Open Access

Integrated genomic analysis of mitochondrial RNA processing in human cancers

Genome Medicine20179:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0426-0

Received: 12 November 2016

Accepted: 5 April 2017

Published: 18 April 2017

Abstract

Background

The mitochondrial genome is transcribed as continuous polycistrons of RNA containing multiple genes. As a consequence, post-transcriptional events are critical for the regulation of gene expression and therefore all aspects of mitochondrial function. One particularly important process is the m1A/m1G RNA methylation of the ninth position of different mitochondrial tRNAs, which allows efficient processing of mitochondrial mRNAs and protein translation, and de-regulation of genes involved in these processes has been associated with altered mitochondrial function. Although mitochondria play a key role in cancer, the status of mitochondrial RNA processing in tumorigenesis is unknown.

Methods

We measure and assess mitochondrial RNA processing using integrated genomic analysis of RNA sequencing and genotyping data from 1226 samples across 12 different cancer types. We focus on the levels of m1A and m1G RNA methylation in mitochondrial tRNAs in normal and tumor samples and use supervised and unsupervised statistical analysis to compare the levels of these modifications to patient whole genome genotypes, nuclear gene expression, and survival outcomes.

Results

We find significant changes to m1A and m1G RNA methylation levels in mitochondrial tRNAs in tumor tissues across all cancers. Pathways of RNA processing are strongly associated with methylation levels in normal tissues (P = 3.27 × 10−31), yet these associations are lost in tumors. Furthermore, we report 18 gene-by-disease-state interactions where altered RNA methylation levels occur under cancer status conditional on genotype, implicating genes associated with mitochondrial function or cancer (e.g., CACNA2D2, LMO2, and FLT3) and suggesting that nuclear genetic variation can potentially modulate an individual’s ability to maintain unaltered rates of mitochondrial RNA processing under cancer status. Finally, we report a significant association between the magnitude of methylation level changes in tumors and patient survival outcomes.

Conclusions

We report widespread variation of mitochondrial RNA processing between normal and tumor tissues across all cancer types investigated and show that these alterations are likely modulated by patient genotype and may impact patient survival outcomes. These results highlight the potential clinical relevance of altered mitochondrial RNA processing and provide broad new insights into the importance and complexity of these events in cancer.

Keywords

Transcriptomics Mitochondria RNA processing Mitochondrial tRNA Cancer

Background

The role of mitochondria in cancer has long been controversial. Although mitochondria are essential for tumor cell growth [13], many lines of evidence indicate that altered mitochondrial bioenergetics are required for tumor initiation and persistence. First, the up-regulation of anaerobic energy production via glycolysis, the so-called Warburg effect, is well documented and recognized as a hallmark of cancer [4, 5]. Second, mutations in nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes have been identified in patients with cancer, with links to the disease well established in some cases [6]. Third, increased numbers of mutations are consistently found in the mitochondrial genomes of tumor cells compared to normal samples [79]. These mutations may merely tag carcinogenesis, but whether other genetic properties of mitochondrial genomes are important in tumorigenesis remains one of the important unanswered questions in cancer biology.

In line with this, recent studies have looked beyond mitochondrial DNA mutations to consider other important genetic processes. Mitochondrial copy number has been found to vary between paired normal and tumor samples [10, 11], mitochondrial biogenesis is often altered in cancer cells [6, 10], and recent work has suggested that mitochondrial RNA transcripts may accumulate differently in cancer tissues [12]. The idea that post-transcriptional processing of the mitochondrial transcriptome may be altered in cancer is intriguing. Mitochondrial RNA is transcribed as continuous polycistrons, which are then processed under the “punctuation model”, whereby tRNAs that intersperse mRNAs are targeted for modification and cleavage by nuclear-encoded proteins [1316]. The polycistronic nature of mitochondrial transcription means that post-transcriptional events are particularly important: knockdown of RNA processing enzymes influences mitochondrial mRNA and protein levels, and mitochondrial function [17] and the level of m1A and m1G post-transcriptional methylation at the ninth position of mitochondrial tRNAs (p9 sites) can potentially influence downstream metabolic phenotypes [18]. Indeed, p9 site methylation is thought to influence the correct folding of mitochondrial tRNAs, thus affecting the rate of cleavage within the polycistronic transcript and potentially impacting upon their downstream roles in protein translation [1921].

There are several reasons to believe that altered processing of mitochondrial RNA (which we now use to denote all processing events that occur after transcription of the mitochondrial polycistronic strand, including nucleotide modifications, base additions, and strand cleavage events) may be involved in cancer. For example, mutations within the mitochondrial processing enzyme RNase Z were found to be segregating with prostate cancer incidence in human pedigrees [22], and mutations within mitochondrial tRNAs, which are heavily post-transcriptionally modified, have been previously linked with cancer [23]. Here, we assess whether mitochondrial RNA processing is altered in cancer by analyzing RNA sequencing data from 1226 paired normal and tumor samples across 12 cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find significant and consistent signatures of increased mitochondrial tRNA p9 site methylation in tumor tissues compared to paired adjacent normal samples that appears to be coupled with major deregulation of nuclear RNA processing genes. Furthermore, we find evidence of context-specific SNPs that are associated with methylation levels in tumor but not normal samples (genotype-by-disease-state interactions), and we observe a significant relationship between the magnitude of change in mitochondrial tRNA p9 site methylation in tumor tissues and the survival outcome of patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma, thus highlighting the potential clinical relevance of these events in tumorigenesis.

