The Rise of Neuroendocrine Tumors: What We Know
An insight into the study of neuroendocrine tumors and their complexities.
Amy P Webster, Netta Mäkinen, Nana Mensah, Carla Castignani, Elizabeth Larose Cadieux, Ramesh Shivdasani, Pratik Singh, Heli Vaikkinen, Pawan Dhami, Simone Ecker, Matthew Brown, Bethan Rimmer, Stephen Henderson, Javier Herrero, Matthew Suderman, Paul Yousefi, Stephan Beck, Peter Van Loo, Eric Nakakura, Chrissie Thirlwell
― 7 min read
Table of Contents
- Why the Small Intestine?
- The Mystery of Multiple Tumors
- What Did the Genetic Studies Show?
- Not Your Average Tumor
- Welcome to the Epigenetic Party
- The Study of Unifocal SI-NETs
- The Challenge of Multifocal SI-NETs
- The Trick with Normal Tissue
- How Old Are These Tumors?
- Who Were the Patients?
- Getting Down to Data Generation
- Data Analysis: The R of the Matter
- Finding the Tumor Signature
- Let’s Talk About Aging
- Metabolic Predictions: What’s Cooking?
- The Chromosome 18 Connection
- Key Findings and Takeaways
- The Road Ahead
- Conclusion
- Original Source
- Reference Links
Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs) are a type of tumor that comes from the cells of the nervous and endocrine systems. They can pop up in various tissues throughout the body, with the small intestine being one of the most common locations. Although rare, these tumors have been getting a bit more attention lately for some reason-maybe because they like to throw multiple parties at once, often showing up in groups.
Why the Small Intestine?
The small intestine nets about 18% of all NET diagnoses, which means it’s a hotspot for these sneaky tumors. They are considered the most frequently diagnosed cancer in the small intestine, making them a topic of increasing interest for doctors and researchers. We are still figuring out why they are on the rise globally, but one thing is clear: understanding how these little rascals operate at a molecular level is crucial.
The Mystery of Multiple Tumors
Half of the folks diagnosed with small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors (SI-NETs) show up in the clinic with multiple tumors. Imagine walking into a party and finding several of your old friends you didn’t expect to see! Initially, these tumors were thought to be clones of each other, but recent genetic studies are suggesting they are more like distant cousins, with differences in their DNA.
What Did the Genetic Studies Show?
Researchers performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) on these multifocal SI-NETs and found some surprising results. On average, only about 0.08% of the genetic changes were the same among the tumors in a single patient. That’s like finding only one matching sock in a pile of laundry! Surprisingly, they found no shared genes that could be linked to tumor growth. It seems that while some genetic changes are at play, other factors also contribute to the development of these tumors.
Not Your Average Tumor
What makes SI-NETs stand out is their unexpectedly low level of mutations compared to other types of solid tumors. Most of them don't even have the usual known genetic mutations that lead to cancer. The most common issue appears to be related to Chromosome 18, where about 70% of SI-NETs experience a loss of an important piece of genetic information. Only around 8% have mutations in a gene called CDKN1B, which is not much to go on if you're a researcher trying to figure out the secret sauce behind these tumors.
Welcome to the Epigenetic Party
Given the lack of genetic changes driving these tumors, scientists are focusing their attention on something called “Epigenetics.” This refers to changes that affect how genes are expressed without altering the DNA itself. Simply put, it’s like changing how a recipe is made without changing the ingredients. Disruptions to epigenetic modifications, like DNA methylation, can lead to changes in gene activity, which might be a crucial factor in the growth of these tumors.
The Study of Unifocal SI-NETs
Earlier studies focused on single SI-NETs and identified some epigenetic patterns based on chromosome 18. Researchers used a multi-omics approach (fancy term for looking at biological data from different angles) and found that tumors with chromosome 18 changes had lower overall methylation levels compared to others. They even identified dozens of genes that showed different levels of methylation and higher activity in this subgroup.
The Challenge of Multifocal SI-NETs
While progress has been made in understanding single tumors, the world of multifocal SI-NETs remains largely uncharted territory-sort of like trying to make sense of a messy living room after a wild party. In this report, researchers decided to investigate 100 samples from 11 patients with multifocal SI-NETs. They compared the DNA methylation patterns across multiple tumors from the same patient and examined differences based on chromosome 18 loss.
The Trick with Normal Tissue
The researchers faced a challenge with normal tissue comparison because the cells they were interested in are rare in regular intestinal tissue. To tackle this, they started by comparing their tumor samples to a mix of normal tissue from patients. Then they refined their findings using data from a cell line enriched for enterochromaffin cells-these special cells act a bit more like our target. This careful approach aimed to identify tumor-specific changes while reducing the noise caused by other cell types.
How Old Are These Tumors?
Since SI-NETs grow so slowly, it’s tricky to determine the order in which they might have developed. To figure this out, researchers used something called “epigenetic clocks.” These tools measure biological aging based on DNA patterns. If successful, this could help piece together the timeline for how multifocal tumors develop.
Who Were the Patients?
The patients involved in this study went under the knife at the University of California, San Francisco, with all of them diagnosed with multifocal SI-NETs that had spread beyond their original site. The researchers collected 100 samples, including tumors and some normal tissue, providing a good size for analysis.
