genome Institute of Singapore under the Agency for Science, Technology and Research; core funding from Duke-NUS Medical School; and National Medical Research Council grants TCR/009-NUHS/2013, BnB/0005b/2013 (BnB11dec069), and NMRC/STaR/0026/2015. Other sources of support include the Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, NUS, under the National Research Foundation Singapore and the Singapore Ministry of Education under its Research Centres of Excellence initiative.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Sequencing and Scientific Computing teams at the Genome Institute of Singapore for providing sequencing services and data management capabilities, and the Duke-NUS Genome Biology Facility for sequencing services. We also thank Dr. Shyam Prabhakar for helpful discussions. We thank Dr. Wanjin Hong for the gift of HEK293 cells and pCI-Puro-HA vector and Dr. Alfred Cheng for the gift of GES1 cells.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Discovery Online (http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received September 13, 2016.
  • Revision received October 27, 2016.
  • Accepted March 16, 2017.
  • ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Dikshit R,
    4. Eser S,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Rebelo M,
    7. et al.
    Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Layke JC,
    2. Lopez PP
    . Gastric cancer: diagnosis and treatment options. Am Fam Physician 2004;69:1133–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Schmidt N,
    2. Peitz U,
    3. Lippert H,
    4. Malfertheiner P
    . Missing gastric cancer in dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21:813–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hecht JR,
    2. Bang YJ,
    3. Qin SK,
    4. Chung HC,
    5. Xu JM,
    6. Park JO,
    7. et al.
    Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced or metastatic gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: TRIO-013/LOGiC–A randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:443–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Roche. Roche provides update on phase III study of onartuzumab in people with specific type of lung cancer. Available from: http://www.roche.com/media/store/releases/med-cor-2014-03-03.htm.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ohtsu A,
    2. Shah MA,
    3. Van Cutsem E,
    4. Rha SY,
    5. Sawaki A,
    6. Park SR,
    7. et al.
    Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3968–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dikken JL,
    2. van Sandick JW,
    3. Maurits Swellengrebel HA,
    4. Lind PA,
    5. Putter H,
    6. Jansen EP,
    7. et al.
    Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and chemotherapy or by surgery and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS). BMC Cancer 2011;11:329.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wang K,
    2. Kan J,
    3. Yuen ST,
    4. Shi ST,
    5. Chu KM,
    6. Law S,
    7. et al.
    Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of ARID1A in molecular subtypes of gastric cancer. Nat Genet 2011;43:1219–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Zang ZJ,
    2. Cutcutache I,
    3. Poon SL,
    4. Zhang SL,
    5. McPherson JR,
    6. Tao J,
    7. et al.
    Exome sequencing of gastric adenocarcinoma identifies recurrent somatic mutations in cell adhesion and chromatin remodeling genes. Nat Genet 2012;44:570–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Yao F,
    2. Kausalya JP,
    3. Sia YY,
    4. Teo AS,
    5. Lee WH,
    6. Ong AG,
    7. et al.
    Recurrent fusion genes in gastric cancer: CLDN18-ARHGAP26 induces loss of epithelial integrity. Cell Rep 2015;12:272–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Cristescu R,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Nebozhyn M,
    4. Kim KM,
    5. Ting JC,
    6. Wong SS,
    7. et al.
    Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med 2015;21:449–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Tan IB,
    2. Ivanova T,
    3. Lim KH,
    4. Ong CW,
    5. Deng N,
    6. Lee J,
    7. et al.
    Intrinsic subtypes of gastric cancer, based on gene expression pattern, predict survival and respond differently to chemotherapy. Gastroenterology 2011;141:476–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Bang YJ,
    2. Van Cutsem E,
    3. Feyereislova A,
    4. Chung HC,
    5. Shen L,
    6. Sawaki A,
    7. et al.
    Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;376:687–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lenhard B,
    2. Sandelin A,
    3. Carninci P
    . Metazoan promoters: emerging characteristics and insights into transcriptional regulation. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:233–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Davuluri RV,
    2. Suzuki Y,
    3. Sugano S,
    4. Plass C,
    5. Huang TH
    . The functional consequences of alternative promoter use in mammalian genomes. Trends Genet 2008;24:167–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. D'Alessio JA,
    2. Wright KJ,
    3. Tjian R
    . Shifting players and paradigms in cell-specific transcription. Mol Cell 2009;36:924–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Bieberstein NI,
    2. Carrillo Oesterreich F,
    3. Straube K,
    4. Neugebauer KM
    . First exon length controls active chromatin signatures and transcription. Cell Rep 2012;2:62–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zammarchi F,
    2. Boutsalis G,
    3. Cartegni L
    . 5′ UTR control of native ERG and of Tmprss2:ERG variants activity in prostate cancer. PLoS One 2013;8:e49721.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ong CK,
    2. Leong C,
    3. Tan PH,
    4. Van T,
    5. Huynh H
    . The role of 5′ untranslated region in translational suppression of OKL38 mRNA in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene 2007;26:1155–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Valen E,
    2. Pascarella G,
    3. Chalk A,
    4. Maeda N,
    5. Kojima M,
    6. Kawazu C,
    7. et al.
    Genome-wide detection and analysis of hippocampus core promoters using DeepCAGE. Genome Res 2009;19:255–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Wiesner T,
    2. Lee W,
    3. Obenauf AC,
    4. Ran L,
    5. Murali R,
    6. Zhang QF,
    7. et al.
    Alternative transcription initiation leads to expression of a novel ALK isoform in cancer. Nature 2015;526:453–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Muller M,
    2. Schleithoff ES,
    3. Stremmel W,
    4. Melino G,
    5. Krammer PH,
    6. Schilling T
    . One, two, three–p53, p63, p73 and chemosensitivity. Drug Resist Updat 2006;9:288–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Arce L,
    2. Yokoyama NN,
    3. Waterman ML
    . Diversity of LEF/TCF action in development and disease. Oncogene 2006;25:7492–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Agarwal VR,
    2. Bulun SE,
    3. Leitch M,
    4. Rohrich R,
    5. Simpson ER
    . Use of alternative promoters to express the aromatase cytochrome P450 (CYP19) gene in breast adipose tissues of cancer-free and breast cancer patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:3843–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Carninci P,
    2. Kasukawa T,
    3. Katayama S,
    4. Gough J,
    5. Frith MC,
    6. Maeda N,
    7. et al.
    The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science 2005;309:1559–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Forrest AR,
    2. Kawaji H,
    3. Rehli M,
    4. Baillie JK,
    5. de Hoon MJ,
    6. Haberle V,
    7. et al.