Methods

RNA sequencing data

Raw sequencing files (fastq format) were obtained from TCGA through the CGHub repository via dbGaP accession number phs000178.v9.p8 [24, 25] for 12 cancer types where at least 25 paired tumor and adjacent normal samples were available (we do not use matched blood normal samples). These included breast invasive carcinoma (BRCA), colon adenocarcinoma (COAD), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC), kidney chromophobe (KICH), kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC), kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma (KIRP), liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC), lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD), stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD), and thyroid carcinoma (THCA). In total, we obtained 1226 RNA sequencing datasets for analysis.

Sequencing reads were trimmed for adaptor sequences, terminal bases with quality lower than 20, and poly(A) tails of five nucleotides or greater before being aligned to a reference genome (1000G GRCh37 reference, which contains the mitochondrial rCRS NC_012920.1) with STAR 2.51a [26], using default parameters, two-pass mapping, and version 19 of the Gencode gene annotation. Careful attention was paid to minimize the likelihood of incorrectly placed reads, particularly those associated with NUMT sequences. To achieve this, a stringent filtering pipeline was applied, as we previously demonstrated [18], focusing only on properly paired and uniquely mapped reads.

Gene expression levels

To calculate transcript abundances, we used HTseq [27] with default parameters, the “intersection-nonempty” model, and Gencode gene annotation file v19. Raw counts were then converted to transcripts per million (TPM). Within the TPM calculation, for mitochondrial genes the total number of fragments mapping to the mitochondrial transcriptome was used to normalize for library size. Since the total amount of mitochondrial RNA in each sample is influenced by both mitochondrial copy number and polycistronic transcription rate, normalizing the data in this way controls for these two factors and allows us to focus on variation in gene expression driven by processing of the polycistronic strand. For nuclear genes, the total library size was used. TPM scores were then log10transformed and median normalized. Principal component analysis and distribution analysis were used to identify outlier samples. Samples greater than three standard deviations from the mean in any of the first three principal components were deemed outliers. All samples paired with these outliers were also removed from subsequent analysis, resulting in a set of 1196 samples across all cancers. Distribution analysis shows that samples within each cancer type had similar distributions, suggesting that variations in the data due to technical reasons are minimal.

Methylation levels at tRNA p9 sites

Previous studies have highlighted that sequencing mismatches observed in RNA sequencing data at particular positions in the mitochondrial genome represent post-transcriptional modification events [17, 18, 28]. The assumption behind this approach is that chemical modifications of RNA either act as a road-block to the reverse transcription enzyme during library preparation or cause the enzyme to mis-incorporate nucleotides, resulting in sequencing errors [29]. Recent work by Mercer et al. [28], Sanchez et al. [17], and ourselves [18] has shown that sequence mismatches occur at a high rate at the ninth position of different mitochondrial tRNAs, which are positions that are known to be post-transcriptionally methylated, and subsequent experiments by ourselves [18] have shown that the proportion of mismatches at these sites is systematic and repeatable across replication experiments. Recently, new sequencing methods have confirmed the presence of post-transcriptional methylation events at 19/22 p9 sites by comparing RNA sequencing data from samples that have been treated with demethylation enzymes against matched untreated samples [30]. Within this work, the general quantitative nature of using mismatch and strand termination events as a proxy for post-transcriptional modification was also shown, and although the ratio of these events does not perfectly match post-transcriptional modification levels (since the reference allele is sometimes incorporated), the two levels are highly similar. Under this model, we inferred the level of p9 site methylation as the proportion of non-reference alleles for the 11 positions identified as undergoing post-transcriptional methylation in our previous study [18] (positions 585, 1610, 4271, 5520, 7526, 8303, 9999, 10413, 12174, 12246, and 14734 in the mitochondrial genome) using samtools v1.2 mpileup [31] with default parameters to generate allele count files. It is important to note that these p9 positions in the mitochondrial genome have previously been shown not to overlap with known variants in NUMT sequences in the human reference using a careful and stringent mapping and filtering strategy [18].

Within each cancer type (12 in total), we compare methylation levels between normal and tumor samples for each of the 11 p9 sites separately using Wilcoxon signed rank tests, using only those sites where both tumor and paired normal samples had at least 20× coverage. Across all samples, the average coverage at p9 sites is ~600×. As an example, inferred methylation levels for the 11 p9 sites for KIRC are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1. In order to control for any biases in coverage, we repeated the analysis after resampling sequencing reads within each individual and at each site to the lowest coverage found at that site in either the normal or tumor sample. To directly compare the levels of p9 methylation across cancers, we standardized rates at each p9 site within each cancer by dividing the proportion of mismatches by the maximum value observed across normal and tumor samples at each site. This normalization ensures that methylation levels are on the same scale across sites and cancers, yet variation is maintained across samples. To compare the levels of p9 methylation with cleavage rates at the 5′ end of mitochondrial tRNAs, we calculated the proportion of reads that started or ended either side of the position 9 bp upstream of the p9 site compared to all reads covering that position. We considered only sites with at least 20 individuals with 20× coverage at both cleavage and p9 positions and used Spearman rank correlation tests. For comparisons to mitochondrial gene expression, we performed Spearman rank correlation tests for each p9 site and within each cancer for normal and tumor samples separately.

To ensure that confounding factors are not influencing our results, we tested whether a number of features were associated with p9 site methylation levels. In general, since paired normal and tumor samples originate from the same individual, many phenotypes will be identical between sample pairs. However, to ensure that age and sex are not affecting the results, we tested whether these factors are correlated with methylation levels within either normal or tumor samples for individuals that we had genotyping data for; in all cases we find no significant relationships (P > 0.05 after Bonferroni correction). To test the impact of varying tumor purity on our results we obtained measures of tumor purity and histological estimates of stromal cells and infiltrating lymphocytes from Yoshihara et al. [32] and compared these measures to changes in p9 site methylation levels between matched normal and tumor samples within each cancer type using Spearman rank correlations. In total, only one comparison out of 132 (11 p9 sites in 12 different cancers) was significant after Bonferroni correction (site 7526, stromal infiltrate in individuals with PRAD, P = 0.00013), suggesting that tumor purity is not driving the observed changes in tumor samples.

