
==== Front
J Natl Cancer Cent
J Natl Cancer Cent
Journal of the National Cancer Center
2096-8663
2667-0054
Elsevier

S2667-0054(24)00020-6
10.1016/j.jncc.2024.03.001
Review
Resolving tumor evolution: a phylogenetic approach
Li Lin 1
Xie Wenqin 1
Zhan Li 1
Wen Shaodi 12
Luo Xiao 1
Xu Shuangbin 13
Cai Yantong 14
Tang Wenli 1
Wang Qianwen 1
Li Ming 1
Xie Zijing 1
Deng Lin 1
Zhu Hongyuan 1
Yu Guangchuang gcyu1@smu.edu.cn
1⁎
1 Department of Bioinformatics, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
2 Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University & Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Nanjing, China
3 Division of Laboratory Medicine, Microbiome Center, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
4 Dermatology Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
⁎ Corresponding author. gcyu1@smu.edu.cn
21 3 2024
6 2024
21 3 2024
4 2 97106
5 11 2023
28 2 2024
20 3 2024
© 2024 Chinese National Cancer Center. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
The evolutionary dynamics of cancer, characterized by its profound heterogeneity, demand sophisticated tools for a holistic understanding. This review delves into tumor phylogenetics, an essential approach bridging evolutionary biology with oncology, offering unparalleled insights into cancer's evolutionary trajectory. We provide an overview of the workflow, encompassing study design, data acquisition, and phylogeny reconstruction. Notably, the integration of diverse data sets emerges as a transformative step, enhancing the depth and breadth of evolutionary insights. With this integrated perspective, tumor phylogenetics stands poised to redefine our understanding of cancer evolution and influence therapeutic strategies.

Keywords

Tumor phylogenetics
Cancer evolution
Phylogenetic trees
Data integration
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Cancer continues to be a pressing global health crisis, causing millions of deaths annually.1 According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, it was reported that there were 19.3 million new cancer cases and 10.04 million cancer-related deaths in 2020. The projection for 2040 estimates a 47% increase in global cancer cases, bringing the total to 28.4 million.2 This high incidence, coupled with the absence of universally effective treatments, emphasizes the urgent need for a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms of cancer.

As researchers strive to discover more effective therapeutic strategies, several challenges consistently surface, including metastasis, drug resistance, and relapse. Metastasis is the spread of cancer cells from their primary site to distant body parts.3 Drug resistance, especially secondary resistance, arises when cancer cells adapt to neutralize anti-cancer drugs.4,5 Relapse, the post-treatment resurgence of cancer, often exacerbates therapeutic challenges.6 These phenomena are formidable obstacles to successful cancer treatment.7, 8, 9 Crucially, all can be traced back to one common root – the evolutionary nature of cancer.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Understanding the dynamics of tumor evolution is fundamental to addressing metastasis, drug resistance, and relapse, highlighting the critical need to comprehend cancer evolution.

To gain a better understanding of the complex nature of cancer evolution, researchers have been employing a variety of analytical tools and methodologies. One method that has proven particularly useful is phylogenetics, originally developed to study the evolutionary relationships between species.15 It facilitates the reconstruction of tumor evolutionary trajectories, thereby equipping researchers with actionable insights that could pave the way for tailored. Since its inception, the field of therapeutic interventions has rapidly advanced and gained significant popularity, becoming a crucial branch of oncology studies.16,17

This review aims to provide a comprehensive introduction to the workflow in tumor phylogenetics, covering aspects from study design and data collection to the methods used for reconstructing phylogenetic trees and their various applications. Finally, this review will highlight the significance of integrating external data to enhance the interpretability and applicability of phylogenetic analyses in cancer research.

2 Tumor phylogenetics: an overview

The field of tumor phylogenetics has evolved considerably since Peter Nowell first introduced the Clonal Evolution Model in 1976.18 This model suggests that tumors originate from a single abnormal cell. Subsequent theories and models, including branching and linear evolution, neutral and adaptive evolutionary models, and the concept of punctuated evolution, have added depth to our understanding of intratumoral heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics.19,20

In general, tumor evolution is a process driven by the acquisition of genetic and epigenetic mutations, resulting in a complex and continually evolving mosaic of cell populations within each tumor—known as subclones. Each subclone, with its unique genetic and phenotypic profile, contributes to the tumor's overall heterogeneity. This heterogeneity is driven by the increasing instability of the cancer genome, which leads to the continuous generation of genetic diversity.18,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 This form of heterogeneity is an universal feature present across all cancer types,19,27,28 leading to the emergence of drug-resistant subclones or induced metastasis, complicating the task of effective therapy.29,30

Although this diversity of tumor cells presents formidable challenges in cancer treatment, it also provides a unique opportunity. The diverse genetic profile of subclones, resulting from mutation accumulation during tumor evolution, can serve as a historical record of the tumor's evolutionary journey, essentially acting as a 'tumor history recorder'. Studying these genetic variations enables us to backtrack the course of tumor evolution.28 Specifically, mutations common to all cancer cells in a tumor can be used to delineate the ‘trunk’ of the tumor's evolutionary tree, while mutations unique to specific subclones represent the ‘branches’, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of the tumor's evolutionary landscape and diversity.

