PO.BCS01.13 · 生物信息与计算
通过肿瘤进展树比对识别稳健的亚克隆结构
Identifying robust subclonal structures through tumor progression tree alignment
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
理解和比较肿瘤演化历史对于癌症基因组学至关重要,对追踪亚克隆群体动态、治疗耐药性和肿瘤异质性具有直接意义。克隆树被广泛用于模拟肿瘤进展,它是有根的无序树,其中每个节点代表一个由一组不同突变标记的亚克隆。已经开发了多种从批量测序或单细胞测序数据推断克隆树的原则性和高效方法。然而,现有的计算方法都无法提供一种既高效又有原则的方法来完全比对克隆树并比较它们的亚克隆结构,这限制了任何基于推断克隆树的下游分析的稳健性。我们引入了omlta,即两棵克隆树的最优多标签树比对,它去除最少数量的突变标签,使剩余的树同构。计算omlta是NP难问题。在此,我们提出了一种固定参数可处理算法来计算omlta,其运行时间为O(L^3 log L 2^k),其中L是输入树之间共享的突变标签数量,k是比对所需去除的突变标签的最小可能数量——我们称之为omltd,即最优多标签树编辑距离。我们的方法提供了比Akutsu等人用于计算经典树比对和编辑距离(与omlta/omltd在克隆树上优化的概念相似)的最先进算法在渐近运行时间上(在k方面)指数级更优的表现。我们将omlta应用于来自TRACERx研究的126个非小细胞肺癌多样本批量测序数据,比较了由CONIPHER和PairTree推断的克隆树。尽管理论上运行时间呈指数级,我们仍能快速计算每个肿瘤的树比对,通常在几秒钟内完成。同一肿瘤上CONIPHER和PairTree克隆树之间的omltd在不同肿瘤间差异显著,且距离与突变中的平均癌细胞比例呈负相关。对于以低癌细胞比例突变为特征的肿瘤,因此建议不要使用单一的树,而应使用多棵备选树的比对,以便下游推断仅由可靠放置的突变来提供依据。
我们进一步在一个内部黑色素瘤样本上评估了我们的算法,其克隆树由PhISCS和ScisTree推断,突显了omlta在从单细胞测序数据推断的树上的实用性。在这些数据集上,我们的算法在实际的挂钟时间内完成了所有分析,并表明它能够识别代表以下情况的克隆树之间的共同演化轨迹:(i)不同的肿瘤,(ii)来自同一肿瘤的不同样本,(iii)来自同一样本的不同测序数据。补充结果进一步证明了我们的方法在模拟数据上相较于其他方法的稳健性。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Understanding and comparing tumor evolutionary histories is fundamental to cancer genomics, with direct implications for tracking subclonal population dynamics, treatment resistance, and tumor heterogeneity. Clonal trees, widely used to model tumor progression, are rooted, unordered trees in which each node represents a subclone labeled by a set of distinct mutations. Various principled and efficient methods have been developed for inferring clonal trees from either bulk or single-cell sequencing data. However, no existing computational approach offers a method that is both efficient and principled to fully align clonal trees and to compare their subclonal architectures, which limits the robustness of any downstream analysis based on inferred clonal trees. We introduce omlta, the optimal multi-label tree alignment of two clonal trees, which removes the minimum number of mutation labels, so that the remaining trees are isomorphic. Computing omlta is NP-hard. Here, we present a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm to compute the omlta, with a running time of O(L^3 log L 2^k) where L is the number of mutation labels shared between the input trees and k is the minimum possible number of mutation labels that need to be removed for the alignment - which we call omltd, the optimal multi-label tree edit distance. Our approach provides an exponentially better (in k) asymptotic runtime than the state-of-the-art algorithm by Akutsu et al. for computing the classic tree alignment and edit distance, concepts similar to what omlta/omltd optimizes on clonal trees. We applied omlta to 126 multi-sample bulk-sequencing data from the TRACERx study on non-small cell lung cancers by comparing clonal trees inferred by CONIPHER and PairTree. Despite the theoretically exponential runtime, we could compute the tree alignment for each tumor quickly, often within seconds. The omltd between CONIPHER and PairTree clonal trees on the same tumor varies substantially across tumors and the distances are negatively associated with the mean cancer cell fraction among mutations. For the tumors characterized by mutations with low cancer cell fractions, it is thus advisable not to use a single tree, but rather the alignment of multiple alternative trees, so that downstream inferences are informed only by robustly placed mutations.
We further evaluated our algorithm on an in-house melanoma sample with clonal trees inferred by PhISCS and ScisTree, highlighting the utility of omlta on trees inferred from single-cell sequencing data. On these datasets, our algorithm completed all analyses in practical wall-clock times and showed that it can identify common evolutionary trajectories among clonal trees representing (i) distinct tumors, (ii) distinct samples from the same tumor, (iii) distinct sequencing data from the same sample. Additional supplementary results demonstrate the robustness of our approach in comparison to alternatives on simulated data.
利益披露 Disclosure
J. Gilbert, None..
C. Wu, None..
M. Knittel, None..
S. Malikić, None..
S. Sahinalp, None.