Differential expression and cross-correlations with nuclear gene expression

We evaluated the magnitude and significance of differential expression of transcripts of nuclear-encoded mitochondrial RNA-binding proteins [33] using analysis of variance and Bonferroni thresholds to infer statistical significance. In total, 99 transcripts out of 107 listed in Wolf and Mootha [33] were deemed expressed in BRCA and KIRC datasets (100 transcripts in THCA). Two-way clustering of gene expression data of the full set of genes encoding mitochondrial RNA-binding proteins was generated using Ward’s method in JMP Genomics 8.0 (SAS Institute). To investigate the relationships between nuclear gene expression traits and p9 site methylation level, we performed an unbiased genome-wide association between methylation level at 11 p9 sites and 16,736 expression traits in the BRCA dataset. We calculated Spearman correlation across all individuals in each sample type. The significance of correlations was assessed by correcting for multiple testing, resulting in a Bonferroni threshold of 3 × 10−6. In the main text we present results for BRCA; however, we see the same general trends for THCA and KIRC as significant associations in normal tissue are altered in tumor samples (Additional file 1: Figure S2). Gene set enrichment analysis was performed using the Core Analysis Workflow implemented in the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis package to measure the likelihood that the association between nuclear genes whose expression was significantly associated with p9 site methylation level and a given process or pathway is due to random chance. The P value is calculated using the right-tailed Fisher exact test that takes into consideration the number of focus genes that participate in the process in question and the total number of genes that are known to be associated with that process in the human reference set. The same analysis parameters were used for BRCA, KIRC, and THCA (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Statistical interaction effects

Where available, we downloaded birdseed genotype files generated from Affymetrix Genome-wide Human SNP arrays (6.0) for all individuals for which we had RNA sequencing data. Samples that did not pass TCGA quality control were not used and, in total, data were available for 569 individuals. For each cancer type, we filtered out genotypes with birdseed quality scores below 0.1 and kept SNPs in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (P > 0.001). Since sample sizes within cancers were generally small, we converted minor homozygote alleles to heterozygotes (dominant model). SNPs with minor allele frequency (MAF) <5% were removed and we then ran a quantitative trait model (GxE) in plink 1.07 [34], using the levels of p9 methylation at sites where paired normal and tumor samples had at least 20× coverage. Within these tests, the levels of p9 site methylation were used as the quantitative trait and sample type (normal or tumor) as the environment, and regression coefficients were compared between normal and tumor association tests to generate a P value for the interaction term. In order to ensure robust findings, we considered only sites that had data for at least 40 individuals. QQ plots for p9 sites and cancers showing significant interaction effects are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S3. After identifying SNPs that passed genome-wide significance, we visually inspected data plots and made sure that the uncovered associations are not driven by outliers. SNP annotations were taken from the Affymetrix annotation file associated with the array.

Survival analysis

We obtained patient survival data from TCGA and performed survival analysis in R using the package “Survival”. We limited analysis to cancers for which we had RNA sequencing data for at least 50 individuals, with a death rate of 25% (KIRC and LUAD). Censoring was limited to 60 months, since most events happen during this time. Cox proportional hazards tests were used to model survival as a function of changes in p9 site methylation levels in tumor versus normal samples. For significant associations, we tested Schoenfeld residuals to ensure that the proportional hazards assumption was being met (P > 0.05 in all cases). To calculate meaningful hazard ratios, the tests were repeated after binning changes in the levels of p9 site methylation into two equal sized groups.

Results

Post-transcriptional changes in tumor cells

To study the patterns of mitochondrial RNA processing in human cancers we mapped and filtered raw RNA sequencing data from 1226 samples from matched tumor–normal pairs across 12 cancer types from TCGA (Fig. 1a). Using these data we inferred the level of m1A and m1G post-transcriptional methylation occurring at 11 functionally important positions within mitochondrial tRNAs (the ninth position of 11 different tRNAs, as identified in [18], henceforth referred to as p9 sites) by using the proportion of mismatches observed at these positions (referred to as “p9 site methylation levels” throughout; see “Methods”), in line with approaches taken by previous studies [17, 18, 28]. For each of the 11 p9 sites and within each of the 12 cancers, we then compared the level of p9 site methylation observed between paired normal and tumor samples (11 × 12 = 132 comparisons in total).
Fig. 1

Methylation differences between paired tumor and normal samples at tRNA p9 sites within mitochondrial tRNAs. a Number of normal–tumor pairs for each cancer type, including breast invasive carcinoma (BRCA), colon adenocarcinoma (COAD), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC), kidney chromophobe (KICH), kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC), kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma (KIRP), liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC), lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD), stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) and thyroid carcinoma (THCA). b Observed methylation levels for all 11 p9 sites within KIRC, split into normal and tumor. A similar plot showing all data points is shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1. c Standardized methylation levels split into normal and tumor for all cancers combined for p9 sites 1610, 5520, and 7526. d Two-way hierarchical clustering of mean standardized methylation levels of all 11 p9 sites for both normal and tumor samples across all cancer types

In total, 50/132 comparisons show significant differences between normal and tumor tissues at a 5% significance level (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) and 42 of these comparisons show increases in the observed levels of p9 site methylation in cancer tissue (Fig. 1b for examples showing all 11 p9 sites in KIRC; Additional file 1: Table S2). After applying Bonferroni correction (within each cancer type, P < 0.0045), 23 comparisons remain significant, 22 of which show increases of the levels of p9 site methylation in cancer tissues. Resampling sequencing reads to the same depth in paired normal and tumor samples (thus accounting for potential biases in sequencing coverage) gives very similar results (Additional file 1: Table S3; see “Methods”). These observations strongly suggest a widespread increase in the level of p9 site methylation of mitochondrial tRNAs in tumor tissue in multiple cancer types.

