PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Jeroen de Ridder

Publications and source records attributed to Jeroen de Ridder.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Large-scale simulation of coverage and error rate tradeoffs for cancer detection in cell-free DNA whole-genome sequencing.

MOTIVATION: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is a promising approach for detecting cancer recurrence. It enables cancer detection by identifying all tumor-derived cfDNA (ctDNA) molecules carrying somatic single nucleotide variants (sSNVs). While ideally, a sequencing platform should be highly accurate for reliable ctDNA detection, in reality, all sequencing platforms introduce sequencing errors that generate false positives indistinguishable from true SNVs. Understanding how sequencing parameters influence ctDNA detection sensitivity at low tumor fractions (TFs) in cfDNA samples is essential for guiding sequencing strategies in clinical contexts. To model cfDNA sequencing for tumor detection, which contains asymmetric noise and multiple interacting parameters, analytical modeling is intractable, motivating large-scale parallelized simulation. RESULTS: We developed a simulation framework to generate in silico cfDNA data across 10 cancer types. In total, 480 million cfDNA samples were simulated from tumor WGS profiles. Overall, the lowest detectable TF differs substantially between cancer types under identical sequencing conditions due to variations in mutational load. For cancers with high mutational load, 3× coverage with low-error techniques reliably detects TFs below 0.1%. In contrast, cancers with low mutational load require at least six-fold higher coverage to achieve comparable detection thresholds. Increasing sequencing quality scores from Q30 to Q55 at 30× coverage further enhances sensitivity, enabling detection of TFs as low as 1 × 10-5. This study provides a comprehensive framework for optimizing sequencing parameters, offering valuable guidance for tailoring future technology development for specific cancer types and clinical applications. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code is publicly available at https://github.com/UMCUGenetics/cfdetect/tree/main.

Whole Genome Sequencing

Single-cell multi-omic detection of DNA methylation and histone modifications reconstructs the dynamics of epigenomic maintenance.

DNA methylation and histone modifications encode epigenetic information. Recently, major progress was made to measure either mark at a single-cell resolution; however, a method for simultaneous detection is lacking, preventing study of their interactions. Here, to bridge this gap, we developed scEpi2-seq. Our technique provides a readout of histone modifications and DNA methylation at the single-cell and single-molecule level. Application in a cell line with the FUCCI cell cycle reporter system reveals how DNA methylation maintenance is influenced by the local chromatin context. In addition, profiling of H3K27me3 and DNA methylation in the mouse intestine yields insights into epigenetic interactions during cell type specification. Differentially methylated regions also demonstrated independent cell-type regulation in addition to H3K27me3 regulation, which reinforces that CpG methylation acts as an additional layer of control in facultative heterochromatin.

DNA Methylation

Co-expression in tissue-specific gene networks links genes in cancer-susceptibility loci to known somatic driver genes.

BACKGROUND: The genetic background of cancer remains complex and challenging to integrate. Many somatic mutations within genes are known to cause and drive cancer, while genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cancer have revealed many germline risk factors associated with cancer. However, the overlap between known somatic driver genes and positional candidate genes from GWAS loci is surprisingly small. We hypothesised that genes from multiple independent cancer GWAS loci should show tissue-specific co-regulation patterns that converge on cancer-specific driver genes. RESULTS: We studied recent well-powered GWAS of breast, prostate, colorectal and skin cancer by estimating co-expression between genes and subsequently prioritising genes that show significant co-expression with genes mapping within susceptibility loci from cancer GWAS. We observed that the prioritised genes were strongly enriched for cancer drivers defined by COSMIC, IntOGen and Dietlein et al. The enrichment of known cancer driver genes was most significant when using co-expression networks derived from non-cancer samples of the relevant tissue of origin. CONCLUSION: We show how genes within risk loci identified by cancer GWAS can be linked to known cancer driver genes through tissue-specific co-expression networks. This provides an important explanation for why seemingly unrelated sets of genes that harbour either germline risk factors or somatic mutations can eventually cause the same type of disease.

Humans