Mol. Cells 2020; 43(2): 188-197
Published online February 3, 2020
https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2019.0310
© The Korean Society for Molecular and Cellular Biology
Correspondence to : Ewan.Cameron@glasgow.ac.uk (ERC); Karen.Blyth@glasgow.ac.uk (KB)
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/.
Cells are designed to be sensitive to a myriad of external cues so they can fulfil their individual destiny as part of the greater whole. A number of well-characterised signalling pathways dictate the cell’s response to the external environment and incoming messages. In healthy, well-ordered homeostatic systems these signals are tightly controlled and kept in balance. However, given their powerful control over cell fate, these pathways, and the transcriptional machinery they orchestrate, are frequently hijacked during the development of neoplastic disease. A prime example is the Wnt signalling pathway that can be modulated by a variety of ligands and inhibitors, ultimately exerting its effects through the β-catenin transcription factor and its downstream target genes. Here we focus on the interplay between the three-member family of RUNX transcription factors with the Wnt pathway and how together they can influence cell behaviour and contribute to cancer development. In a recurring theme with other signalling systems, the RUNX genes and the Wnt pathway appear to operate within a series of feedback loops. RUNX genes are capable of directly and indirectly regulating different elements of the Wnt pathway to either strengthen or inhibit the signal. Equally, β-catenin and its transcriptional co-factors can control RUNX gene expression and together they can collaborate to regulate a large number of third party co-target genes.
Keywords cancer, RUNX1, RUNX2, RUNX3, Wnt, β-catenin
Cells consult their extracellular environment, and the growth-regulating signals within it, during a discrete window of time in G1 phase of the cell cycle. Once cells have moved through this window, they proceed through S, G2, and M phases. However, if growth factors are removed before a specific time point, cells will fail to proceed toward S phase, and instead remain in G1 or revert to G0 phase (Pardee, 1974). This total dependence on extracellular signals, followed by entrance in late G1 into a state of relative independence, indicates that an important decision must be made before the end of G1. Precisely at this point, a cell must ‘make up its mind’ whether it will remain in G1, retreat from the active cycle into G0, or advance into late G1 and S phase. This critical decision is made at the restriction point or R-point (Malumbres and Barbacid, 2001; Pardee, 1974; Weinberg, 2014).
Time-lapse microscopy of asynchronously cycling Swiss 3T3 cells showed that cycling cells are sensitive to serum withdrawal for only the first 3 to 4 h after mitosis, implying that the R-point is within this interval (Zetterberg and Larsson, 1985). Subsequent studies revealed that the R-point occurs 3 to 4 h after mitogenic stimulation in most mammalian cells (Zetterberg et al., 1995). The concept of the R-point heralded the subsequent discovery of the cell-cycle engine (Nurse, 2000; Pardee, 1974; Sherr and Roberts, 1999). In addition, the R-point is deregulated in most cancer cells (Pardee, 1974; Weinberg, 2014). Therefore, understanding how cells make a fate decision at the R-point should provide insight into how the cell cycle is controlled and how tumors develop (Blagosklonny, 2006).
The DNA-binding transcription factor RUNX3, which plays pivotal roles in lineage determination, defends against oncogenic K-RAS–induced tumorigenesis (Ito et al., 2015). Deletion of
When extracellular mitogenic signaling is maintained up to the R-point, transcription of R-point–associated target genes is activated (Chi et al., 2017). For a silent gene to be induced, the chromatin structure of its chromosomal locus must be opened. Chromatin structures and functions are modulated by covalent modification of specific residues within the amino-terminal tails of histones; the unique combination of modifications has been described as the histone code (Mills, 2010). Trithorax group (TrxG) proteins establish histone modifications that activate transcription, whereas PcG proteins establish histone modifications that repress transcription. TrxG proteins consist of two categories: histone modifiers (Strahl and Allis, 2000) and nucleosome remodelers (Vignali et al., 2000). TrxG histone modifiers include the mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) protein, which methylates histone H3 at lysine 4 (H3K4-me), a histone mark that favors transcriptional activation. Nucleosome remodelers of TrxG complex contain SWI/SNF complex, which facilitate the binding of transcription factors and basal transcription machinery (Imbalzano et al., 1994). PcG complexes include two categories: Polycomb repressor complexes 1 and 2 (PRC1 and PRC2). The PRC2 complex contains Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 (EZH2), which trimethylates histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27-me), a characteristic of inactive chromatin (Cao et al., 2002).