Next, we investigated whether the observed differences in the levels of p9 site methylation are a general trend in cancer. For each p9 site, we standardized the data within each cancer type (thus maintaining cancer-associated patterns in methylation levels) and tested differences between tumor and normal pairs across all cancer types combined. In total, five out of the 11 p9 sites show highly significant differences (P < 0.0045; Additional file 1: Table S4; Fig. 1c for p9 sites 1610, 5520, and 7526). Following this, we averaged the level of p9 site methylation by group and found that, strikingly, two-way hierarchical clustering using all p9 site data from 24 cancer sample-type sets revealed how groups cluster largely by sample type (normal or tumor) with the exception of BRCA tumor, COAD normal, and PRAD normal not clustering within their respective sample type (Fig. 1d). These results suggest that altered processing of mitochondrial RNA is a consistent trend across multiple cancer types.

To infer the impact of changes at sites and cancers where we observe significant differences (at P < 0.05), we compared the levels of p9 site methylation across both normal and tumor samples combined with the levels of cleavage occurring at the 5′ end of each respective tRNA, which we measured as the proportion of sequencing reads starting or ending either side of this position. As a control, we considered the level of cleavage at a further 9 bp upstream from each p9 site. Methylation levels significantly correlate with cleavage rates for 9/43 comparisons after Bonferroni correction (P < 0.001, versus one significant correlation for the control) and for 16/43 comparisons at a 5% significance level, with all significant correlations being in the positive direction (Additional file 1: Table S5). Next, for the same sites we tested whether p9 site methylation levels are associated with tRNA expression levels across normal and cancer samples combined. To calculate tRNA expression, we first normalized the coverage at each site by dividing by the total number of reads mapping to the mitochondria (following the approach of Stewart et al. [12]), and then averaged the rate across each respective tRNA. In total, at 24/50 p9 sites the level of methylation is correlated with tRNA expression levels (P < 0.05, seven positive and 17 negative; Additional file 1: Table S6). Finally, we considered the influence of changes in p9 site methylation in cancer on mitochondrial coding gene expression: considering normal samples separately, the levels of p9 methylation significantly correlate with mitochondrial gene expression in 25 comparisons across cancer types (Additional file 2: Table S7; Spearman rank P < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction within cancer type, mostly negatively correlated with MTCO3, MTCO2, and MTCO1 abundance and positively correlated with MTND2 abundance), yet in tumor samples these relationships break down and only two pairwise comparisons are significant. In all, these analyses point to a link between p9 site methylation levels and other RNA processing events taking place after transcription of the mitochondrial polycistronic transcript.

Nuclear transcriptional signatures associated with changes in mitochondrial RNA processing

Mitochondrial RNA transcription and processing, like many other molecular processes taking place in mitochondria, is under strong nuclear control. As such, we tested the hypothesis that the expression of nuclear-encoded genes involved in mitochondrial RNA processing is altered in tumors by performing differential expression analysis. Raw RNA sequencing data were aligned, filtered, and normalized as detailed in the “Methods” and expression data for 99 mitochondrial RNA-binding proteins (as listed in [33]) were retrieved and compared between normal and tumor samples. In this section we report results for BRCA only, since this is the cancer type for which we have the most paired samples (>100) and thus the most power; however, we also see the same broad trends in other cancer types with the next largest sample sizes (see “Methods”). In total, we detected 55 genes differentially expressed at Bonferroni significance (Fig. 2a) and the heatmap of all 99 gene expression traits surveyed shows that samples cluster largely by sample type (normal or tumor; Additional file 1: Figure S4).
Fig. 2

Differential expression and correlations between the levels of tRNA p9 methylation and nuclear gene expression in BRCA. a Volcano plot of statistical significance (shown as the negative logarithm of the P value on the y-axis) versus magnitude of differential gene expression (shown as the log base 2 of magnitude of mean expression difference on the x-axis) of 99 genes encoding mtRNA-binding proteins. The dashed line indicates Bonferroni statistical significance. b Distribution of Spearman correlations between gene expression levels of the 99 genes and the levels of methylation at p9 site 10413. Associations that are significant at Bonferroni threshold in normal samples are highlighted with the dark green color. c Two-way clustering of Spearman correlations of expression levels of 16,736 genes (columns) and methylation level at 11 p9 sites (rows) in the BRCA dataset. Correlation values are visualized using a red-to-gray-to-blue color theme (values range from 0.62 to −0.66). d Ingenuity pathway enrichment analysis of nuclear genes whose expression levels are associated with the levels of methylation at p9 site 10413 in the BRCA dataset. The top four categories are shown and the P value represents the most significant biological sub-function within each category

Following this, we tested for associations between the expression levels of the 99 nuclear-encoded factors and the levels of p9 site methylation. We performed cross-correlation analysis (Spearman rank) across all individuals for all possible 1089 p9 site methylation level–nuclear gene expression trait pairs in normal and tumor samples separately. The test revealed significant associations for eight of the 11 p9 sites in normal samples and the total cumulative number of Bonferroni-significant associations was 369 across all eight p9 sites (P < 0.0005; Fig. 2b for distributions of coefficients; variance explained ranges between −0.64 and 0.47). In sharp contrast, no significant associations were detected in tumor samples (Fig. 2b), indicating major deregulation of these processes in cancer. A two-way hierarchical clustering heatmap of the full correlation matrix (Additional file 1: Figure S5) shows the consistency of the associations across different p9 sites in normal samples, whereas these associations are highly perturbed under cancer status.