    A promoter-level mammalian expression atlas. Nature 2014;507:462–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Core LJ,
    2. Martins AL,
    3. Danko CG,
    4. Waters CT,
    5. Siepel A,
    6. Lis JT
    . Analysis of nascent RNA identifies a unified architecture of initiation regions at mammalian promoters and enhancers. Nat Genet 2014;46:1311–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Zang C,
    3. Rosenfeld JA,
    4. Schones DE,
    5. Barski A,
    6. Cuddapah S,
    7. et al.
    Combinatorial patterns of histone acetylations and methylations in the human genome. Nat Genet 2008;40:897–903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Barski A,
    2. Cuddapah S,
    3. Cui K,
    4. Roh TY,
    5. Schones DE,
    6. Wang Z,
    7. et al.
    High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 2007;129:823–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Creyghton MP,
    2. Cheng AW,
    3. Welstead GG,
    4. Kooistra T,
    5. Carey BW,
    6. Steine EJ,
    7. et al.
    Histone H3K27ac separates active from poised enhancers and predicts developmental state. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:21931–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Rada-Iglesias A,
    2. Bajpai R,
    3. Swigut T,
    4. Brugmann SA,
    5. Flynn RA,
    6. Wysocka J
    . A unique chromatin signature uncovers early developmental enhancers in humans. Nature 2011;470:279–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gallego Romero I,
    2. Pai AA,
    3. Tung J,
    4. Gilad Y
    . RNA-seq: impact of RNA degradation on transcript quantification. BMC Biol 2014;12:42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Preker P,
    2. Almvig K,
    3. Christensen MS,
    4. Valen E,
    5. Mapendano CK,
    6. Sandelin A,
    7. et al.
    PROMoter uPstream Transcripts share characteristics with mRNAs and are produced upstream of all three major types of mammalian promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:7179–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Kim TK,
    2. Hemberg M,
    3. Gray JM,
    4. Costa AM,
    5. Bear DM,
    6. Wu J,
    7. et al.
    Widespread transcription at neuronal activity-regulated enhancers. Nature 2010;465:182–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Andersson R,
    2. Refsing Andersen P,
    3. Valen E,
    4. Core LJ,
    5. Bornholdt J,
    6. Boyd M,
    7. et al.
    Nuclear stability and transcriptional directionality separate functionally distinct RNA species. Nat Commun 2014;5:5336.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Andersson R,
    2. Gebhard C,
    3. Miguel-Escalada I,
    4. Hoof I,
    5. Bornholdt J,
    6. Boyd M,
    7. et al.
    An atlas of active enhancers across human cell types and tissues. Nature 2014;507:455–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ng JH,
    2. Kumar V,
    3. Muratani M,
    4. Kraus P,
    5. Yeo JC,
    6. Yaw LP,
    7. et al.
    In vivo epigenomic profiling of germ cells reveals germ cell molecular signatures. Dev Cell 2013;24:324–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Muratani M,
    2. Deng N,
    3. Ooi WF,
    4. Lin SJ,
    5. Xing M,
    6. Xu C,
    7. et al.
    Nanoscale chromatin profiling of gastric adenocarcinoma reveals cancer-associated cryptic promoters and somatically acquired regulatory elements. Nat Commun 2014;5:4361.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Tanasijevic B,
    2. Dai B,
    3. Ezashi T,
    4. Livingston K,
    5. Roberts RM,
    6. Rasmussen TP
    . Progressive accumulation of epigenetic heterogeneity during human ES cell culture. Epigenetics 2009;4:330–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Smiraglia DJ,
    2. Rush LJ,
    3. Fruhwald MC,
    4. Dai Z,
    5. Held WA,
    6. Costello JF,
    7. et al.
    Excessive CpG island hypermethylation in cancer cell lines versus primary human malignancies. Hum Mol Genet 2001;10:1413–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Diaz A,
    2. Nellore A,
    3. Song JS
    . CHANCE: comprehensive software for quality control and validation of ChIP-seq data. Genome Biol 2012;13:R98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Andersson R,
    2. Sandelin A,
    3. Danko CG
    . A unified architecture of transcriptional regulatory elements. Trends Genet 2015;31:426–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Raja UM,
    2. Gopal G,
    3. Rajkumar T
    . Intragenic DNA methylation concomitant with repression of ATP4B and ATP4A gene expression in gastric cancer is a potential serum biomarker. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:5563–8.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 2014;513:202–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Rapaport F,
    2. Khanin R,
    3. Liang Y,
    4. Pirun M,
    5. Krek A,
    6. Zumbo P,
    7. et al.
    Comprehensive evaluation of differential gene expression analysis methods for RNA-seq data. Genome Biol 2013;14:R95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Love MI,
    2. Huber W,
    3. Anders S
    . Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 2014;15:550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Robinson MD,
    2. McCarthy DJ,
    3. Smyth GK
    . edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 2010;26:139–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Steinhauser S,
    2. Kurzawa N,
    3. Eils R,
    4. Herrmann C
    . A comprehensive comparison of tools for differential ChIP-seq analysis. Brief Bioinform 2016;17:953–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Ross-Innes CS,
    2. Stark R,
    3. Teschendorff AE,
    4. Holmes KA,
    5. Ali HR,
    6. Dunning MJ,
    7. et al.
    Differential oestrogen receptor binding is associated with clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nature 2012;481:389–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Decker KF,
    2. Zheng D,
    3. He Y,
    4. Bowman T,
    5. Edwards JR,
    6. Jia L
    . Persistent androgen receptor-mediated transcription in castration-resistant prostate cancer under androgen-deprived conditions. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:10765–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Okitsu CY,
    2. Hsieh JC,
    3. Hsieh CL
    . Transcriptional activity affects the H3K4me3 level and distribution in the coding region. Mol Cell Biol 2010;30:2933–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Zhang ZZ,
    2. Shen ZY,
    3. Shen YY,
    4. Zhao EH,
    5. Wang M,
    6. Wang CJ,
    7. et al.
    HOTAIR long noncoding RNA promotes gastric cancer metastasis through suppression of Poly r(C)-Binding Protein (PCBP) 1. Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14:1162–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Ding J,
    2. Li D,
    3. Gong M,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Huang X,
    6. Wu T,
    7. et al.
    Expression and clinical significance of the long non-coding RNA PVT1 in human gastric cancer. Onco Targets Ther 2014;7:1625–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Kundaje A,
    2. Meuleman W,
    3. Ernst J,
    4. Bilenky M,
    5. Yen A,
    6. Heravi-Moussavi A,
    7. et al.
    Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 2015;518:317–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Smith ZD,
    2. Meissner A
    . DNA methylation: roles in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:204–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Jones PA
    . Functions of DNA methylation: islands, start sites, gene bodies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:484–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Harrow J,
    2. Frankish A,
    3. Gonzalez JM,
    4. Tapanari E,
    5. Diekhans M,
    6. Kokocinski F,
    7. et al.
    GENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project. Genome Res 2012;22:1760–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Chia NY,
    2. Deng N,
    3. Das K,
    4. Huang D,
    5. Hu L,
    6. Zhu Y,
    7. et al.
    Regulatory crosstalk between lineage-survival oncogenes KLF5, GATA4 and GATA6 cooperatively promotes gastric cancer development. Gut 2015;64:707–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Chang HR,
    2. Nam S,
    3. Kook MC,
    4. Kim KT,
    5. Liu X,
    6. Yao H,
    7. et al.
    HNF4alpha is a therapeutic target that links AMPK to WNT signalling in early-stage gastric cancer. Gut 2016;65:19–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Tanaka T,
    2. Jiang S,
    3. Hotta H,
    4. Takano K,
    5. Iwanari H,
    6. Sumi K,
    7. et al.
    Dysregulated expression of P1 and P2 promoter-driven hepatocyte nuclear factor-4alpha in the pathogenesis of human cancer. J Pathol 2006;208:662–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Takano K,
    2. Hasegawa G,
    3. Jiang S,
    4. Kurosaki I,
    5. Hatakeyama K,
    6. Iwanari H,
    7. et al.
    Immunohistochemical staining for P1 and P2 promoter-driven hepatocyte nuclear factor-4alpha may complement mucin phenotype of differentiated-type early gastric carcinoma. Pathol Int 2009;59:462–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Edwards NJ,
    2. Oberti M,
    3. Thangudu RR,
    4. Cai S,
    5. McGarvey PB,
    6. Jacob S,
    7. et al.
    The CPTAC data portal: a resource for cancer proteomics research. J Proteome Res 2015;14:2707–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Zhang B,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Zhu J,
    5. Liu Q,
    6. Shi Z,
    7. et al.
    Proteogenomic characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 2014;513:382–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Nafisi H,
    2. Banihashemi B,
    3. Daigle M,
    4. Albert PR
    . GAP1(IP4BP)/RASA3 mediates Galphai-induced inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinase. J Biol Chem 2008;283:35908–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Linehan WM,
    2. Spellman PT,
    3. Ricketts CJ,
    4. Creighton CJ,
    5. Fei SS,
    6. et al.
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Linehan WM, Spellman PT, Ricketts CJ, Creighton CJ, Fei SS, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of papillary renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2016;374:135–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Nishida K,
    2. Hirano T
    . The role of Gab family scaffolding adapter proteins in the signal transduction of cytokine and growth factor receptors. Cancer Sci 2003;94:1029–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Darnell JE Jr.,
    2. Kerr IM,
    3. Stark GR
    . Jak-STAT pathways and transcriptional activation in response to IFNs and other extracellular signaling proteins. Science 1994;264:1415–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. Ihle JN
    . Cytokine receptor signalling. Nature 1995;377:591–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Wen Z,
    2. Zhong Z,
    3. Darnell JE Jr.
    . Maximal activation of transcription by Stat1 and Stat3 requires both tyrosine and serine phosphorylation. Cell 1995;82:241–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Decker T,
    2. Kovarik P
    . Serine phosphorylation of STATs. Oncogene 2000;19:2628–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Schumacher TN,
    2. Schreiber RD
    . Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 2015;348:69–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Mittal D,
    2. Gubin MM,
    3. Schreiber RD,
    4. Smyth MJ
    . New insights into cancer immunoediting and its three component phases–elimination, equilibrium and escape. Curr Opin Immunol 2014;27:16–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Sette A,
    2. Vitiello A,
    3. Reherman B,
    4. Fowler P,
    5. Nayersina R,
    6. Kast WM,
    7. et al.
    The relationship between class I binding affinity and immunogenicity of potential cytotoxic T cell epitopes. J Immunol 1994;153:5586–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  74. 74.↵
    1. Hoof I,
    2. Peters B,
    3. Sidney J,
    4. Pedersen LE,
    5. Sette A,
    6. Lund O,
    7. et al.
    NetMHCpan, a method for MHC class I binding prediction beyond humans. Immunogenetics 2009;61:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Ooi CH,
    2. Ivanova T,
    3. Wu J,
    4. Lee M,
    5. Tan IB,
    6. Tao J,
    7. et al.
    Oncogenic pathway combinations predict clinical prognosis in gastric cancer. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Johnson BJ,
    2. Costelloe EO,
    3. Fitzpatrick DR,
    4. Haanen JB,
    5. Schumacher TN,
    6. Brown LE,
    7. et al.
    Single-cell perforin and granzyme expression reveals the anatomical localization of effector CD8+ T cells in influenza virus-infected mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:2657–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Ji RR,
    2. Chasalow SD,
    3. Wang L,
    4. Hamid O,
    5. Schmidt H,
    6. Cogswell J,
    7. et al.
    An immune-active tumor microenvironment favors clinical response to ipilimumab. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2012;61:1019–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Herbst RS,
    2. Soria JC,
    3. Kowanetz M,
    4. Fine GD,
    5. Hamid O,
    6. Gordon MS,
    7. et al.
    Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients. Nature 2014;515:563–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Van Loo P,
    2. Nordgard SH,
    3. Lingjaerde OC,
    4. Russnes HG,
    5. Rye IH,
    6. Sun W,
    7. et al.
    Allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:16910–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Yoshihara K,
    2. Shahmoradgoli M,
    3. Martinez E,
    4. Vegesna R,
    5. Kim H,
    6. Torres-Garcia W,
    7. et al.
    Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data. Nat Commun 2013;4:2612.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Rooney MS,
    2. Shukla SA,
    3. Wu CJ,
    4. Getz G,
    5. Hacohen N
    . Molecular and genetic properties of tumors associated with local immune cytolytic activity. Cell 2015;160:48–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Skibinski DA,
    2. Hanson BJ,
    3. Lin Y,
    4. von Messling V,
    5. Jegerlehner A,
    6. Tee JB,
    7. et al.
    Enhanced neutralizing antibody titers and Th1 polarization from a novel Escherichia coli derived pandemic influenza vaccine. PLoS One 2013;8:e76571.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    1. Palucka AK,
    2. Ueno H,
    3. Fay J,
    4. Banchereau J
    . Dendritic cells: a critical player in cancer therapy? J Immunother 2008;31:793–805.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    1. Robbins PF,
    2. Lu YC,
    3. El-Gamil M,
    4. Li YF,
    5. Gross C,
    6. Gartner J,
    7. et al.
