Supplementary Figures 1 - 7 from A Surprising Cross-Species Conservation in the Genomic Landscape of Mouse and Human Oral Cancer Identifies a Transcriptional Signature Predicting Metastatic Disease
PDF file - 486KB, Figure S1 (A) Average statistics for depth of coverage at 20X, 30X and 40X of all MOC lines. Robust reads were obtained in all samples with a range of 97-98 percent for 20X, 93-95 percent for 30X and 88-92 percent for 40X. (B) Putative SNVs, nsSNVs (Table S1 and S2) and Indels (Table S4) of all MOC lines. Figure S2 Oncoprints from cBio of AKAP9, MED12L, THSD7A, MUC5B, MYH6, LAMA1, LRP2, and 3 RAS (Table S6) genes representing other candidate tumor promoters as compared to the 3 RAS genes. Note that for AKAPs and MED components, we found 9 AKAP family member mutations in 20.4 percent of tumors, with AKAP9 changes in 7 percent (Fig. 1D). Six components of the mediator complex were mutated in 14.7% of cases, with MED12L changes in 5% (Fig. 1E). Figure S3 Number of nsSNV's per node negative (N0) and node positive (N+) tumor in (A) all TCGA OSCC (note that patient TCGA-D6-6516 (N0) with 1463 mutations is not included in this graph) and (B) TCGA OSCC patients who had smoking history reported. There was no significant difference in the average number of mutations between N0 (3272 nsSNVs) and N+ (3097 nsSNVs) patients regardless of smoking status (Tables S8, S9). This analysis showed 17 genes commonly mutated in mouse indolent and human N0 tumors and 55 common genes mutated in mouse aggressive and human N+ tumors (Supplementary Table S10). However, none of these common genes were mutated at high frequency in the human N0 or N+ datasets (Supplementary Table S11 and 12). Finally, comparing N0 and N+ tumors from human TCGA data also showed that specific mutations occur infrequently in both the metastatic and non-metastatic tumors (data not shown). Figure S4 SAM plotsheet of MOC line microarray data with estimated miss rates for delta=4.68 Figure S5 (A) GSEA data of OCAMP-A on UW/FHCRC data with (B) first condensation of enriched genes. (C) GSEA data of OCAMP-A on MDA data with (D) first condensation of enriched genes. (E) GSEA data of OCAMP-A on TCGA data with (F) first condensation of enriched genes. Figure S6 (A) Disease specific survival (DSS) after weighted voting classification of OCAMP-B signature on the MD Anderson dataset shows worse outcome for those with aggressive classification (p=0.028). Figure S7 (A) Disease specific survival (DSS) and (B) overall survival (OS) after weighted voting classification of OCAMP-B signature on the UW/FHCRC dataset shows worse outcome for those with aggressive classification (p<0.01).