Next, we identified cell-wide processes associated with mitochondrial RNA processing by performing global cross-correlation analysis between the expression levels of all nuclear genes and the levels of methylation at each p9 position using the same strategy as outlined above and using a Bonferroni corrected P value threshold of 3 × 10−6 (0.05/16,736). In normal samples, the test revealed an average of 2311 significant associations for eight of the 11 p9 sites (Fig. 2c; Additional file 1: Table S8; three sites show no significant associations; variance explained ranges between −0.66 and 0.62). To investigate the functional characteristics of nuclear genes whose expression levels are associated with the levels of methylation at the p9 site showing the strongest signal in normal cells (p9 site 10413 and 6061 genes) we used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. We find that “RNA post-transcriptional modification” is the top and most highly enriched molecular and cellular function category with five significantly enriched sub-functions (P value range 2.77 × 10−6 to 3.27 × 10−31; Fig. 2d; “Processing of RNA” was the most enriched sub-function), supporting the idea that many nuclear genes play a role in mitochondrial RNA processing. We also observe similar results for other cancer types and at other p9 sites (see “Methods”). However, we again find striking differences in tumor samples, where we detect only two significant associations across all p9 sites, pointing to major deregulation of nuclear-associated mitochondrial RNA processing in cancer (Additional file 1: Figure S6).

Joint action of genotype and cancer state on post-transcriptional methylation

Given the general increase in the levels of p9 methylation in cancers, we assessed whether nuclear genetic variants could modulate the observed changes in mitochondrial RNA processing differentially in tumor relative to normal samples. To do this, we looked for genotype-by-disease-state (tumor or normal) interaction effects on p9 site methylation levels across cancer types. We obtained genotyping data for the same samples for which we measured the levels of p9 site methylation and limited the analysis to SNPs in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (P > 0.001), those where at least 40 individuals had methylation data available and with at least five individuals carrying a minor allele. Under a dominant model and after filtering SNPs for MAF >5%, this analysis identified 18 peak genotype-by-disease-state interactions at genome-wide significance across cancer types and p9 sites (Table 1; Fig. 3 showing examples). In 15 cases the minor allele is associated with increased levels of p9 site methylation in tumor but not normal samples, suggesting that mitochondrial RNA processing is affected differently in individuals carrying these alleles under cancer status.
Table 1

Interaction effects on tRNA p9 site methylation

Cancer

p9 Site

rs number

Chr

Position

Location

Gene

N

MAF

MAF range

P value

BRCA

7526

rs3781574

11

33885268

intron

LMO2

46

0.161

0.128–0.231

4.61E-11

BRCA

7526

rs17690328

11

33885390

intron

LMO2

46

0.135

0.016–0.190

1.17E-08

BRCA

7526

rs317391

17

32174605

intron

ASIC2

44

0.085

0.014–0.485

2.46E-09

KIRC

1610

rs258701

7

81761122

intron

CACNA2D1

61

0.058

0.072–0.167

8.27E-10

KIRC

8303

rs10266772

7

14132727

Intergenic

-

61

0.080

0.079–0.254

2.27E-08

KIRC

10413

rs1028014

8

40698232

intron

ZMAT4

64

0.174

0.085–0.236

2.88E-08

KIRC

12146

rs17164416

5

99387447

Intergenic

-

65

0.051

0.000–0.188

9.95E-09

LIHC

12146

rs41465346

1

219059708

Intergenic

-

48

0.052

0.006–0.304

3.73E-08

LIHC

12146

rs16926871

8

62027498

intron

CLVS1

47

0.074

0.038–0.270

1.24E-08

LUAD

585

rs13029285

2

205916078

intron

PARD3B

49

0.057

0.003–0.076

1.81E-10

LUAD

10413

rs7328699

13

28615701

intron

FLT3

46

0.107

0.000–0.124

9.15E-10

LUAD

10413

rs12591927

15

31833911

intron

OTUD7A

44

0.077

0.016–0.289

2.44E-08

LUAD

10413

rs17003208

22

43073031

Intergenic

-

45

0.074

0.096–0.431

1.13E-08

LUAD

10413

rs17003212

22

43079754

Intergenic

-

46

0.063

0.096–0.434

1.18E-11

LUAD

12146

rs4741498

9

15424938

intron

SNAPC3

45

0.063

0.005–0.256

3.68E-08

LUAD

12146

rs7026970

9

15445219

intron

SNAPC3

45

0.063

0.040–0.355

3.68E-08

LUAD

12146

rs7046713

9

15458921

intron

SNAPC3

45

0.063

0.031–0.357

3.68E-08

LUAD

14734

rs341737

8

2782370

Intergenic

-

54

0.107

0.081–0.225

9.86E-09

PRAD

10413

rs7631369

3

1028679

Intergenic

-

48

0.070

0.015–0.418

3.45E-08

PRAD

10413

rs7301597

12

30175147

Intergenic

-

48

0.050

0.000–0.105

3.85E-09

THCA

585

rs17033484

4

156686737

intron

GUCY1B3

54

0.089

0.058–0.187

3.78E-08

THCA

4271

rs2145836

20

47421064

intron

PREX1

44

0.054

0.000–0.058

4.41E-08

MAF denotes minor allele frequency of the polymorphism in TCGA data for the specific cancer type, and MAF range denotes the range of minor allele frequencies across continents observed in 1000 Genomes phase 3 data [41]