Gain of PcG and loss of TrxG is a common theme in human cancer, indicating that PcG and TrxG are involved in regulation of tumor suppressors: PcG suppresses and TrxG activates tumor suppressors. ARF, which induces cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis by facilitating p53 activity in response to aberrant oncogene activation (Efeyan and Serrano, 2007; Kamijo et al., 1997; Palmero et al., 1998), is regulated by PcG and TrxG. During normal proliferation, PcG complexes (PRC1 and PRC2) and histone deacetylases (HDACs) bind the ARF locus, thereby inhibiting senescence. In response to oncogenic RAS, TrxG-mediated chromatin dynamics override PcG-mediated repression, thereby inducing ARF/p53-mediated senescence (Mills, 2010).
Soon after mitogenic stimulation (within 1 h after stimulation), histone H4 and RUNX are acetylated by p300 acetyltransferase. BRD2 contains two bromodomains (BD1 and BD2), and each bromodomain interacts with a distinct protein: BD1 interacts with acetylated RUNX3, whereas BD2 interacts with acetylated histone H4. The p300–RUNX3–BRD2– histone complex is formed 1 to 2 h after serum stimulation, and binds to the promoters of the genes encoding p21 and ARF (Lee et al., 2019a). The complex dissociates 4 h later (Lee et al., 2019a). These observations suggest that a large complex containing RUNX3, BRD2, p300, and histone forms at the promoters of p21 and ARF at the R-point; within this complex, BRD2 grips both RUNX3 and histone through its two BDs. A schematic diagram of the complex formed at target loci soon after serum stimulation is shown in Figure 1.
BRD2 participates in multiprotein transcription complexes such as Mediator, recruits the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex (Denis et al., 2006), and allows RNA polymerase II to transcribe through the nucleosome (LeRoy et al., 2008). Interestingly, TAF1 and TBP form a complex with RUNX3 and BRD2 1 h after serum stimulation (Fig. 1). Similarly, MLL1/5 (activating histone modifiers) and the components of the SWI/SNF complex, Brg-1 and BAF-155, interact with RUNX3 and BRD2 simultaneously 1 to 2 h after serum stimulation, and subsequently dissociate (Fig. 1). These results demonstrate that the p300–RUNX3–BRD2–histone complex interacts with MLL1/5 as well as the SWI/SNF and TFIID complexes before the R-point.
Interaction between Wnt and RUNX1 activity was reported over 20 years ago when it was shown that the β-catenin co-factor lymphoid enhancer factor 1 (LEF1) enhanced RUNX1 binding to chromatin and potentiated transcriptional activity of the T-cell receptor alpha (TCRα) enhancer (Mayall et al., 1997). Subsequently the mutual interdependence of these pathways has been described in systems as diverse as haematopoietic stem cells and ovaries, with RUNX1 capable of affecting the Wnt pathway at several discreet components of the pathway (Cheng et al., 2011; Friedman, 2009; Naillat et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2012).
The role of RUNX1 in leukaemia has been studied in the context of Wnt signalling whereby β-catenin is associated with the ability of leukaemia stem cells to self-renew. Treatment of haematopoietic progenitor cells with purified Wnt3a ligand increased the transcription of
A number of studies have noted that
RUNX1 was found to be upregulated in colorectal cancer and this overexpression was linked to poorer survival in patients, as well as metastasis and induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in colorectal cancer cells (Li et al., 2019). This aggressive phenotype was caused by RUNX1 activating the Wnt pathway via direct interaction with β-catenin, and interactions with the enhancer and promoter regions of KIT to promote its transcription and enhance Wnt/β-catenin signalling. Conversely,
Bone is a highly dynamic tissue and both the Wnt signalling pathway and RUNX2 are integral to its formation and homeostatic control. As such, the bone field has been a rich source for studying the intricate relationship between these players.