    Mining exomic sequencing data to identify mutated antigens recognized by adoptively transferred tumor-reactive T cells. Nat Med 2013;19:747–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Tran E,
    2. Turcotte S,
    3. Gros A,
    4. Robbins PF,
    5. Lu YC,
    6. Dudley ME,
    7. et al.
    Cancer immunotherapy based on mutation-specific CD4+ T cells in a patient with epithelial cancer. Science 2014;344:641–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Matsushita H,
    2. Vesely MD,
    3. Koboldt DC,
    4. Rickert CG,
    5. Uppaluri R,
    6. Magrini VJ,
    7. et al.
    Cancer exome analysis reveals a T-cell-dependent mechanism of cancer immunoediting. Nature 2012;482:400–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Sidney J,
    2. Southwood S,
    3. Mann DL,
    4. Fernandez-Vina MA,
    5. Newman MJ,
    6. Sette A
    . Majority of peptides binding HLA-A*0201 with high affinity crossreact with other A2-supertype molecules. Hum Immunol 2001;62:1200–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Torikai H,
    2. Akatsuka Y,
    3. Miyauchi H,
    4. Terakura S,
    5. Onizuka M,
    6. Tsujimura K,
    7. et al.
    The HLA-A*0201-restricted minor histocompatibility antigen HA-1H peptide can also be presented by another HLA-A2 subtype, A*0206. Bone Marrow Transplant 2007;40:165–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Griffon A,
    2. Barbier Q,
    3. Dalino J,
    4. van Helden J,
    5. Spicuglia S,
    6. Ballester B
    . Integrative analysis of public ChIP-seq experiments reveals a complex multi-cell regulatory landscape. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:e27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Simon JA,
    2. Lange CA
    . Roles of the EZH2 histone methyltransferase in cancer epigenetics. Mutat Res 2008;647:21–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Matsukawa Y,
    2. Semba S,
    3. Kato H,
    4. Ito A,
    5. Yanagihara K,
    6. Yokozaki H
    . Expression of the enhancer of zeste homolog 2 is correlated with poor prognosis in human gastric cancer. Cancer Sci 2006;97:484–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Fujii S,
    2. Ochiai A
    . Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 downregulates E-cadherin by mediating histone H3 methylation in gastric cancer cells. Cancer Sci 2008;99:738–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Varambally S,
    2. Dhanasekaran SM,
    3. Zhou M,
    4. Barrette TR,
    5. Kumar-Sinha C,
    6. Sanda MG,
    7. et al.
    The polycomb group protein EZH2 is involved in progression of prostate cancer. Nature 2002;419:624–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Kleer CG,
    2. Cao Q,
    3. Varambally S,
    4. Shen R,
    5. Ota I,
    6. Tomlins SA,
    7. et al.
    EZH2 is a marker of aggressive breast cancer and promotes neoplastic transformation of breast epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:11606–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Hock H
    . A complex Polycomb issue: the two faces of EZH2 in cancer. Genes Dev 2012;26:751–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. McCabe MT,
    2. Ott HM,
    3. Ganji G,
    4. Korenchuk S,
    5. Thompson C,
    6. Van Aller GS,
    7. et al.
    EZH2 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for lymphoma with EZH2-activating mutations. Nature 2012;492:108–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Cheng LL,
    2. Itahana Y,
    3. Lei ZD,
    4. Chia NY,
    5. Wu Y,
    6. Yu Y,
    7. et al.
    TP53 genomic status regulates sensitivity of gastric cancer cells to the histone methylation inhibitor 3-deazaneplanocin A (DZNep). Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:4201–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Lu Q,
    2. Hu Y,
    3. Sun J,
    4. Cheng Y,
    5. Cheung KH,
    6. Zhao H
    . A statistical framework to predict functional non-coding regions in the human genome through integrated analysis of annotation data. Sci Rep 2015;5:10576.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Lu Q,
    2. Powles RL,
    3. Wang Q,
    4. He BJ,
    5. Zhao H
    . Integrative tissue-specific functional annotations in the human genome provide novel insights on many complex traits and improve signal prioritization in genome wide association studies. PLoS Genet 2016;12:e1005947.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Villar D,
    2. Berthelot C,
    3. Aldridge S,
    4. Rayner TF,
    5. Lukk M,
    6. Pignatelli M,
    7. et al.
    Enhancer evolution across 20 mammalian species. Cell 2015;160:554–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Wolff EM,
    2. Byun HM,
    3. Han HF,
    4. Sharma S,
    5. Nichols PW,
    6. Siegmund KD,
    7. et al.
    Hypomethylation of a LINE-1 promoter activates an alternate transcript of the MET oncogene in bladders with cancer. PLoS Genet 2010;6:e1000917.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Marinov GK,
    2. Williams BA,
    3. McCue K,
    4. Schroth GP,
    5. Gertz J,
    6. Myers RM,
    7. et al.
    From single-cell to cell-pool transcriptomes: stochasticity in gene expression and RNA splicing. Genome Res 2014;24:496–510.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. 103.↵
    1. Kouzarides T
    . Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell 2007;128:693–705.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Rivera CM,
    2. Ren B
    . Mapping human epigenomes. Cell 2013;155:39–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Jones PA,
    2. Baylin SB
    . The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 2002;3:415–28.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. Kadonaga JT
    . Perspectives on the RNA polymerase II core promoter. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 2012;1:40–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Sandelin A,
    2. Carninci P,
    3. Lenhard B,
    4. Ponjavic J,
    5. Hayashizaki Y,
    6. Hume DA
    . Mammalian RNA polymerase II core promoters: insights from genome-wide studies. Nat Rev Genet 2007;8:424–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Frith MC,
    2. Valen E,
    3. Krogh A,
    4. Hayashizaki Y,
    5. Carninci P,
    6. Sandelin A
    . A code for transcription initiation in mammalian genomes. Genome Res 2008;18:1–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.↵
    1. Carninci P,
    2. Sandelin A,
    3. Lenhard B,
    4. Katayama S,
    5. Shimokawa K,
    6. Ponjavic J,
    7. et al.
    Genome-wide analysis of mammalian promoter architecture and evolution. Nat Genet 2006;38:626–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    1. Rach EA,
    2. Winter DR,
    3. Benjamin AM,
    4. Corcoran DL,
    5. Ni T,
    6. Zhu J,
    7. et al.