Fig. 3

Interaction effects on tRNA p9 site methylation. The three plots show examples of SNPs that have different relationships with the levels of p9 methylation in normal (blue) and tumor (red) samples

After initial discovery, we attempted to replicate each genome-wide significant interaction effect in other cancer types at any p9 site (P < 0.001, under the same criteria outlined above). In doing so, we found an interaction effect for rs317391 in KIRC at p9 site 12146 (P = 2.16 × 10−5; interaction effect originally observed in BRCA at p9 site 7526, P = 2.46 × 10−9). This SNP falls within an intron of the gene ASIC2, which is part of a sodium channel superfamily. We also found that rs341737 is an interaction SNP for the levels of methylation at p9 site 14734 in PRAD (P = 0.000745; interaction effect originally observed in LUAD at p9 site 14734, P = 9.86 × 10−9). This SNP falls in an intergenic region near to CMSD1, a known tumor suppressor gene. The fact that these SNPs are also associated with similar effects in other cancer types suggests that our initial observations are robust.

Potential clinical implications

In order to relate changes in mitochondrial RNA processing to potential clinical outcomes we used Cox proportional hazards tests to determine if changes in the levels of p9 site methylation between paired normal and tumor samples are a significant predictor of patient survival outcomes. To ensure power to detect significant associations, we focused on cancers where we had data for at least 50 individuals with >25% death rate within 60 months of diagnosis (only KIRC and LUAD meet this criterion). Treating p9 methylation differences as a quantitative trait we find that methylation differences do not significantly predict patient survival in LUAD. For KIRC, however, seven p9 sites are significant predictors of patient survival at the 5% level, two of which remain significant after Bonferroni correction (Additional file 1: Table S9), with larger increases in the levels of p9 site methylation in tumor compared to paired normal samples being associated with worse survival. The strongest effect occurs for p9 site 10413 (ninth position of TRNR; P = 0.000476). Repeating the analysis including age, sex, and ethnicity gives similar results: five out of seven remain significant at P < 0.05, one out of two remain significant after Bonferroni correction, and the strongest effect for the ninth position of TRNR has a P value of 0.00151. Treating the change in the levels of methylation at this site as a categorical variable with data binned into two equal sized groups of high and low methylation differences (Fig. 4; P = 0.036), the model suggests that those in the larger methylation differences group are 2.784 (95% confidence interval (1.07,7.25)) times more likely to die over a 60-month period after diagnosis.
Fig. 4

Survival analysis. Data show relationship between the magnitude of change of the levels of methylation between paired tumor and normal samples at p9 site 10413 and survival rates for patients with KIRC

Discussion

By analyzing RNA sequencing data across a large number of individuals and sample types, we find significant and consistent changes in the levels of m1A and m1G post-transcriptional methylation at functionally important positions within mitochondrial tRNAs in tumor samples compared to paired normal samples. These changes appear to be a widespread phenomenon across different types of tumors and suggest that altered mitochondrial RNA processing is a hallmark of cancer. We hypothesize that oncogenic signals trigger these changes, which in turn promote energetic plasticity in tumor cells in a manner that is not dependent on hard-coded mitochondrial genetic changes. The observed positive correlation between p9 site methylation levels and tRNA 5′ cleavage rates highlights the link between the two processes during and/or after transcription of the mitochondrial polycistronic transcript and suggests that methylation is coupled with cleavage. Our analysis also shows that, across different cancers and p9 sites, methylation levels are associated with tRNA/coding gene expression in both positive and negative directions. This suggests that the downstream impacts of changes to p9 site methylation levels on mitochondrial gene expression are complex and may vary both along the polycistronic strand and in different cancer types.

A large number of associations between p9 site methylation levels and the expression of nuclear genes are highly significant in normal tissue, yet these relationships completely break down in tumors. Since associations in normal tissues contain a highly statistically significant enrichment of RNA post-transcriptional modification genes, it is possible that a subset of these genes directly or indirectly affect the levels of p9 site methylation. However, given the large number of observed associations, they also potentially encompass genes whose change in expression is a downstream response to changes in p9 site methylation. Analysis of genes most strongly associated with p9 methylation rates in normal tissues would be a good starting point to tease apart these processes. Mitochondrial tRNAs are key for the translation of genes of the oxidative phosphorylation system [16], and given the connection between cell growth and protein synthesis, it stands to reason that increased rates of tRNA processing would augment the translational and metabolic capacity of mitochondria, modulate the cell cycle, and, ultimately, promote uncontrolled growth. Further studies are warranted to illuminate the molecular mechanisms likely coupling altered levels of mitochondrial RNA processing to cell growth and other tumorigenesis steps such as cell invasion and migration.