Reciprocal regulation of major signalling pathways is a common theme with the
In addition to their ability to regulate each other, β-catenin and RUNX2 also collaborate in the regulation of common target genes (Fig. 2). RUNX2 and canonical Wnt interact to regulate
Wnt signalling has been implicated in different aspects of cancer development and progression. The role of this pathway in stem cell biology and tumour initiating cells is one area of intense interest. Our own work has shown that
A body of work has implicated RUNX3 as a tumour suppressor in the gastrointestinal tract as well as other cancer lineages, and a number of potential mechanisms have been proposed to explain this property. In this context RUNX3 was reported to form a complex with β-catenin and TCF4, the most predominant TCF/LEF factor in the intestine responsible for the recruitment of β-catenin to its target genes, resulting in reduced DNA binding and transcriptional activity at the
It is clear, from the evidence laid out in the studies above, that interactions between RUNX factors and Wnt signalling are relevant to both normal tissue and in cancer settings, and that the consequences of such interactions often depend on the specific context in which these connections occur. The apparently paradoxical functions of
Knowledge of the Wnt pathway and its modulators is essential in aiding the discovery of new ways to target cancer, especially since the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway is seen as such a promising target in cancer therapy. As outlined above, the RUNX proteins are key modulators and influencers of the downstream pathways and the phenotypic impact of Wnt signalling, and specific targeting of these RUNX/Wnt interactions may be a more elegant approach to therapy. β-Catenin itself is classified as a difficult-to-drug and yet-to-be-drugged target in cancer and inhibition of this protein could potentially lead to unpleasant side effects in patients (Cheng et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2018). It could, however, be possible to modulate canonical Wnt pathway activation by targeting the RUNX proteins. It is exciting that small molecule inhibitors against RUNX1 and RUNX2 have shown promise for treating some cancer types in which RUNX function drives pro-oncogenic effects, although their effects on the Wnt/β-catenin pathway were not specifically investigated (Bushweller, 2019; Illendula et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2017). However, it should be noted that, depending on context and tumour type, upregulation of RUNX rather than inhibition may augment approaches to therapy (Speidel et al., 2017). Nonetheless, this information offers an additional insight into one of the ways that oncogenic β-catenin signalling can be modulated in cancer, and may be vital for the development of targeted therapies.
This review is dedicated to our colleague and long-time friend Professor Jim Neil who was a major contributor and ally to the RUNX field. The authors would like to sincerely apologise to colleagues who have contributed to such an immense literature but whose elegant work we have not cited due to space limitations. We thank Kirsteen Campbell for critical reading of the manuscript, and Christopher Boyle for assistance with
K.S. is funded by Breast Cancer Now (2016NovPHD859); K.B. is funded by Cancer Research UK (C596/A17196).
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Overlapping incidence of
Cancer type | Alteration frequency (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wnt | |||||
Colorectal adenocarcinoma | 6.4 | 83 | 89.4 | 83.33 | 6.07 |
Endometrial carcinoma | 9.9 | 72.35 | 82.25 | 72.87 | 9.38 |
Oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma | 11.87 | 71.6 | 83.47 | 73.54 | 9.93 |
Melanoma | 8.78 | 70.95 | 79.73 | 72.75 | 6.98 |
Non-small cell lung cancer | 5.51 | 66.76 | 72.27 | 67.9 | 4.37 |
Hepatocellular carcinoma | 4.07 | 65.85 | 69.92 | 66.67 | 3.25 |
Ovarian epithelial tumour | 6.68 | 65.24 | 71.92 | 66.78 | 5.14 |
Bladder urothelial carcinoma | 8.52 | 63.99 | 72.51 | 65.69 | 6.82 |
Cervical squamous cell carcinoma | 5.58 | 54.58 | 60.16 | 56.97 | 3.19 |
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma | 5.16 | 54.3 | 59.46 | 56.21 | 3.25 |
Sarcoma | 6.67 | 52.16 | 58.83 | 52.94 | 5.89 |
Invasive breast carcinoma | 8.12 | 50.92 | 59.04 | 54.15 | 4.89 |
Mature B-cell neoplasms | 6.25 | 47.92 | 54.17 | 47.92 | 6.25 |
Cervical adenocarcinoma | 4.35 | 43.48 | 47.83 | 45.65 | 2.18 |
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | 3.8 | 38.04 | 41.84 | 38.59 | 3.25 |
Adrenocortical carcinoma | 3.3 | 32.97 | 36.27 | 34.07 | 2.2 |
Cholangiocarcinoma | 5.56 | 30.56 | 36.12 | 33.33 | 2.79 |
The cancer types that appeared in both top 20 lists for
Mol. Cells 2020; 43(2): 188-197
Published online February 29, 2020 https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2019.0310
Copyright © The Korean Society for Molecular and Cellular Biology.