    Transcription initiation patterns indicate divergent strategies for gene regulation at the chromatin level. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1001274.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    1. Trinklein ND,
    2. Aldred SJ,
    3. Saldanha AJ,
    4. Myers RM
    . Identification and functional analysis of human transcriptional promoters. Genome Res 2003;13:308–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. 112.↵
    1. Zhang T,
    2. Haws P,
    3. Wu Q
    . Multiple variable first exons: a mechanism for cell- and tissue-specific gene regulation. Genome Res 2004;14:79–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. 113.↵
    1. Araujo PR,
    2. Yoon K,
    3. Ko D,
    4. Smith AD,
    5. Qiao M,
    6. Suresh U,
    7. et al.
    Before it gets started: regulating translation at the 5′ UTR. Comp Funct Genomics 2012;2012:475731.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    1. Pal S,
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Kim H,
    4. Wickramasinghe P,
    5. Baubet V,
    6. Showe LC,
    7. et al.
    Alternative transcription exceeds alternative splicing in generating the transcriptome diversity of cerebellar development. Genome Res 2011;21:1260–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.↵
    1. Sobczak K,
    2. Krzyzosiak WJ
    . Structural determinants of BRCA1 translational regulation. J Biol Chem 2002;277:17349–58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.↵
    1. Arrick BA,
    2. Lee AL,
    3. Grendell RL,
    4. Derynck R
    . Inhibition of translation of transforming growth factor-beta 3 mRNA by its 5′ untranslated region. Mol Cell Biol 1991;11:4306–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  117. 117.↵
    1. Han B,
    2. Dong Z,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Chen Q,
    5. Hashimoto K,
    6. Zhang JT
    . Regulation of constitutive expression of mouse PTEN by the 5′-untranslated region. Oncogene 2003;22:5325–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    1. Vizoso M,
    2. Ferreira HJ,
    3. Lopez-Serra P,
    4. Carmona FJ,
    5. Martinez-Cardus A,
    6. Girotti MR,
    7. et al.
    Epigenetic activation of a cryptic TBC1D16 transcript enhances melanoma progression by targeting EGFR. Nat Med 2015;21:741–50.
    OpenUrl
  119. 119.↵
    1. Toyoshima K,
    2. Hayashi A,
    3. Kashiwagi M,
    4. Hayashi N,
    5. Iwatsuki M,
    6. Ishimoto T,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of circulating tumor cells derived from advanced gastric cancer. Int J Cancer 2015;137:991–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Warneke VS,
    2. Behrens HM,
    3. Haag J,
    4. Kruger S,
    5. Simon E,
    6. Mathiak M,
    7. et al.
    Members of the EpCAM signalling pathway are expressed in gastric cancer tissue and are correlated with patient prognosis. Br J Cancer 2013;109:2217–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    1. Chaves-Perez A,
    2. Mack B,
    3. Maetzel D,
    4. Kremling H,
    5. Eggert C,
    6. Harreus U,
    7. et al.
    EpCAM regulates cell cycle progression via control of cyclin D1 expression. Oncogene 2013;32:641–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.↵
    1. Stefanini L,
    2. Paul DS,
    3. Robledo RF,
    4. Chan ER,
    5. Getz TM,
    6. Campbell RA,
    7. et al.
    RASA3 is a critical inhibitor of RAP1-dependent platelet activation. J Clin Invest 2015;125:1419–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    1. Che YL,
    2. Luo SJ,
    3. Li G,
    4. Cheng M,
    5. Gao YM,
    6. Li XM,
    7. et al.
    The C3G/Rap1 pathway promotes secretion of MMP-2 and MMP-9 and is involved in serous ovarian cancer metastasis. Cancer Lett 2015;359:241–9.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    1. House CD,
    2. Wang BD,
    3. Ceniccola K,
    4. Williams R,
    5. Simaan M,
    6. Olender J,
    7. et al.
    Voltage-gated Na+ channel activity increases colon cancer transcriptional activity and invasion via persistent MAPK signaling. Sci Rep 2015;5:11541.
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.↵
    1. Molina-Ortiz P,
    2. Polizzi S,
    3. Ramery E,
    4. Gayral S,
    5. Delierneux C,
    6. Oury C,
    7. et al.
    Rasa3 controls megakaryocyte Rap1 activation, integrin signaling and differentiation into proplatelet. PLoS Genet 2014;10:e1004420.
    OpenUrl
  126. 126.↵
    1. Tang J,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Lyon K,
    4. Camps J,
    5. Dalton S,
    6. Ried T,
    7. et al.
    Cancer driver-passenger distinction via sporadic human and dog cancer comparison: a proof-of-principle study with colorectal cancer. Oncogene 2014;33:814–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    1. Gherardi E,
    2. Birchmeier W,
    3. Birchmeier C,
    4. Vande Woude G
    . Targeting MET in cancer: rationale and progress. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:89–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    1. Peters S,
    2. Adjei AA
    . MET: a promising anticancer therapeutic target. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:314–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    1. Kawakami H,
    2. Okamoto I,
    3. Arao T,
    4. Okamoto W,
    5. Matsumoto K,
    6. Taniguchi H,
    7. et al.
    MET amplification as a potential therapeutic target in gastric cancer. Oncotarget 2013;4:9–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    1. Tanimura S,
    2. Chatani Y,
    3. Hoshino R,
    4. Sato M,
    5. Watanabe S,
    6. Kataoka T,
    7. et al.
    Activation of the 41/43 kDa mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway is required for hepatocyte growth factor-induced cell scattering. Oncogene 1998;17:57–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    1. Zhang YW,
    2. Wang LM,
    3. Jove R,
    4. Vande Woude GF
    . Requirement of Stat3 signaling for HGF/SF-Met mediated tumorigenesis. Oncogene 2002;21:217–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    1. Weidner KM,
    2. Di Cesare S,
    3. Sachs M,
    4. Brinkmann V,
    5. Behrens J,
    6. Birchmeier W
    . Interaction between Gab1 and the c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase is responsible for epithelial morphogenesis. Nature 1996;384:173–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    1. Trusolino L,
    2. Bertotti A,
    3. Comoglio PM
    . MET signalling: principles and functions in development, organ regeneration and cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010;11:834–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. 134.↵
    1. Ota K,
    2. Matsui M,
    3. Milford EL,
    4. Mackin GA,
    5. Weiner HL,
    6. Hafler DA
    . T-cell recognition of an immunodominant myelin basic protein epitope in multiple sclerosis. Nature 1990;346:183–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    1. Bouneaud C,
    2. Kourilsky P,
    3. Bousso P
    . Impact of negative selection on the T cell repertoire reactive to a self-peptide: a large fraction of T cell clones escapes clonal deletion. Immunity 2000;13:829–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    1. Yu W,
    2. Jiang N,
    3. Ebert PJ,
    4. Kidd BA,
    5. Muller S,
    6. Lund PJ,
    7. et al.
    Clonal deletion prunes but does not eliminate self-specific alphabeta CD8(+) T lymphocytes. Immunity 2015;42:929–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. 137.↵
    1. Schild H,
    2. Rotzschke O,
    3. Kalbacher H,
    4. Rammensee HG
    . Limit of T cell tolerance to self proteins by peptide presentation. Science 1990;247:1587–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. 138.↵
    1. Morgan DJ,
    2. Kreuwel HT,
    3. Fleck S,
    4. Levitsky HI,
    5. Pardoll DM,
    6. Sherman LA
    . Activation of low avidity CTL specific for a self epitope results in tumor rejection but not autoimmunity. J Immunol 1998;160:643–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. 139.↵
    1. Sandberg JK,
    2. Franksson L,
    3. Sundback J,
    4. Michaelsson J,
    5. Petersson M,
    6. Achour A,
    7. et al.
    T cell tolerance based on avidity thresholds rather than complete deletion allows maintenance of maximal repertoire diversity. J Immunol 2000;165:25–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    1. Poplonski L,
    2. Vukusic B,
    3. Pawling J,
    4. Clapoff S,
    5. Roder J,
    6. Hozumi N,
    7. et al.
    Tolerance is overcome in beef insulin-transgenic mice by activation of low-affinity autoreactive T cells. Eur J Immunol 1996;26:601–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. 141.↵
    1. McMahan RH,
    2. Slansky JE
    . Mobilizing the low-avidity T cell repertoire to kill tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 2007;17:317–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.↵
    1. Enouz S,
    2. Carrie L,
    3. Merkler D,
    4. Bevan MJ,
    5. Zehn D
    . Autoreactive T cells bypass negative selection and respond to self-antigen stimulation during infection. J Exp Med 2012;209:1769–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  143. 143.↵
    1. Coulie PG,
    2. Brichard V,
    3. Van Pel A,
    4. Wolfel T,
    5. Schneider J,
    6. Traversari C,
    7. et al.
    A new gene coding for a differentiation antigen recognized by autologous cytolytic T lymphocytes on HLA-A2 melanomas. J Exp Med 1994;180:35–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. 144.↵
    1. Sensi M,
    2. Traversari C,
    3. Radrizzani M,
    4. Salvi S,
    5. Maccalli C,
    6. Mortarini R,
    7. et al.
    Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte clones from different patients display limited T-cell-receptor variable-region gene usage in HLA-A2-restricted recognition of the melanoma antigen Melan-A/MART-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995;92:5674–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  145. 145.↵
    1. Kawakami Y,
    2. Eliyahu S,
    3. Delgado CH,
    4. Robbins PF,
    5. Rivoltini L,
    6. Topalian SL,
    7. et al.
    Cloning of the gene coding for a shared human melanoma antigen recognized by autologous T cells infiltrating into tumor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:3515–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  146. 146.↵
    1. Kawakami Y,
    2. Eliyahu S,
    3. Sakaguchi K,
    4. Robbins PF,
    5. Rivoltini L,
    6. Yannelli JR,
    7. et al.
    Identification of the immunodominant peptides of the MART-1 human melanoma antigen recognized by the majority of HLA-A2-restricted tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. J Exp Med 1994;180:347–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. 147.↵
    1. Cox AL,
    2. Skipper J,
    3. Chen Y,
    4. Henderson RA,
    5. Darrow TL,
    6. Shabanowitz J,
    7. et al.
    Identification of a peptide recognized by five melanoma-specific human cytotoxic T cell lines. Science 1994;264:716–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  148. 148.↵
    1. Zippelius A,
    2. Pittet MJ,
    3. Batard P,
    4. Rufer N,
    5. de Smedt M,
    6. Guillaume P,
    7. et al.
    Thymic selection generates a large T cell pool recognizing a self-peptide in humans. J Exp Med 2002;195:485–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. 149.↵
    1. Houghton AN,
    2. Taormina MC,
    3. Ikeda H,
    4. Watanabe T,
    5. Oettgen HF,
    6. Old LJ
    . Serological survey of normal humans for natural antibody to cell surface antigens of melanoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980;77:4260–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  150. 150.↵
    1. Livingston PO,
    2. Natoli EJ,
    3. Calves MJ,
    4. Stockert E,
    5. Oettgen HF,
    6. Old LJ
    . Vaccines containing purified GM2 ganglioside elicit GM2 antibodies in melanoma patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1987;84:2911–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  151. 151.↵
    1. Houghton AN,
    2. Eisinger M,
    3. Albino AP,
    4. Cairncross JG,
    5. Old LJ
    . Surface antigens of melanocytes and melanomas. Markers of melanocyte differentiation and melanoma subsets. J Exp Med 1982;156:1755–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  152. 152.↵
    1. Lewis JJ,
    2. Janetzki S,
    3. Schaed S,
    4. Panageas KS,
    5. Wang S,
    6. Williams L,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of CD8(+) T-cell frequencies by the Elispot assay in healthy individuals and in patients with metastatic melanoma immunized with tyrosinase peptide. Int J Cancer 2000;87:391–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. 153.↵
    1. Brichard V,
    2. Van Pel A,
    3. Wolfel T,
    4. Wolfel C,
    5. De Plaen E,
    6. Lethe B,
    7. et al.
    The tyrosinase gene codes for an antigen recognized by autologous cytolytic T lymphocytes on HLA-A2 melanomas. J Exp Med 1993;178:489–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.↵
    1. Brichard VG,
    2. Herman J,
    3. Van Pel A,
    4. Wildmann C,
    5. Gaugler B,
    6. Wolfel T,
    7. et al.
    A tyrosinase nonapeptide presented by HLA-B44 is recognized on a human melanoma by autologous cytolytic T lymphocytes. Eur J Immunol 1996;26:224–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.↵
    1. Robbins PF,
    2. el-Gamil M,
    3. Kawakami Y,
    4. Stevens E,
    5. Yannelli JR,
    6. Rosenberg SA
    . Recognition of tyrosinase by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from a patient responding to immunotherapy. Cancer Res 1994;54:3124–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  156. 156.↵
    1. Wolfel T,
    2. Van Pel A,
    3. Brichard V,
    4. Schneider J,
    5. Seliger B,
    6. Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH,
    7. et al.
    Two tyrosinase nonapeptides recognized on HLA-A2 melanomas by autologous cytolytic T lymphocytes. Eur J Immunol 1994;24:759–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. 157.↵
    1. Topalian SL,
    2. Rivoltini L,
    3. Mancini M,
    4. Markus NR,
    5. Robbins PF,
    6. Kawakami Y,
    7. et al.
    Human CD4+ T cells specifically recognize a shared melanoma-associated antigen encoded by the tyrosinase gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:9461–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  158. 158.↵
    1. Wang RF,
    2. Appella E,
    3. Kawakami Y,
    4. Kang X,
    5. Rosenberg SA
    . Identification of TRP-2 as a human tumor antigen recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Exp Med 1996;184:2207–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. 159.↵
    1. Mattes MJ,
    2. Thomson TM,
    3. Old LJ,
    4. Lloyd KO
    . A pigmentation-associated, differentiation antigen of human melanoma defined by a precipitating antibody in human serum. Int J Cancer 1983;32:717–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  160. 160.↵
    1. Trager U,
    2. Sierro S,
    3. Djordjevic G,
    4. Bouzo B,
    5. Khandwala S,
    6. Meloni A,
    7. et al.
    The immune response to melanoma is limited by thymic selection of self-antigens. PLoS One 2012;7:e35005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. 161.↵
    1. Castelli C,
    2. Rivoltini L,
    3. Andreola G,
    4. Carrabba M,
    5. Renkvist N,
    6. Parmiani G
    . T-cell recognition of melanoma-associated antigens. J Cell Physiol 2000;182:323–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. 162.↵
    1. Vijayasaradhi S,
    2. Bouchard B,
    3. Houghton AN
    . The melanoma antigen gp75 is the human homologue of the mouse b (brown) locus gene product. J Exp Med 1990;171:1375–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  163. 163.↵
    1. Kawakami Y,
    2. Robbins PF,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Tupesis JP,
    5. Parkhurst MR,
    6. Kang X,
    7. et al.
    Identification of new melanoma epitopes on melanosomal proteins recognized by tumor infiltrating T lymphocytes restricted by HLA-A1, -A2, and -A3 alleles. J Immunol 1998;161:6985–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  164. 164.↵
    1. Brandle D,
    2. Bilsborough J,
    3. Rulicke T,
    4. Uyttenhove C,
    5. Boon T,
    6. Van den Eynde BJ
    . The shared tumor-specific antigen encoded by mouse gene P1A is a target not only for cytolytic T lymphocytes but also for tumor rejection. Eur J Immunol 1998;28:4010–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. 165.↵
    1. Dunn GP,
    2. Koebel CM,
    3. Schreiber RD
    . Interferons, immunity and cancer immunoediting. Nat Rev Immunol 2006;6:836–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. 166.↵
    1. Dunn GP,
    2. Old LJ,
    3. Schreiber RD
    . The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu Rev Immunol 2004;22:329–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    1. Hanahan D,
    2. Weinberg RA
    . Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011;144:646–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.↵
    1. Dunn GP,
    2. Bruce AT,
    3. Ikeda H,
    4. Old LJ,
    5. Schreiber RD
    . Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol 2002;3:991–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.↵
    1. Shankaran V,
    2. Ikeda H,
    3. Bruce AT,
    4. White JM,
    5. Swanson PE,
    6. Old LJ,
    7. et al.
    IFNgamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature 2001;410:1107–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.↵
    1. Schreiber RD,
    2. Old LJ,
    3. Smyth MJ
    . Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity's roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science 2011;331:1565–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  171. 171.↵
    1. Koebel CM,
    2. Vermi W,
    3. Swann JB,
    4. Zerafa N,
    5. Rodig SJ,
    6. Old LJ,
    7. et al.
    Adaptive immunity maintains occult cancer in an equilibrium state. Nature 2007;450:903–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  172. 172.↵
    1. Vesely MD,
    2. Kershaw MH,
    3. Schreiber RD,
    4. Smyth MJ
    . Natural innate and adaptive immunity to cancer. Annu Rev Immunol 2011;29:235–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. 173.↵
    1. Hicklin DJ,
    2. Marincola FM,
    3. Ferrone S
    . HLA class I antigen downregulation in human cancers: T-cell immunotherapy revives an old story. Mol Med Today 1999;5:178–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.↵
    1. Nie Y,
    2. Yang G,
    3. Song Y,
    4. Zhao X,
    5. So C,
    6. Liao J,
    7. et al.
    DNA hypermethylation is a mechanism for loss of expression of the HLA class I genes in human esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1615–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  175. 175.↵
    1. Fonsatti E,
    2. Sigalotti L,
    3. Coral S,
    4. Colizzi F,
    5. Altomonte M,
    6. Maio M
    . Methylation-regulated expression of HLA class I antigens in melanoma. Int J Cancer 2003;105:430–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. 176.↵
    1. Soong TW,
    2. Hui KM
    . Locus-specific transcriptional control of HLA genes. J Immunol 1992;149:2008–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  177. 177.↵
    1. de Vries TJ,
    2. Fourkour A,
    3. Wobbes T,
    4. Verkroost G,
    5. Ruiter DJ,
    6. van Muijen GN
    . Heterogeneous expression of immunotherapy candidate proteins gp100, MART-1, and tyrosinase in human melanoma cell lines and in human melanocytic lesions. Cancer Res 1997;57:3223–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  178. 178.↵
    1. Sotillo E,
    2. Barrett DM,
    3. Black KL,
    4. Bagashev A,
    5. Oldridge D,
    6. Wu G,
    7. et al.
    Convergence of Acquired Mutations and Alternative Splicing of CD19 Enables Resistance to CART-19 Immunotherapy. Cancer Discov 2015;5:1282–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  179. 179.↵
    1. Wolfel T,
    2. Hauer M,
    3. Schneider J,
    4. Serrano M,
    5. Wolfel C,
    6. Klehmann-Hieb E,
    7. et al.
    A p16INK4a-insensitive CDK4 mutant targeted by cytolytic T lymphocytes in a human melanoma. Science 1995;269:1281–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  180. 180.↵
    1. Djebali S,
    2. Davis CA,
    3. Merkel A,
    4. Dobin A,
    5. Lassmann T,
    6. Mortazavi A,
    7. et al.
    Landscape of transcription in human cells. Nature 2012;489:101–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. 181.↵
    1. Faulkner GJ,
    2. Kimura Y,
    3. Daub CO,
    4. Wani S,
    5. Plessy C,
    6. Irvine KM,
    7. et al.
    The regulated retrotransposon transcriptome of mammalian cells. Nat Genet 2009;41:563–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. 182.↵
    1. Speek M
    . Antisense promoter of human L1 retrotransposon drives transcription of adjacent cellular genes. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:1973–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  183. 183.↵
    1. Goke J,
    2. Lu X,
    3. Chan YS,
    4. Ng HH,
    5. Ly LH,
    6. Sachs F,
    7. et al.
    Dynamic transcription of distinct classes of endogenous retroviral elements marks specific populations of early human embryonic cells. Cell Stem Cell 2015;16:135–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. 184.↵
    1. Kim D,
    2. Pertea G,
    3. Trapnell C,
    4. Pimentel H,
    5. Kelley R,
    6. Salzberg SL
    . TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol 2013;14:R36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. 185.↵
    1. Xu H,
    2. Handoko L,
    3. Wei X,
    4. Ye C,
    5. Sheng J,
    6. Wei CL,
    7. et al.
    A signal-noise model for significance analysis of ChIP-seq with negative control. Bioinformatics 2010;26:1199–204.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  186. 186.↵
    1. Trapnell C,
    2. Williams BA,
    3. Pertea G,
    4. Mortazavi A,
    5. Kwan G,
    6. van Baren MJ,
    7. et al.
    Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:511–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. 187.↵
    1. Bray NL,
    2. Pimentel H,
    3. Melsted P,
    4. Pachter L
    . Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat Biotechnol 2016;34:525–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. 188.↵
    1. Katz Y,
    2. Wang ET,
    3. Airoldi EM,
    4. Burge CB
    . Analysis and design of RNA sequencing experiments for identifying isoform regulation. Nat Methods 2010;7:1009–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  189. 189.↵
    1. Ma ZQ,
    2. Dasari S,
    3. Chambers MC,
    4. Litton MD,
    5. Sobecki SM,
    6. Zimmerman LJ,
    7. et al.
    IDPicker 2.0: Improved protein assembly with high discrimination peptide identification filtering. J Proteome Res 2009;8:3872–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.↵
    1. Ritchie ME,
    2. Phipson B,
    3. Wu D,
    4. Hu Y,
    5. Law CW,
    6. Shi W,
    7. et al.
    limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:e47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  191. 191.↵
    1. Cox J,
    2. Mann M
    . MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:1367–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. 192.↵
    UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:D204–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  193. 193.↵
    1. Cox J,
    2. Hein MY,
    3. Luber CA,
    4. Paron I,
    5. Nagaraj N,
    6. Mann M
    . Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ. Mol Cell Proteomics 2014;13:2513–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  194. 194.↵
    1. Tyanova S,
    2. Temu T,
    3. Sinitcyn P,
    4. Carlson A,
    5. Hein MY,
    6. Geiger T,
    7. et al.
    The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat Methods 2016;13:731–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. 195.↵
    1. Nielsen M,
    2. Lundegaard C,
    3. Blicher T,
    4. Lamberth K,
    5. Harndahl M,
    6. Justesen S,
    7. et al.
    NetMHCpan, a method for quantitative predictions of peptide binding to any HLA-A and -B locus protein of known sequence. PLoS One 2007;2:e796.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. 196.↵
    1. Szolek A,
    2. Schubert B,
    3. Mohr C,
    4. Sturm M,
    5. Feldhahn M,
    6. Kohlbacher O
    . OptiType: precision HLA typing from next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2014;30:3310–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  197. 197.↵
    1. Gautier L,
    2. Cope L,
    3. Bolstad BM,
    4. Irizarry RA
    . affy–analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 2004;20:307–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  198. 198.↵
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 2014;513:202–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. 199.↵
    1. Diaz E,
    2. Machutta CA,
    3. Chen S,
    4. Jiang Y,
    5. Nixon C,
    6. Hofmann G,
    7. et al.
    Development and validation of reagents and assays for EZH2 peptide and nucleosome high-throughput screens. J Biomol Screen 2012;17:1279–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. 200.↵
    1. Liao Y,
    2. Smyth GK,
    3. Shi W
    . featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics 2014;30:923–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Discovery: 7 (6)
June 2017
Volume 7, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

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.
Epigenomic Promoter Alterations Amplify Gene Isoform and Immunogenic Diversity in Gastric Adenocarcinoma
(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
Epigenomic Promoter Alterations Amplify Gene Isoform and Immunogenic Diversity in Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Aditi Qamra, Manjie Xing, Nisha Padmanabhan, Jeffrey Jun Ting Kwok, Shenli Zhang, Chang Xu, Yan Shan Leong, Ai Ping Lee Lim, Qianqao Tang, Wen Fong Ooi, Joyce Suling Lin, Tannistha Nandi, Xiaosai Yao, Xuewen Ong, Minghui Lee, Su Ting Tay, Angie Tan Lay Keng, Erna Gondo Santoso, Cedric Chuan Young Ng, Alvin Ng, Apinya Jusakul, Duane Smoot, Hassan Ashktorab, Sun Young Rha, Khay Guan Yeoh, Wei Peng Yong, Pierce K.H. Chow, Weng Hoong Chan, Hock Soo Ong, Khee Chee Soo, Kyoung-Mee Kim, Wai Keong Wong, Steven G. Rozen, Bin Tean Teh, Dennis Kappei, Jeeyun Lee, John Connolly and Patrick Tan
Cancer Discov June 1 2017 (7) (6) 630-651; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Epigenomic Promoter Alterations Amplify Gene Isoform and Immunogenic Diversity in Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Aditi Qamra, Manjie Xing, Nisha Padmanabhan, Jeffrey Jun Ting Kwok, Shenli Zhang, Chang Xu, Yan Shan Leong, Ai Ping Lee Lim, Qianqao Tang, Wen Fong Ooi, Joyce Suling Lin, Tannistha Nandi, Xiaosai Yao, Xuewen Ong, Minghui Lee, Su Ting Tay, Angie Tan Lay Keng, Erna Gondo Santoso, Cedric Chuan Young Ng, Alvin Ng, Apinya Jusakul, Duane Smoot, Hassan Ashktorab, Sun Young Rha, Khay Guan Yeoh, Wei Peng Yong, Pierce K.H. Chow, Weng Hoong Chan, Hock Soo Ong, Khee Chee Soo, Kyoung-Mee Kim, Wai Keong Wong, Steven G. Rozen, Bin Tean Teh, Dennis Kappei, Jeeyun Lee, John Connolly and Patrick Tan
Cancer Discov June 1 2017 (7) (6) 630-651; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1022
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

  • Epigenetic and Transcriptional Control of Antitumor Immunity
  • Autonomous IFN Program in Aggressive Ductal-Derived PDAC
  • Machine-Learning Approach Predicts Hippo Pathway Dependency
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