The observed differences in the levels of p9 methylation between normal and tumor samples are significant; however, a subset of tumor samples exhibit methylation levels in the range detected in normal samples. The levels of p9 site methylation for these samples are highly predictable from allelic variation, and as such we hypothesize that nuclear genetic variation can modulate an individual’s ability to maintain normal levels of mitochondrial RNA processing during cancer development and subsequently influence patient survival outcomes. Our tests to uncover genotype-by-disease-state interactions revealed 18 peak variants at genome-wide significance and these in vivo interaction effects serve as a promising starting point for a potential method to uncover biomarkers for predictable responses to cancer progression. Although no single interaction should be taken as strong evidence of a role for a given haplotype in tumor development, among the genome-wide significant interaction SNPs that fall within intronic or exonic regions (11 in total) there are several noteworthy examples where these genes may be interesting for further study. Four genes have a link to mitochondrial function, cellular proliferation, or apoptosis (CACNA2D2, CLVS1, OTUD7A, and FLT3), three genes have been linked to neurological function (and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in particular), where dysfunctional mitochondria have a known role [35, 36] (ASIC2, CLVS1, PARD3B) and four genes have been previously linked with cancer (LMO2, CACNA2D2, FLT3, and PREX1). These associations were detected through careful statistical analysis and filtering; however, only future functional work would help uncover the mechanisms through which causal variants tagged by these association might modulate p9 site methylation. We note that the MAF range of the 18 SNPs is 0.054–0.174 in TCGA data for the relevant cancer type, but the frequency of these markers vary more wildly across 1000 genome continental groupings (Table 1), suggesting that there may be population differences in the ability to modulate p9 site methylation under cancer status.

Finally, we find that altered mitochondrial tRNA methylation profiles in cancer samples correlate with patient survival outcomes, suggesting that these processes have important downstream consequences and may be clinically relevant. An alternative hypothesis is that other confounding factors strongly linked to survival may influence mitochondrial RNA processing; further analysis with larger sample sizes is required to truly understand these relationships.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that there are major changes to mitochondrial RNA processing in cancers that occur strongly and consistently across different cancer types. We hypothesize that tumor cells use these processes to regulate their mitochondrial output and consequently also the shift between different ways of producing energy and biomaterials in a manner that is not dependent on hard-coded genetic changes. Also, altered mitochondrial RNA processing appears to be due to a breakdown in the pathways involved in RNA modification and processing and may be modulated at least in part by common genetic variation. We also link the extent of changes in mitochondrial processing with patient survival outcomes, thus making a strong case for the prognosis potential of these events in cancer.

Taken as a whole, these results provide strong evidence for altered mitochondrial post-transcriptional modification and processing taking place in cancer and complement an emerging appreciation for the roles that post-transcriptional and post-translational regulation play in the etiology of cancers [3740]. Although the mechanisms underlying these alterations remain to be resolved, it is tempting to speculate that restoring normal levels of modification and processing of mitochondrial RNA would represent a promising area of investigation for the development of new anticancer therapeutic interventions.

Abbreviations

BRCA: 

Breast invasive carcinoma

COAD: 

Colon adenocarcinoma

HNSC: 

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

KICH: 

Kidney chromophobe

KIRC: 

Kidney renal clear cell carcinoma

KIRP: 

Kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma

LIHC: 

Liver hepatocellular carcinoma

LUAD: 

Lung adenocarcinoma

LUSC: 

Lung squamous cell carcinoma

PRAD: 

Prostate adenocarcinoma

STAD: 

Stomach adenocarcinoma

TCGA: 

The Cancer Genome Atlas

THCA: 

Thyroid carcinoma

TPM: 

Transcripts per million

tRNA: 

Transfer RNA

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The results published here are in whole based upon data generated by TCGA Research Network (http://cancergenome.nih.gov/). We thank Seth Seegobin for advice regarding the survival analysis and NYUAD Core Bioinformatics for providing access to computational tools.

Funding

YI is funded by a New York University Abu Dhabi research grant (AD105). AH holds an MRC eMedLab Medical Bioinformatics Career Development Fellowship, funded from award MR/L016311/1. AH also holds a WHRI-Academy Marie Curie (COFUND) Fellowship and the research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement number 608765. Work presented here reflects only the author’s views and not the views of the European Commission. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Availability of data and materials

Raw sequencing files (fastq format) were obtained from TCGA through the CGHub repository via dbGaP accession number phs000178.v9.p8.

Authors’ contributions

YI and AH designed the study, carried out analysis, and wrote the manuscript. AH mapped and filtered data and YI performed quality control on data. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

TCGA Project Management has collected necessary human subjects’ documentation to ensure the project complies with 45-CFR-46 (the “Common Rule”). Institutional approvals from KCL (#39347-3) and NYUAD (#16-0653) were obtained to access TCGA data. Our study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Biology Program, Division of Science and Mathematics, New York University Abu Dhabi
(2)
Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London