Getting Down to Data Generation
To study these samples, the team used an Illumina machine to gather data on DNA methylation. For some samples, they also had additional genomic data to work with. After sifting through all this information, they ended up with a refined dataset that helped them identify what they were really looking for in the tumors.
Data Analysis: The R of the Matter
Using a programming language called R-and some nifty packages to analyze the data-the researchers dug into the numbers. They checked for quality and made sure everything was in line before moving on to finding differential methylation. This involved comparing tumors to normal tissues and identifying unique signatures in the tumors.
Finding the Tumor Signature
The researchers discovered a jaw-dropping number of Differentially Methylated Positions (DMPs), with over 64,000 identified when comparing primary tumors with normal tissue. However, this number included some noise due to the mixture of cell types in their samples. To refine their findings, they used their enterochromaffin cell data and came up with about 12,392 DMPs that were specific to the tumors. These included many genes linked to nerve and synapse functions, indicating a possible connection to the biology of the tumors.
Let’s Talk About Aging
The team also delved into epigenetic aging across tumors. They tested 11 different ways to measure epigenetic age. Interestingly, they found varying degrees of age predictions. Some methods suggested that normal tissue was younger than the actual patients, while others suggested the opposite. The “skin and blood clock” surprisingly seemed the most effective in relating chronological age and assessing age acceleration in tumors.
Metabolic Predictions: What’s Cooking?
Along with everything else, the researchers explored how these tumors might behave metabolically. By using special software, they predicted traits like body mass index (BMI) and fat content based on DNA methylation patterns. They found significant changes between tumors and normal tissue, with more drastic differences in metastatic tumors, suggesting they might be munching through nutrients quite differently.
The Chromosome 18 Connection
A particularly interesting trait of SI-NETs is the loss of chromosome 18, which seems to have a distinct effect on DNA methylation. Comparison of tumors with and without chromosome 18 loss showed some notable differences. The tumors with chromosome 18 loss had a tougher time regarding metabolic predictions, indicating a profound change in how they process nutrients.
Key Findings and Takeaways
In this study, researchers made strides in understanding how multifocal SI-NETs operate, especially on the epigenetic side. They identified thousands of differentially methylated sites that point to potential pathways for tumor development, especially related to neural pathways. They also showcased the use of epigenetic clocks to estimate the appearance order of these tumors, a task as challenging as deciding who gets the last slice of pizza.
The Road Ahead
While this study uncovered a treasure trove of information about neuroendocrine tumors, it highlighted the need for further research. There are many unanswered questions about how these tumors develop and relate to one another, and the findings suggest that there is still much to explore in the realm of treatment and understanding tumor behavior more clearly.
Conclusion
As the world of science continues to advance and unravel the mysteries of NETs, one thing is for sure: If tumors had a motto, it would be "Expect the unexpected!" With careful research and a sprinkle of humor mixed in, we can look forward to even more exciting discoveries about our complex biological world.
Title: Epigenetic investigation of multifocal small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours reveals accelerated ageing of tumours and epigenetic alteration of metabolic genes
Abstract: BackgroundSmall intestinal neuroendocrine tumours (SI-NETs) are the most common malignancy of the small intestine and around 50% of patients present in clinic with multifocal disease. Recent investigations into the genomic architecture of multifocal SI-NETs have found evidence that these synchronous primary tumours evolve independently of each other. They also have extremely low mutational burden and few known driver genes, suggesting that epigenetic dysregulation may be driving tumorigenesis. Very little is known about epigenetic gene regulation, metabolism and ageing in these tumours, and how these traits differ across multiple tumours within individual patients. MethodsIn this study, we performed the first investigation of genome-wide DNA methylation in multifocal SI-NETs, assessing multiple primary tumours within each patient (n=79 primary tumours from 14 patients) alongside matched metastatic tumours (n=12) and normal intestinal epithelial tissue (n=9). We assessed multifocal SI-NET differential methylation using a novel method, comparing primary tumours with matched normal epithelial tissue and an enterochromaffin-enriched cell line to enrich for tumour-specific effects. This method reduced the identification of false positive methylation differences driven by cell composition differences between tumour and normal epithelial tissue. We also assessed tumour ageing using epigenetic clocks and applied metabolic predictors in the dataset to assess methylation variation across key metabolic genes. ResultsWe have identified 12,392 tumour-specific differentially methylated positions (Bonferroni corrected p
Authors: Amy P Webster, Netta Mäkinen, Nana Mensah, Carla Castignani, Elizabeth Larose Cadieux, Ramesh Shivdasani, Pratik Singh, Heli Vaikkinen, Pawan Dhami, Simone Ecker, Matthew Brown, Bethan Rimmer, Stephen Henderson, Javier Herrero, Matthew Suderman, Paul Yousefi, Stephan Beck, Peter Van Loo, Eric Nakakura, Chrissie Thirlwell
Last Update: 2024-12-05 00:00:00
Language: English
Source URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.02.626017
Source PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.02.626017.full.pdf
Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Changes: This summary was created with assistance from AI and may have inaccuracies. For accurate information, please refer to the original source documents linked here.
Thank you to biorxiv for use of its open access interoperability.