Kerri Sweeney1 , Ewan R. Cameron2,*
, and Karen Blyth1,3,*
1CRUK Beatson Institute, Garscube Estate, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK, 2Glasgow Veterinary School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK, 3Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK
Correspondence to:Ewan.Cameron@glasgow.ac.uk (ERC); Karen.Blyth@glasgow.ac.uk (KB)
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/.
Cells are designed to be sensitive to a myriad of external cues so they can fulfil their individual destiny as part of the greater whole. A number of well-characterised signalling pathways dictate the cell’s response to the external environment and incoming messages. In healthy, well-ordered homeostatic systems these signals are tightly controlled and kept in balance. However, given their powerful control over cell fate, these pathways, and the transcriptional machinery they orchestrate, are frequently hijacked during the development of neoplastic disease. A prime example is the Wnt signalling pathway that can be modulated by a variety of ligands and inhibitors, ultimately exerting its effects through the β-catenin transcription factor and its downstream target genes. Here we focus on the interplay between the three-member family of RUNX transcription factors with the Wnt pathway and how together they can influence cell behaviour and contribute to cancer development. In a recurring theme with other signalling systems, the RUNX genes and the Wnt pathway appear to operate within a series of feedback loops. RUNX genes are capable of directly and indirectly regulating different elements of the Wnt pathway to either strengthen or inhibit the signal. Equally, β-catenin and its transcriptional co-factors can control RUNX gene expression and together they can collaborate to regulate a large number of third party co-target genes.
Keywords: cancer, RUNX1, RUNX2, RUNX3, Wnt, β-catenin
Cells consult their extracellular environment, and the growth-regulating signals within it, during a discrete window of time in G1 phase of the cell cycle. Once cells have moved through this window, they proceed through S, G2, and M phases. However, if growth factors are removed before a specific time point, cells will fail to proceed toward S phase, and instead remain in G1 or revert to G0 phase (Pardee, 1974). This total dependence on extracellular signals, followed by entrance in late G1 into a state of relative independence, indicates that an important decision must be made before the end of G1. Precisely at this point, a cell must ‘make up its mind’ whether it will remain in G1, retreat from the active cycle into G0, or advance into late G1 and S phase. This critical decision is made at the restriction point or R-point (Malumbres and Barbacid, 2001; Pardee, 1974; Weinberg, 2014).
Time-lapse microscopy of asynchronously cycling Swiss 3T3 cells showed that cycling cells are sensitive to serum withdrawal for only the first 3 to 4 h after mitosis, implying that the R-point is within this interval (Zetterberg and Larsson, 1985). Subsequent studies revealed that the R-point occurs 3 to 4 h after mitogenic stimulation in most mammalian cells (Zetterberg et al., 1995). The concept of the R-point heralded the subsequent discovery of the cell-cycle engine (Nurse, 2000; Pardee, 1974; Sherr and Roberts, 1999). In addition, the R-point is deregulated in most cancer cells (Pardee, 1974; Weinberg, 2014). Therefore, understanding how cells make a fate decision at the R-point should provide insight into how the cell cycle is controlled and how tumors develop (Blagosklonny, 2006).
The DNA-binding transcription factor RUNX3, which plays pivotal roles in lineage determination, defends against oncogenic K-RAS–induced tumorigenesis (Ito et al., 2015). Deletion of
When extracellular mitogenic signaling is maintained up to the R-point, transcription of R-point–associated target genes is activated (Chi et al., 2017). For a silent gene to be induced, the chromatin structure of its chromosomal locus must be opened. Chromatin structures and functions are modulated by covalent modification of specific residues within the amino-terminal tails of histones; the unique combination of modifications has been described as the histone code (Mills, 2010). Trithorax group (TrxG) proteins establish histone modifications that activate transcription, whereas PcG proteins establish histone modifications that repress transcription. TrxG proteins consist of two categories: histone modifiers (Strahl and Allis, 2000) and nucleosome remodelers (Vignali et al., 2000). TrxG histone modifiers include the mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) protein, which methylates histone H3 at lysine 4 (H3K4-me), a histone mark that favors transcriptional activation. Nucleosome remodelers of TrxG complex contain SWI/SNF complex, which facilitate the binding of transcription factors and basal transcription machinery (Imbalzano et al., 1994). PcG complexes include two categories: Polycomb repressor complexes 1 and 2 (PRC1 and PRC2). The PRC2 complex contains Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 (EZH2), which trimethylates histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27-me), a characteristic of inactive chromatin (Cao et al., 2002).
Gain of PcG and loss of TrxG is a common theme in human cancer, indicating that PcG and TrxG are involved in regulation of tumor suppressors: PcG suppresses and TrxG activates tumor suppressors. ARF, which induces cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis by facilitating p53 activity in response to aberrant oncogene activation (Efeyan and Serrano, 2007; Kamijo et al., 1997; Palmero et al., 1998), is regulated by PcG and TrxG. During normal proliferation, PcG complexes (PRC1 and PRC2) and histone deacetylases (HDACs) bind the ARF locus, thereby inhibiting senescence. In response to oncogenic RAS, TrxG-mediated chromatin dynamics override PcG-mediated repression, thereby inducing ARF/p53-mediated senescence (Mills, 2010).
Soon after mitogenic stimulation (within 1 h after stimulation), histone H4 and RUNX are acetylated by p300 acetyltransferase. BRD2 contains two bromodomains (BD1 and BD2), and each bromodomain interacts with a distinct protein: BD1 interacts with acetylated RUNX3, whereas BD2 interacts with acetylated histone H4. The p300–RUNX3–BRD2– histone complex is formed 1 to 2 h after serum stimulation, and binds to the promoters of the genes encoding p21 and ARF (Lee et al., 2019a). The complex dissociates 4 h later (Lee et al., 2019a). These observations suggest that a large complex containing RUNX3, BRD2, p300, and histone forms at the promoters of p21 and ARF at the R-point; within this complex, BRD2 grips both RUNX3 and histone through its two BDs. A schematic diagram of the complex formed at target loci soon after serum stimulation is shown in Figure 1.
BRD2 participates in multiprotein transcription complexes such as Mediator, recruits the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex (Denis et al., 2006), and allows RNA polymerase II to transcribe through the nucleosome (LeRoy et al., 2008). Interestingly, TAF1 and TBP form a complex with RUNX3 and BRD2 1 h after serum stimulation (Fig. 1). Similarly, MLL1/5 (activating histone modifiers) and the components of the SWI/SNF complex, Brg-1 and BAF-155, interact with RUNX3 and BRD2 simultaneously 1 to 2 h after serum stimulation, and subsequently dissociate (Fig. 1). These results demonstrate that the p300–RUNX3–BRD2–histone complex interacts with MLL1/5 as well as the SWI/SNF and TFIID complexes before the R-point.
Interaction between Wnt and RUNX1 activity was reported over 20 years ago when it was shown that the β-catenin co-factor lymphoid enhancer factor 1 (LEF1) enhanced RUNX1 binding to chromatin and potentiated transcriptional activity of the T-cell receptor alpha (TCRα) enhancer (Mayall et al., 1997). Subsequently the mutual interdependence of these pathways has been described in systems as diverse as haematopoietic stem cells and ovaries, with RUNX1 capable of affecting the Wnt pathway at several discreet components of the pathway (Cheng et al., 2011; Friedman, 2009; Naillat et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2012).