References

  1. Cavalli LR, Varella-Garcia M, Liang BC. Diminished tumorigenic phenotype after depletion of mitochondrial DNA. Cell Growth Differ. 1997;8:1189–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Morais R, Zinkewich-Peotti K, Parent M, Wang H, Babai F, Zollinger M. Tumor-forming ability in athymic nude mice of human cell lines devoid of mitochondrial DNA. Cancer Res. 1994;54:3889–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Weinberg F, Hamanaka R, Wheaton WW, Weinberg S, Joseph J, Lopez M, Kalyanaraman B, Mutlu GM, Budinger GR, Chandel NS. Mitochondrial metabolism and ROS generation are essential for Kras-mediated tumorigenicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:8788–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123:309–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wallace DC. Mitochondria and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:685–98.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. He Y, Wu J, Dressman DC, Iacobuzio-Donahue C, Markowitz SD, Velculescu VE, Diaz Jr LA, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N. Heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA mutations in normal and tumour cells. Nature. 2010;464:610–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Ju YS, Alexandrov LB, Gerstung M, Martincorena I, Nik-Zainal S, Ramakrishna M, Davies HR, Papaemmanuil E, Gundem G, Shlien A, et al. Origins and functional consequences of somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in human cancer. Elife. 2014;3:e02935.Google Scholar
  9. Larman TC, DePalma SR, Hadjipanayis AG. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Protopopov A, Zhang J, Gabriel SB, Chin L, Seidman CE, Kucherlapati R, Seidman JG. Spectrum of somatic mitochondrial mutations in five cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:14087–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Phan LM, Yeung SC, Lee MH. Cancer metabolic reprogramming: importance, main features, and potentials for precise targeted anti-cancer therapies. Cancer Biol Med. 2014;11:1–19.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Reznik E, Miller ML, Senbabaoglu Y, Riaz N, Sarungbam J, Tickoo SK, Al-Ahmadie HA, Lee W, Seshan VE, Hakimi AA, Sander C. Mitochondrial DNA copy number variation across human cancers. Elife. 2016;5:e10769.Google Scholar
  12. Stewart JB, Alaei-Mahabadi B, Sabarinathan R, Samuelsson T, Gorodkin J, Gustafsson CM, Larsson E. Simultaneous DNA and RNA mapping of somatic mitochondrial mutations across diverse human cancers. PLoS Genet. 2015;11:e1005333.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Ojala D, Merkel C, Gelfand R, Attardi G. The tRNA genes punctuate the reading of genetic information in human mitochondrial DNA. Cell. 1980;22:393–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ojala D, Montoya J, Attardi G. tRNA punctuation model of RNA processing in human mitochondria. Nature. 1981;290:470–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rackham O, Mercer TR, Filipovska A. The human mitochondrial transcriptome and the RNA-binding proteins that regulate its expression. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA. 2012;3:675–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Suzuki T, Suzuki T. A complete landscape of post-transcriptional modifications in mammalian mitochondrial tRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:7346–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Sanchez MI, Mercer TR, Davies SM, Shearwood AM, Nygard KK, Richman TR, Mattick JS, Rackham O, Filipovska A. RNA processing in human mitochondria. Cell Cycle. 2011;10:2904–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodgkinson A, Idaghdour Y, Gbeha E, Grenier JC, Hip-Ki E, Bruat V, Goulet JP, de Malliard T, Awadalla P. High-resolution genomic analysis of human mitochondrial RNA sequence variation. Science. 2014;344:413–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Helm M, Attardi G. Nuclear control of cloverleaf structure of human mitochondrial tRNA(Lys). J Mol Biol. 2004;337:545–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Helm M, Brule H, Degoul F, Cepanec C, Leroux JP, Giege R, Florentz C. The presence of modified nucleotides is required for cloverleaf folding of a human mitochondrial tRNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998;26:1636–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Helm M, Giege R, Florentz C. A Watson-Crick base-pair-disrupting methyl group (m1A9) is sufficient for cloverleaf folding of human mitochondrial tRNALys. Biochemistry. 1999;38:13338–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tavtigian SV, Simard J, Teng DH, Abtin V, Baumgard M, Beck A, Camp NJ, Carillo AR, Chen Y, Dayananth P, et al. A candidate prostate cancer susceptibility gene at chromosome 17p. Nat Genet. 2001;27:172–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Brandon M, Baldi P, Wallace DC. Mitochondrial mutations in cancer. Oncogene. 2006;25:4647–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mailman MD, Feolo M, Jin Y, Kimura M, Tryka K, Bagoutdinov R, Hao L, Kiang A, Paschall J, Phan L, et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat Genet. 2007;39:1181–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Tryka KA, Hao L, Sturcke A, Jin Y, Wang ZY, Ziyabari L, Lee M, Popova N, Sharopova N, Kimura M, Feolo M. NCBI’s Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes: dbGaP. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D975–979.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, Batut P, Chaisson M, Gingeras TR. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:15–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Anders S, Pyl PT, Huber W. HTSeq--a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:166–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercer TR, Neph S, Dinger ME, Crawford J, Smith MA, Shearwood AM, Haugen E, Bracken CP, Rackham O, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, et al. The human mitochondrial transcriptome. Cell. 2011;146:645–58.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hauenschild R, Tserovski L, Schmid K, Thuring K, Winz ML, Sharma S, Entian KD, Wacheul L, Lafontaine DL, Anderson J, et al. The reverse transcription signature of N-1-methyladenosine in RNA-Seq is sequence dependent. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:9950–64.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Clark WC, Evans ME, Dominissini D, Zheng G, Pan T. tRNA base methylation identification and quantification via high-throughput sequencing. RNA. 2016;22:1771–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Li H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:2987–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Yoshihara K, Shahmoradgoli M, Martinez E, Vegesna R, Kim H, Torres-Garcia W, Trevino V, Shen H, Laird PW, Levine DA, et al. Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2612.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolf AR, Mootha VK. Functional genomic analysis of human mitochondrial RNA processing. Cell Rep. 2014;7:918–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PI, Daly MJ, Sham PC. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:559–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. de Castro IP, Martins LM, Tufi R. Mitochondrial quality control and neurological disease: an emerging connection. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2010;12:e12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Burte F, Carelli V, Chinnery PF, Yu-Wai-Man P. Disturbed mitochondrial dynamics and neurodegenerative disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11:11–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Audic Y, Hartley RS. Post-transcriptional regulation in cancer. Biol Cell. 2004;96:479–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ghigna C, Cartegni L, Jordan P, Paronetto MP. Posttranscriptional regulation and RNA binding proteins in cancer biology. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:897821.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hitosugi T, Chen J. Post-translational modifications and the Warburg effect. Oncogene. 2014;33:4279–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Silvera D, Formenti SC, Schneider RJ. Translational control in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:254–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, Marchini JL, McCarthy S, McVean GA, Abecasis GR. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526:68–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement