Chromoplexy and Chromothripsis Are Important Prognostically in Myeloma and Deregulate Gene Function By a Range of Mechanisms

Background: Structural variants are key recurrent molecular features of myeloma (MM) with two types of complex rearrangement, chromoplexy and chromothripsis, having been described recently. The contribution of these to MM prognosis, rapid changes in clinical behavior and punctuated evolution is currently unknown as is the mechanism by which they deregulate gene function.

Methods: We analyzed two sets of newly diagnosed MM data: 85 cases with phased whole genome sequencing; and 812 cases from CoMMpass where long-insert whole-genome sequencing was available. Patient derived xenografts from five MM cases were used to generate epigenetic maps for the histone marks, BRD4, MED1, H3K27Ac, H3K4me1, H3K4me3, H3K9me3, H3K36me3 and H3K27me3.

Results: In the 10X data the median number of structural events per case was 25 (range 1 - 182); with a median of 14 intra-chromosomal events (range 1 - 179; P<0.001) and 7 inter-chromosomal events (range 0 - 29). Structural events were seen most frequently on chromosomes 14 (64%), 8 (53%), 1 (44%) and 6 (42%). Complex chromosomal rearrangements involving 3 or more chromosomal sites were seen in 46%, 4 or more sites in 20%, 5 or more in 10% and 6 or more in 5% of samples. There were significantly more structural events in the t(4;14) subgroup compared to the t(11;14) subgroup. Significantly more events were also seen in the bi-allelically inactivated TP53 cases.

Using an elbow test defined cutoff, we identified cases with high structural variant load in 10% of cases. Chromoplexy called by "Chainfinder" was seen in 18% of cases. Chromothripsis called by "Shatterseek" was seen in 9% of cases. Cases with a high structural load alone were not associated with an adverse outcome whereas cases with chromoplexy or chromothripsis were associated with adverse PFS and OS, p=0.001. A new high-risk subgroup comprising approximately 5% of cases was identified with chromoplexy, chromothripsis and a high structural load.

Gene set enrichment analysis of cases with chromoplexy and chromothripsis showed an excess of MYC, E2F and G2M targets, and a reduction in RAS signaling. Interferon a and g responses, an excess of TP53 and reduction in TRAF3 mutations was associated predominantly with chromothripsis. How chromoplexy and chromothripsis are tolerated by the cell is unknown and the association with the cGAS/STING response is further being explored.

To determine how chromoplexy may deregulate multiple genes we identified the full spectrum of structural variants to the immunoglobulin (Ig) and non-Ig loci. A range of genes are deregulated by Ig loci including MAP3K14 at a frequency of 2% confirming the importance of non-canonical NFkB signaling. A novel intra-chromosomal rearrangement to ZFP36L1 was upregulated in 10% of cases but was not prognostic. Gene upregulation by non-Ig super enhancers is frequent and targets include PAX5, GLI3, CD40, NFKB1, MAP3K14, LRRC37A, LIPG, PHLDA3, ZNF267, CENPF, SLC44A2, MIER1, SOX30, TMEM258, PPIL1, and BUB3. The topologically associating domain (TADs) containing super enhancers bringing about gene deregulation include TXNDC5, FOXO3, FCHSD2, SP2, FAM46C, CACNA1C, TLCD2 and PIK3C2G. These super enhancers frequently contain important MM genes, the coding sequence of which are disrupted by the rearrangement and could contribute to the clinical phenotype. Accurately reconstructing the structure of the complex rearrangements will allow us to identify the mechanism of gene deregulation and to distinguish between either gene stacking, receptor stacking or both.

Conclusions: Upregulation of gene expression by super enhancer rearrangement is a major mechanism of gene deregulation in MM and complex structural events contribute significantly to adverse prognosis by a range of mechanisms as well as simple gene overexpression.