The role of RUNX1 in leukaemia has been studied in the context of Wnt signalling whereby β-catenin is associated with the ability of leukaemia stem cells to self-renew. Treatment of haematopoietic progenitor cells with purified Wnt3a ligand increased the transcription of
A number of studies have noted that
RUNX1 was found to be upregulated in colorectal cancer and this overexpression was linked to poorer survival in patients, as well as metastasis and induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in colorectal cancer cells (Li et al., 2019). This aggressive phenotype was caused by RUNX1 activating the Wnt pathway via direct interaction with β-catenin, and interactions with the enhancer and promoter regions of KIT to promote its transcription and enhance Wnt/β-catenin signalling. Conversely,
Bone is a highly dynamic tissue and both the Wnt signalling pathway and RUNX2 are integral to its formation and homeostatic control. As such, the bone field has been a rich source for studying the intricate relationship between these players.
Reciprocal regulation of major signalling pathways is a common theme with the
In addition to their ability to regulate each other, β-catenin and RUNX2 also collaborate in the regulation of common target genes (Fig. 2). RUNX2 and canonical Wnt interact to regulate
Wnt signalling has been implicated in different aspects of cancer development and progression. The role of this pathway in stem cell biology and tumour initiating cells is one area of intense interest. Our own work has shown that
A body of work has implicated RUNX3 as a tumour suppressor in the gastrointestinal tract as well as other cancer lineages, and a number of potential mechanisms have been proposed to explain this property. In this context RUNX3 was reported to form a complex with β-catenin and TCF4, the most predominant TCF/LEF factor in the intestine responsible for the recruitment of β-catenin to its target genes, resulting in reduced DNA binding and transcriptional activity at the
It is clear, from the evidence laid out in the studies above, that interactions between RUNX factors and Wnt signalling are relevant to both normal tissue and in cancer settings, and that the consequences of such interactions often depend on the specific context in which these connections occur. The apparently paradoxical functions of
Knowledge of the Wnt pathway and its modulators is essential in aiding the discovery of new ways to target cancer, especially since the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway is seen as such a promising target in cancer therapy. As outlined above, the RUNX proteins are key modulators and influencers of the downstream pathways and the phenotypic impact of Wnt signalling, and specific targeting of these RUNX/Wnt interactions may be a more elegant approach to therapy. β-Catenin itself is classified as a difficult-to-drug and yet-to-be-drugged target in cancer and inhibition of this protein could potentially lead to unpleasant side effects in patients (Cheng et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2018). It could, however, be possible to modulate canonical Wnt pathway activation by targeting the RUNX proteins. It is exciting that small molecule inhibitors against RUNX1 and RUNX2 have shown promise for treating some cancer types in which RUNX function drives pro-oncogenic effects, although their effects on the Wnt/β-catenin pathway were not specifically investigated (Bushweller, 2019; Illendula et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2017). However, it should be noted that, depending on context and tumour type, upregulation of RUNX rather than inhibition may augment approaches to therapy (Speidel et al., 2017). Nonetheless, this information offers an additional insight into one of the ways that oncogenic β-catenin signalling can be modulated in cancer, and may be vital for the development of targeted therapies.
This review is dedicated to our colleague and long-time friend Professor Jim Neil who was a major contributor and ally to the RUNX field. The authors would like to sincerely apologise to colleagues who have contributed to such an immense literature but whose elegant work we have not cited due to space limitations. We thank Kirsteen Campbell for critical reading of the manuscript, and Christopher Boyle for assistance with
K.S. is funded by Breast Cancer Now (2016NovPHD859); K.B. is funded by Cancer Research UK (C596/A17196).
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Overlapping incidence of
Cancer type | Alteration frequency (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wnt | |||||
Colorectal adenocarcinoma | 6.4 | 83 | 89.4 | 83.33 | 6.07 |
Endometrial carcinoma | 9.9 | 72.35 | 82.25 | 72.87 | 9.38 |
Oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma | 11.87 | 71.6 | 83.47 | 73.54 | 9.93 |
Melanoma | 8.78 | 70.95 | 79.73 | 72.75 | 6.98 |
Non-small cell lung cancer | 5.51 | 66.76 | 72.27 | 67.9 | 4.37 |
Hepatocellular carcinoma | 4.07 | 65.85 | 69.92 | 66.67 | 3.25 |
Ovarian epithelial tumour | 6.68 | 65.24 | 71.92 | 66.78 | 5.14 |
Bladder urothelial carcinoma | 8.52 | 63.99 | 72.51 | 65.69 | 6.82 |
Cervical squamous cell carcinoma | 5.58 | 54.58 | 60.16 | 56.97 | 3.19 |
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma | 5.16 | 54.3 | 59.46 | 56.21 | 3.25 |
Sarcoma | 6.67 | 52.16 | 58.83 | 52.94 | 5.89 |
Invasive breast carcinoma | 8.12 | 50.92 | 59.04 | 54.15 | 4.89 |
Mature B-cell neoplasms | 6.25 | 47.92 | 54.17 | 47.92 | 6.25 |
Cervical adenocarcinoma | 4.35 | 43.48 | 47.83 | 45.65 | 2.18 |
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | 3.8 | 38.04 | 41.84 | 38.59 | 3.25 |
Adrenocortical carcinoma | 3.3 | 32.97 | 36.27 | 34.07 | 2.2 |
Cholangiocarcinoma | 5.56 | 30.56 | 36.12 | 33.33 | 2.79 |
. Overlapping incidence of
Cancer type | Alteration frequency (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wnt | |||||
Colorectal adenocarcinoma | 6.4 | 83 | 89.4 | 83.33 | 6.07 |
Endometrial carcinoma | 9.9 | 72.35 | 82.25 | 72.87 | 9.38 |
Oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma | 11.87 | 71.6 | 83.47 | 73.54 | 9.93 |
Melanoma | 8.78 | 70.95 | 79.73 | 72.75 | 6.98 |
Non-small cell lung cancer | 5.51 | 66.76 | 72.27 | 67.9 | 4.37 |
Hepatocellular carcinoma | 4.07 | 65.85 | 69.92 | 66.67 | 3.25 |
Ovarian epithelial tumour | 6.68 | 65.24 | 71.92 | 66.78 | 5.14 |
Bladder urothelial carcinoma | 8.52 | 63.99 | 72.51 | 65.69 | 6.82 |
Cervical squamous cell carcinoma | 5.58 | 54.58 | 60.16 | 56.97 | 3.19 |
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma | 5.16 | 54.3 | 59.46 | 56.21 | 3.25 |
Sarcoma | 6.67 | 52.16 | 58.83 | 52.94 | 5.89 |
Invasive breast carcinoma | 8.12 | 50.92 | 59.04 | 54.15 | 4.89 |
Mature B-cell neoplasms | 6.25 | 47.92 | 54.17 | 47.92 | 6.25 |
Cervical adenocarcinoma | 4.35 | 43.48 | 47.83 | 45.65 | 2.18 |
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | 3.8 | 38.04 | 41.84 | 38.59 | 3.25 |
Adrenocortical carcinoma | 3.3 | 32.97 | 36.27 | 34.07 | 2.2 |
Cholangiocarcinoma | 5.56 | 30.56 | 36.12 | 33.33 | 2.79 |
The cancer types that appeared in both top 20 lists for
Ann Sanoji Samarakkody, Nah-Young Shin, and Alan B. Cantor
Mol. Cells 2020; 43(2): 99-106 https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2019.0304Jong-Myeong Kim, Kwang Wook Min, You-Joung Kim, Ron Smits, Konrad Basler, and Jin Woo Kim
Mol. Cells -0001; (): https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2023.0029Youjin Na, Gang Huang, and Jianqiang Wu
Mol. Cells 2020; 43(2): 153-159 https://doi.org/10.14348/molcells.2019.0295