In this context, tools originally designed for evolutionary biology prove to be suitable for reconstructing these evolutionary trees from the heterogeneous cancer genetic data. Notably, phylogenetics stands out as a highly developed and successful evolutionary approach,15 offering a profound perspective on the intricate dynamics of tumor evolution. Within this framework, tumor phylogenetics, or phylooncology, emerged, providing an innovative approach to understanding tumor progression.

Essentially, both tumor phylogenetics and species phylogenetics share the same goal of utilizing genetic variation to construct phylogenetic trees that reveal evolutionary history. However, there are still some significant differences between these two fields that we need to be aware of. Unlike species evolution, in which chromosome structures and numbers evolve over millions of years, chromosomes change in cancer evolution can occur within hours due to chromosomal instability (CIN).31 This, combined with the extremely large populations of tumor cells, may lead to the emergence of grossly altered clones that could possess adaptive advantages, a phenomenon rarely seen in species evolution.19 Moreover, the dynamic change of the microenvironment provides a catalyst for tumors to generate heterogeneity and adapt to external pressures. Importantly, in tumor evolution, tumor epigenetic plasticity can cause phenotypic changes without genetic alterations, serving as a fundamental force guiding tumor adaptation. On the other hand, species phylogenetics seeks to uncover the evolutionary relationships and common ancestries among different species and to understand the history of speciation. Tumor phylogenetics focuses on understanding the dynamics of cancer evolution and tracking down tumor clonal evolution history to identify key genetic events to improve clinical outcomes, including the formulation of accurate prognoses and personalized treatment strategies. Despite these differences, the conceptual framework of species phylogenetics still provides valuable insights into tumor phylogenetics. For instance, methods derived from phylogeography can be adapted to analyze tumor metastasis by tracing the geographical spread of tumor cells within the body.32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Since its inception, the field of tumor phylogenetics has garnered increasing attention and has rapidly developed. Today, tumor phylogenetics has evolved into a highly diversified field. This diversity manifests itself in every facet of the workflow—from the initial study design to the types of data collected, to the methods and tools used for reconstructing phylogenies, as well as the applications of tumor phylogenetics in the real world. In the following sections, we will offer an overview that encapsulates this multifaceted nature, guided by the commonly used workflow in the field (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 Workflow for tumor phylogenetics. Step 1 involves selecting an appropriate study design, such as cross-sectional, regional bulk sequencing, single-cell sequencing, or lineage tracing. Step 2 focuses on collecting and preprocessing the data. Step 3 utilizes the preprocessed data to choose an appropriate method for reconstructing the tumor phylogeny. An optional fourth step integrates the phylogeny with external data to uncover specific patterns, such as subclone-specific mutations.

Fig 1

3 Study designs and data in tumor phylogenetics

The workflow for reconstructing a phylogenetic tree begins with two critical steps: selecting an appropriate study design and acquiring the requisite data. In the field of tumor phylogenetics, researchers commonly utilize one of four study designs: cross-sectional studies, regional bulk sequencing, single-cell sequencing, and lineage tracing. Each design comes with its own set of advantages and limitations. The chosen study design then determines the types of data used for reconstructing the phylogeny, which can vary from genomic data like single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) to transcriptomic and epigenomic data. These different types of data have been proved useful in phylogenetic and tumor analysis.16,37, 38, 39, 40, 41 For example, it has been shown that epigenetic passenger variations are effective in reconstructing the unperturbed biology of human cancer.40 Therefore, each data type is able to provide unique insights, making the resulting phylogenies trees more robust and informative.

3.1 Cross-sectional tumor phylogenetics

As the field of tumor phylogenetics began to take shape, researchers initially reconstructed evolutionary trees based on tumor data from different patients. The central idea behind this approach was rooted in the perspectives of Fearon and Vogelstein, two prominent researchers in the field. They proposed that by sampling and analyzing tumor specimens from multiple patients in bulk, researchers could infer certain characteristic mutation sequences or tumor evolutionary paths.42 These pathways could be considered evolutionary trajectories that most tumors commonly follow during their development.

Building upon this concept, researchers started to develop what is known as the "oncogenetic tree".43 By sampling different patients and treating their tumor samples as distinct "species," these trees were created. Within such phylogenies, tips represent tumor samples gathered from various patients, and they are categorized into different subtypes based on the clades they belong to, indicating their shared mutation patterns. The edges signify genetic divergence between different tumors. This oncogenetic tree reveals the evolutionary relationships between different tumor samples and helps identify standard tumor evolution trajectories.

In order to glean evolutionary evidence accumulated during tumor development from these samples, a variety of sequencing methods have been employed in cross-sectional tumor phylogeny. Before the widespread adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS), researchers initially relied on comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)44 to identify CNVs by comparing fluorescence intensity between tumor and normal DNA samples on a DNA array.43 Thereafter, some researchers began to incorporate both expression data, acquired through cDNA microarrays,45 and methylation data46,47 into their efforts to reconstruct tumor phylogenies. With the advent of NGS, whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have become the techniques of choice.48, 49, 50, 51 These methods either sequence the entire set of protein-coding genes (exome) or the full genome in individual tumor samples from different patients. Specialized bioinformatics tools like GATK,52 VarScan,53 and CNVnator54 are used to identify SNVs and CNVs in the sequence data. This information is then utilized as the foundation for subsequent tumor phylogenetic reconstruction. A minority of studies also use RNAseq to analyze different tumor subtypes, generating gene expression data for subsequent phylogenetic analyses.55

However, the cross-sectional method has its drawbacks. Since it primarily relies on tumor samples from different patients, the inherent tumor heterogeneity among patients can considerably impact the results. It might fail to capture the subtle variations within a single patient's tumor, leading to inaccuracies in the reconstructed tree. Moreover, while this approach may reveal general evolutionary paths in tumors, the specific evolutionary trajectory of a tumor in an individual patient could differ due to intertumoral heterogeneity. Nonetheless, the cross-sectional research method has laid a solid foundation for the development of tumor phylogenetics and has provided significant insights and directions for subsequent studies.

3.2 Regional bulk tumor phylogenetics

As the understanding of intratumoral genetic heterogeneity grows, researchers have turned to a multi-sampling strategy for individual tumors. This led to the emergence of regional bulk sequencing methods. In this approach, multiple regions within the same tumor, or various tumor sites from a single patient, are sampled and analyzed separately. The technique affords a comprehensive view of the tumor landscape, enabling the reconstruction of phylogenetic trees that elucidate relationships among the sampled regions. Due to the nature of bulk sequencing, data is gathered from the heterogeneous population of cancer cells in each tumor sample and sequenced collectively. The result is a composite profile that captures the averaged characteristics of the cancer cell population within the sampled tumor site.

Nonetheless, this generalized view can cause some problems in identifying different subclones within the tumor. To address this issue, an important process of deconvolution to parse the complex data obtained from bulk sequencing is required. This computational technique elucidates the tumor's subclonal architecture through identifying SNVs, indels, and CNAs to assess tumor heterogeneity. This process calculates the variant allele frequency (VAF) to infer the cellular prevalence (CP) and cancer cell fraction (CCF) of mutations, distinguishing clonal mutations from subclonal ones. Copy number states are then reconstructed by analyzing local read depth and B-allele frequency (BAF), categorizing CNAs as either clonal or subclonal. Finally, SNVs are clustered into distinct clones based on CP and CCF. Utilizing the resulting detailed subclonal architecture, researchers can then infer the lineage relationships among subclones through integrating the genetic profiles of subclones with phylogenetic models.56 And this deconvolution can provide us with some critical insights. For instance, the analysis of the subclone composition of biopsies before and after aromatase inhibitor treatment in breast cancer reveals subclonal dynamics, indicating varied responses to treatment and highlighting the subclone possibly responsible for therapy resistance.57

Several tools have been specifically developed for deconvolution. Clomial leverages a binomial mixture model on VAF data to dissect mixed populations into distinguishable subclonal elements, Applies phylogenetic principles to chart subclonal diversification through reconstructing mutation lineage trees. Unmixing utilizes statistical strategies to unravel mixed genomic signals, highlighting distinct subclonal entities. PyClone adopts Bayesian clustering to navigate through extensive copy-number variations, identifying subclones with precision.58 SciClone, optimized for copy-number neutral scenarios, combines VAF and copy-number data to accurately trace clonal evolution across samples.57 Additionally, some tools even integrate deconvolution with phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Further discussion on this aspect will be provided in the upcoming phylogeny reconstruction session.

In regional bulk tumor phylogenetics, the data collection strategy generally aligns with the methodologies used in cross-sectional tumor phylogenetics. Initially, microsatellite markers59 and aCGH60 were employed for capturing CNVs, and then transitioned to utilizing WES and WGS-derived SNVs and CNVs for a more comprehensive and accurate analysis of tumor genetics.

Yet, the bulk sequencing-based approach is not without limitations. It fails to capture the full extent of intratumor heterogeneity due to the averaging effect of bulk sequencing. Additionally, some key mutations with low frequency may be overlooked. Moreover, the number of sequenced tumor regions significantly impacts the ability to distinguish genuine clonal mutations.61,62 Despite these challenges, the bulk sequencing-based approach laid a solid foundation for the development of more refined techniques in tumor phylogenetics. With its affordability and comprehensive view of tumors derived from multi-region sampling, bulk sequencing continues to be a widely used method in the field of cancer research.

3.3 Single-cell tumor phylogenetics

The advent of single-cell sequencing technologies has revolutionized tumor phylogenetics by providing researchers with significantly higher resolution for analyzing tumor evolution.63,64 This technology enables the dissection of tumors at the cellular level by individually sequencing each cell's genome, thereby offering a detailed view of the tumor's genetic diversity. By comparing mutation profiles across many individual cells, a phylogenetic tree can be reconstructed with different tumor cells as tip nodes and distinct clades representing subclones. This allows for a clear visualization of the clonal evolution of cancer cells within the tumor.

Before the emergence of single-cell sequencing technologies, researchers utilized various methods to dissect tumor evolution at the cellular level. For instance, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)65 was employed to acquire CNVs for specific genes at the single-cell level. Methods like single-cell qPCR were utilized to obtain single-cell-level genetic markers, including SNVs, CNVs, and microsatellites.66,67 While these methods contributed valuable insights, they had limitations in terms of throughput, accuracy, and the range of detectable genomic features. The advent of single-cell sequencing has substantially mitigated these challenges, heralding a new era in tumor phylogenetics. One of the most common techniques is single-cell DNA sequencing, which allows for high-throughput and high-resolution genomic analyses, identifying SNVs and CNVs at single-cell levels.68,69 Single-cell RNA sequencing is used to collect expression matrices and to estimate copy number variations,70,71 both of which can be utilized in subsequent phylogenetic reconstructions.

Despite its tremendous potential, single-cell sequencing-based tumor phylogenetics faces several challenges. Technical issues like allelic dropout and amplification noise are difficult to eliminate, even with specialized correction tools, thereby obscuring the tumor's true genetic landscape.72, 73, 74 Additionally, the current high cost and labor-intensive nature of single-cell sequencing techniques limit the number of cells that can be feasibly analyzed in a single experiment.72,74 This may lead to an underrepresentation of the tumor's genetic diversity, potentially missing rare but clinically significant subclones.

3.4 Lineage tracing tumor phylogenetics

Lineage tracing, a technique widely used in biological studies, provides insight into cell origin, differentiation, and movement within an organism. By mapping the ancestral lineage of cells, it provides a lens to visualize developmental processes and has been instrumental in fields ranging from developmental biology and neuroscience to regenerative medicine and oncology. In cancer research, lineage tracing offers an invaluable tool for understanding tumor development, growth, and evolution.66,75

Traditional lineage tracing techniques rely on marking specific cells with dyes or fluorescent proteins, radioactive labels, or genetic markers such as microsatellites. With these markers, the behavior and destiny of the cells and their progeny can be observed. Traditional lineage tracing methods provide us with some significant insights into tumor phylogenetics.66,75, 76, 77, 78 However, these traditional methods falter in tracking large cell populations over time and struggle with the heterogeneity often found in tumors.79,80

Single cell dynamic lineage tracing, a newer advancement in the field, employs cutting-edge technologies such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system81, 82, 83 and recombinase systems84,85 to create exogenous barcodes. Specifically, the CRISPR-Cas9 method leverages the gene-editing capability of the system to create unique, inheritable marks in the genomic DNA of individual cells, while recombinase systems, like the Polylox system, use site-specific DNA recombination events to generate permanent and unique genetic marks (reviewed in79,80). Using the single-cell sequencing technique, we can identify unique genetic marks for high-resolution lineage tracking, enabling the study of numerous cells over extended periods within their genomic context. Its robust performance in interpreting zebrafish lineage trees82,86,87 has led to its application in tumor phylogenetics, providing a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of tumor heterogeneity and the dynamics of tumor evolution.75,88, 89, 90, 91

CRISPR-Cas9-based dynamic lineage tracing methods employ short-read sequencing and enable simultaneous capture of transcriptomes and lineage recordings via single-cell RNA sequencing.88,91 In contrast, recombinase approaches necessitate long-read sequencing technologies, such as PacBio SMRT sequencing, to obtain barcode DNA sequences, thereby limiting their compatibility with single-cell methods.

Dynamic lineage tracing faces considerable challenges, including technical limitations like incomplete barcode capture, potentially affecting the accuracy of downstream analysis.80 The computational burden of interpreting barcode data to reconstruct phylogenetic trees and significant costs hinder its widespread adoption.79,80 Despite these drawbacks, its unique ability to track cells at single-cell resolution and in real-time offers unparalleled insights into tumor heterogeneity and evolution.

4 Phylogeny reconstruction

In the previous session, we delved into various study designs pertinent to tumor phylogenetics and elucidated the types of sequencing data associated with each strategy. After acquiring and processing this data, the next challenge is utilizing it effectively to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

Phylogeny reconstruction methods mainly fall into two categories: distance-based and character-based. Distance-based methods, such as UPGMA,92 neighbor-joining (NJ),93 and minimum evolution,94 primarily operate by estimating morphological or genetic distances between species or sequences, based on observed differences or similarities. Specifically, UPGMA and NJ cluster species hierarchically and minimum evolution aims for a tree that minimizes the sum of branch lengths. Although they may be less accurate than character-based methods due to the potential information loss during the creation of the distance matrix, their computational efficiency and straightforwardness make them valuable for handling large datasets. Generally, when applying distance-based methods to reconstruct a tumor phylogeny, the calculation of a distance matrix demonstrating the pairwise evolutionary distance between samples is required. Data obtained from previous steps are often binarized or categorized, such as gene expression being classified into upregulated, downregulated, or normal states, and CNVs being denoted as gain, loss, or neutral states. Techniques like Euclidean distance are then employed to generate this matrix. The generated distance matrix effectively quantifies the genetic dissimilarity between individual samples, serving as the foundational substrate upon which the aforementioned distance-based algorithms act to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree.

Conversely, character-based methods are a more sophisticated approach in phylogenetics that considers unique attributes or characteristics of organisms to elucidate their evolutionary relationships. These methods include Maximum Parsimony (MP),95 which aims to identify the tree that requires the least number of evolutionary changes. Maximum Likelihood (ML),96 on the other hand, seeks to find the tree that maximizes the probability of observing the given data under specific evolutionary models. Another important character-based method is the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (BMCMC).97 It differs from Maximum Likelihood as it considers the model's parameters as random variables, merging prior knowledge with observed data. This allows for direct and clearer interpretations of the probabilities for different phylogenetic trees. Character-based methods utilize the sequencing data as unique attributes for each sample. Unlike distance-based methods, which require a pre-calculated distance matrix, these attributes are categorized and then used directly in the algorithms we mentioned above to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

Many studies in tumor phylogenetics continue to leverage traditional evolutionary biology tools like PHYLIP,98, 99 Beast,100, 101 and phangorn102, 103, 104for tree reconstruction. In cross-sectional tumor phylogenetics, traditional phylogenetics methods have played a significant role, largely because this study design itself is among the earlier avenues of exploration within tumor phylogenetics. Initially, tools like oncotrees were employed, which primarily used aCGH-derived large-scale CNVs and relied on MP-based tree reconstruction.43 However, due to the limitations of MP's assumptions in capturing the intricacies of tumor evolution, more recent approaches have pivoted toward optimization techniques based on ML and BMCMC algorithms,105 such as Mtreemix106 and Rtreemix.107 In order to handle large datasets, distance-based methods are also gaining traction.108 The range of data types applied has expanded as well, encompassing DNAseq-derived CNVs,48 SNVs,49 and expression data.45

Regarding regional bulk tumor phylogenetics, the trajectory of algorithmic and data type developments is somewhat parallel to that of cross-sectional studies. Yet, because bulk sequencing has its limitations in pinpointing subclones accurately, the focus of many software solutions has shifted toward integrating deconvolution techniques with phylogenetic frameworks, such as TCS,109 TrAp,110 TITAN,111 SubcloneSeeker112 and CITUP.113 The goal is to accurately infer the subclonal frequency of tumors and use this refined framework for subsequent phylogenetic tree reconstruction. For example, TrAp was used to identify specific mutation co-localizations and temporal orders in melanoma metastases through the reconstruction of subclone architecture and lineage relationship, offering critical insights into the mechanisms of tumor progression and chemoresistance.110 Some specialized tools like phyloWGS114 and Canopy115 are even exploiting the differing rates and mechanisms of SNVs and CNVs, synthesizing them into a unified analysis based on BMCMC methods.

For single-cell phylogenetics, traditional methods falter due to issues like technical artifacts, false positives, and false negatives inherent to scRNAseq data. Newly developed methods like OncoNEM116 and SCITE117 tackle this by incorporating these uncertainties directly into their likelihood calculations with SNV data. However, they still make the infinite-sites assumption (ISA), which is often violated in tumor evolution. To address this, newer models like SiFit118 and SphyR119 have emerged, adopting finite-site evolution models that better fit the nuances of cancer data.

In lineage-tracing studies, the unique challenges posed by barcode site data are not well-handled by traditional algorithms. Unlike typical phylogenetic studies that deal with a wide and short matrix of nucleotide changes across a limited number of species, lineage-tracing barcodes produce a tall and narrow matrix, capturing thousands of cells with limited mutable sites. This dramatic increase in computational complexity has led to the development of specialized methods. The Cassiopeia suite offers three different algorithms tailored for varying dataset sizes and consistently outperforms traditional methods, proving the need for customized approaches in lineage tracing data.120

In addition to the tools discussed earlier, there are various other methods specifically designed for reconstructing tumor phylogenies. For readers' convenience, we have compiled a brief summary of key tools in Supplementary Table 1. Additionally, several articles also offer more comprehensive reviews of these tools.16,17,121

5 Insights obtained from tumor phylogenetics

After examining the methods for reconstructing tumor phylogenetic trees, this section pivots to the critical insights these trees offer into tumor evolution, heterogeneity, and classification (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Insights from tumor phylogeny. Utilizing tumor phylogenetics enables the extraction of critical insights in areas including, but not limited to, the following: subclonal architecture, key milestones in tumor evolution, subclone-specific mutations, tumor evolutionary dynamics, subclone features, and tumor classification.

Fig 2

5.1 Tracing tumor evolutionary history

Originally conceptualized to articulate the evolutionary history of biological species, tumor phylogenetics naturally excels in tracing the evolutionary paths of cancers. In the context of oncology, reconstructing the evolutionary history of a tumor can yield invaluable insights. Early research in this arena primarily focused on identifying distinct modes of tumor evolution68,122,123 and determining the timing of key evolutionary milestones.124, 125, 126 For example, a study that employed whole-exome sequencing and various phylogenetic methods on 40 matched samples—normal, primary, and metastatic—discovered that the genetic divergence of metastatic lineages often predated the initial diagnosis.127 Recent advances in research have allowed for more comprehensive explorations of tumor evolutionary dynamics combining multi-omics data.88 For instance, one study using a CRISPR-Cas9-based KP-tracer mouse model with the Cassiopeia-Hybrid algorithm found that specific rare subclones with unique transcriptional programs drive tumor evolution and metastasis following a period of increased cellular plasticity.91 Another study delved into the genomic and immune landscapes of multi-regional metastases in 10 therapy-resistant breast cancer autopsies, revealing intricate evolutionary dynamics within metastatic genomes.128 These retrospective analyses furnish critical insights into the tumor's origins, progression patterns, and potential future behaviors, thereby informing treatment strategies and potentially unveiling new therapeutic targets.

A key application of tracing tumor evolutionary history is that it can help researchers resolve the formation of therapy resistance. It often arises from genetic mutations and cellular adaptations that enable cancer cells to evade the effects of therapeutic agents.4,5 Particularly under the pressure of anti-tumor therapy, tumor cells may be selected for subclones with high metastatic potential. This metastasis can be monoclonal or polyclonal, indicating the presence of potentially diverse selection patterns. Cells from metastatic tumors may recirculate and seed new metastatic lesions, which, under the pressure of treatment, can develop varying degrees of drug resistance.129, 130, 131 Diverging from the traditional non-phylogenetic bioinformatics that offers a static analysis of drug target mutation sequences,132 tumor phylogenetics provides us with a dynamic view of tumor evolution. It enables an in-depth analysis of the tumor's internal clonal diversity and evolutionary history, enabling researchers to pinpoint the timing and causes of the emergence of therapy resistance. This can identify the origins of different treatment-resistant cells, guide clinical decisions, and determine the choice of treatment and their order. For example, phylogenetic analysis of lung adenocarcinoma reveals that cisplatin therapy induced a localized surge of mutations, leading to the evolution of EGFR T790M resistance to erlotinib.133

5.2 Resolving tumor heterogeneity

Tumor phylogenetics stands as a robust tool for unraveling intratumoral heterogeneity. By doing so, it illuminates the relationships between distinct subclones, reconstructing a more complete picture of the tumor's internal landscape. Utilizing tumor phylogenetics, researchers can investigate the structure of subclones within a tumor,134, 135, 136, 137 and study their changes in frequency during tumor evolution.138 Furthermore, the mutation profiles of individual subclones can be integrated to showcase subclone-specific mutations.139 Lastly, features of these subclones can be highlighted to expose phenotypic differences among them.48,91 The knowledge gained from resolving intratumoral heterogeneity holds the potential for the improvement of patient prognosis and the development of more effective therapies.

5.3 Tumor classification

Beyond its applications in studying tumor evolutionary history, tumor phylogenetics also functions as a clustering tool. It offers another avenue for predicting and classifying tumor types. It can be employed to group tumors based on their mutation or expression profiles, effectively segmenting them into distinct subtypes. Compared to traditional clustering, phylogenetic classification trees provide a more precise analysis by avoiding geometric assumptions and the arbitrary selection of cluster numbers, as well as capturing information on the degree of separation between various clusters that hierarchical clustering lacks.45,55,126 A study utilizes phylogenetic methods to classify tumors based on gene expression levels, demonstrating success in separating small round blue-cell tumors into four major groups and distinguishing breast tumors with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in two specific datasets.45 A precise classification of tumor types can offer valuable insights for targeted therapies and prognostic evaluations, as each subtype may respond differently to various treatments.

In summary, tumor phylogenetics has deeply influenced oncology, offering crucial insights into tumor classification, intratumoral heterogeneity, and evolutionary pathways. These findings pave the way for more personalized and effective treatments. As the field matures, we can expect tumor phylogenetics to increasingly inform both cancer research and clinical practice.

6 The power of data integration in tumor phylogenetics

From the application examples mentioned in the previous chapters, it's evident that as tumor phylogenetics has evolved, newer studies rarely rely solely on tumor phylogenetic trees for basic evolutionary analysis. Reconstructing the tumor phylogeny is a key step, but it's not the endpoint. An extra step of integrating external data into the tumor phylogeny is often required to elucidate complex biological phenomena. For tumor phylogeny, this integration enriches tree interpretation, revealing deeper insights into tumor evolution. For the external data, this integration enriches the analysis by adding an evolutionary context, thereby providing a new dimension for interpreting the data within an evolutionary framework.

However, the current practice of integrating external data with phylogenetic trees remains rudimentary and infrequent. While some studies attempt to unify different types of data with phylogenetic analysis, these initial steps are typically simplistic and lack depth, often limited to straightforward combination methods, like using symbolic points and text on trees to indicate cancer clone and mutation profiles respectively,137 or simply display them in different figures.126 These preliminary combinations, although a step in the right direction, yield only a marginal increase in interpretative value and leave much room for improvement.

The simplicity of current methods for integrating external data with phylogenetic trees is largely due to the substantial challenges present in the endeavor. Firstly, there's a wide variety of formats for phylogenetic trees, making the task of reading these pre-reconstructed tumor evolution tree files far from straightforward. Additionally, the heterogeneity of external data introduces significant obstacles during the integration process, with variability spanning from genomic to transcriptomic scales, diverse data structures like continuous or categorical forms, and different sources such as clinical records or molecular assays. Lastly, visualizing the integrated data brings its own set of challenges. While presenting and annotating tumor phylogeny is already demanding, adding multidimensional external data only heightens the complexity.

Looking ahead, the maturation of tumor phylogenetics anticipates a new era where the integration of multi-omics data unveils the intricate genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic interplays that propel cancer evolution. Paving the way for these advances, pioneering studies are setting the stage for comprehensive analysis. Some studies have already begun to delve into deeper layers of data integration, harnessing a broader array of datasets for a multidimensional display and analysis that enriches the understanding of tumor phylogeny, seeking to uncover the full spectrum of evolutionary forces at work within tumors. For instance, in the examples mentioned in our previous session, subclonal mutations were identified by integrating mutation profiles,139 and tumor evolutionary dynamics were investigated through the integration of multi-omics data.91 Based on these examples, it becomes evident that incorporating multidimensional data into tumor phylogenetic trees is a powerful means that leads to new discoveries. Compared to a basic combination of data, such integration provides a multi-faceted perspective to phylogenetic constructs, proving that synergistic data convergence has a promising potential for revealing the underlying mechanisms of tumor genesis and progression.

To better elucidate the complex interplay between genetic alterations and tumor evolution, two general approaches have been highlighted for the integration of external data with phylogenetic trees (Fig. 3).140 These methods were brought up with the emergence of the ggtree package in order to provide a versatile way of combining external data with phylogenetic trees. The first method maps external data directly onto the tree structure, annotating the tree with visual characteristics like symbolic points or labels. In the context of tumor phylogenetics, this can be invaluable in emphasizing specific evolutionary events141 or highlighting important subclones.142 Secondly, we can generate side-by-side visual comparisons by aligning graphs, like mutation profiles or subclone features, with the structure of the phylogenetic tree. In tumor evolution research, it can potentially spotlight concurrent events or patterns, like mutations shared by specific subclones139,143 or the consistency of genetic variations.70 This approach excels at displaying multidimensional data alongside the tree. It's also useful to combine both methods, enhancing the richness and depth of analytical insight. In a study on human triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an analysis combining the annotated tree and copy number profiles revealed a complex hierarchy of many subclones and fewer superclones, all from a common evolutionary root. Key early events include TP53 mutations and genome doubling that occurred before a common ancestor, followed by a burst of subclonal diversification that stabilized during tumor growth.125 Through these examples, it's clear that these two methods are universally applicable and effective in representing complex data layers. Utilizing such methods enhances our ability to display a comprehensive view of the tumor's evolutionary trajectory, paving the way for richer insights and potential therapeutic interventions.Fig. 3 Methods of plotting tree with data. Method 1 involves directly mapping data onto the tree structure by adding visual annotations such as symbolic points or labels. Method 2 consists of plotting the data adjacent to the tree after proper alignment.

Fig 3

An expanding range of tools and methodologies sharing this concept are being developed to assist researchers in elucidating the complex interplay between genetic alterations and tumor evolution. For instance, the ggtree packages suite that we mentioned above stands out by bringing integration of phylogeny data into R, offering a set of data importation and manipulation functions via treeio and tidytree, and enhancing annotated phylogenies with multi-dimensional data through ggtree and ggtreeExtra, which support the flexible combination of both visualization methods.144, 145, 146 Besides ggtree, phytools is an R package well-known for its comprehensive range of phylogenetic analysis functions, also offering advanced tree visualization functions.147,148 EvolView presents an interactive, user-friendly interface for annotating and customizing phylogenetic trees, making it accessible for users with limited coding experience.149 On the other hand, iTOL stands out for its robust online platform for visualizing, editing, and sharing detailed phylogenetic trees.150 Additionally, E-scape offers an interactive browser-based visualization suite specifically designed to present tumor phylogeny.151 Utilizing these tools enhances our capacity to display a comprehensive view of the tumor's evolutionary narrative, paving the way for richer insights and potential therapeutic interventions.

In conclusion, the essence of fully understanding tumor evolution lies not just in the tree itself but in its intricate interplay with external data. By integrating this data, researchers are empowered with a more holistic view, allowing them to uncover hidden evolutionary patterns that might otherwise remain obscured.

7 Discussion and conclusions

Throughout this review, we have undertaken an extensive exploration of the various study designs employed in tumor phylogenetics. The utilization of cross-sectional tumor phylogenetics (TP) has diminished in recent research, largely due to the widespread adoption of NGS. Even when comparing tumors from different patients, bulk sequencing TP and single-cell TP are more commonly used to reconstruct individual phylogenies that can later be compared.91,139,152 Both bulk sequencing TP and single-cell TP come with their respective drawbacks—lower resolution for the former and computational complexity for the latter. The merging of these two approaches has been proposed as a complementary strategy.153 Lineage tracing TP offers granular details of tumor evolutionary dynamics, but its high cost and computational intensity often discourage widespread use.

We have also discussed various data types used for reconstructing tumor phylogenies. While genomic-derived SNVs and CNVs have long been the mainstays, the development, and incorporation of other 'omics' data, such as transcriptomics and epigenomics, are equally essential, providing another aspect to inspect tumor evolution.45, 46, 47,71 The attempt to combine these diverse data types could also enrich the quality and depth of the resulting phylogenies.115,134

Tumor phylogenetics has grown substantially over the past several decades. Its advantage in capturing the evolutionary history and complex structure of tumor heterogeneity has brought our understanding of tumor evolution to another level. In current tumor phylogenetics, an increasing number of researchers are now leveraging the multi-omics characteristics of tumor heterogeneity by integrating data across genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic for comprehensive phylogenetic analysis, including methods for deconvolution and tumor phylogenetic reconstruction that synergize multi-omic data.91,154, 155, 156, 157, 158 As technology advances, cutting-edge techniques like spatial transcriptomics are also being used to explore the spatial dimensions of tumor evolution, marking a significant step forward in the field.143,159,160 Meanwhile, the utilization of machine learning methods for tumor phylogeny topology inference has provided new angles for tumor phylogenetic reconstruction.161, 162, 163, 164 The advancement of tumor phylogenetics promises access to increasingly multidimensional and multimodal data, enhancing our understanding of tumors. By integrating these complex data sets with tumor phylogenetics using tools such as the ggtree package suite, we are able to analyze tumor evolution from a more comprehensive perspective, as discussed earlier. Therefore, it's compelling to say that the future potential of this field may well lie in the integration of tumor phylogenetics with external data.

In conclusion, tumor phylogenetics serves as a critical lens through which we can unravel the complexities of cancer evolution and heterogeneity. This multidisciplinary field holds the potential not only to elucidate fundamental mechanisms of tumor growth and spread but also to inform patient-specific treatment strategies. By providing insights into the origins, progression, and diverse evolutionary paths of tumors, phylogenetics is poised to make a transformative impact on cancer research and patient prognosis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix Supplementary materials

Image, application 1

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the 10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China (approval number: 32270677 ).

Author contributions

All authors contributed to writing the manuscript and designed and prepared the figures and legends.

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jncc.2024.03.001.
==== Refs
References

1 Frick C Rumgay H Vignat J Quantitative estimates of preventable and treatable deaths from 36 cancers worldwide: a population-based study Lancet Glob Health 11 11 2023 e1700 e1712 37774721
2 Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 71 3 2021 209 249 33538338
3 Chaffer CL Weinberg RA. A perspective on cancer cell metastasis Science 331 6024 2011 1559 1564 21436443
4 Mansoori B Mohammadi A Davudian S The different mechanisms of cancer drug resistance: a brief review Adv Pharm Bull 7 3 2017 339 348 29071215
5 Housman G Byler S Heerboth S Drug resistance in cancer: an overview Cancers 6 3 2014 1769 1792 25198391
6 Aktipis CA Kwan VS Johnson KA Overlooking evolution: a systematic analysis of cancer relapse and therapeutic resistance research PLoS One 6 11 2011 e26100 22125594
7 Duprez F Berwouts D De Neve W Distant metastases in head and neck cancer Head Neck 39 9 2017 1733 1743 28650113
8 Monteiro J Fodde R. Cancer stemness and metastasis: therapeutic consequences and perspectives Eur J Cancer 46 7 2010 1198 1203 20303259
9 Rueff J Rodrigues AS. Cancer drug resistance: a brief overview from a genetic viewpoint Methods Mol Biol 1395 2016 1 18 26910065
10 SN Aleksakhina Kashyap A Imyanitov EN. Mechanisms of acquired tumor drug resistance Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 1872 2 2019 188310
11 Holohan C Van Schaeybroeck S Longley DB Johnston PG. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm Nat Rev Cancer 13 10 2013 714 726 24060863
12 Rogiers A Lobon I Spain L Turajlic S. The genetic evolution of metastasis Cancer Res 82 10 2022 1849 1857 35476646
13 Turajlic S Swanton C. Metastasis as an evolutionary process Science 352 6282 2016 169 175 27124450
14 Yates LR Knappskog S Wedge D Genomic evolution of breast cancer metastasis and relapse Cancer Cell 32 2 2017 169 184 e167 28810143
15 Yang Z Rannala B. Molecular phylogenetics: principles and practice Nat Rev Genet 13 5 2012 303 314 22456349
16 Somarelli JA Ware KE Kostadinov R PhyloOncology: understanding cancer through phylogenetic analysis Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 1867 2 2017 101 108 27810337
17 Schwartz R Schäffer AA. The evolution of tumour phylogenetics: principles and practice Nat Rev Genet 18 4 2017 213 229 28190876
18 Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations: acquired genetic lability permits stepwise selection of variant sublines and underlies tumor progression Science 194 4260 1976 23 28 959840
19 Turajlic S Sottoriva A Graham T Swanton C. Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer Nat Rev Genet 20 7 2019 404 416 30918367
20 Beerenwinkel N Schwarz RF Gerstung M Markowetz F. Cancer evolution: mathematical models and computational inference Syst Biol 64 1 2015 e1 e25 25293804
21 Bakhoum SF Landau DA. Chromosomal instability as a driver of tumor heterogeneity and evolution Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 7 6 2017 a029611
22 Burrell RA Swanton C. The evolution of the unstable cancer genome Curr Opin Genet Dev 24 2014 61 67 24657538
23 Huang S. Genetic and non-genetic instability in tumor progression: link between the fitness landscape and the epigenetic landscape of cancer cells Cancer Metastasis Rev 32 3–4 2013 423 448 23640024
24 Pikor L Thu K Vucic E Lam W. The detection and implication of genome instability in cancer Cancer Metastasis Rev 32 3–4 2013 341 352 23633034
25 Sun XX Yu Q. Intra-tumor heterogeneity of cancer cells and its implications for cancer treatment Acta Pharmacol Sin 36 10 2015 1219 1227 26388155
26 Zhou J Zhou XA Zhang N Wang J. Evolving insights: how DNA repair pathways impact cancer evolution Cancer Biol Med 17 4 2020 805 827 33299637
27 Dentro SC Leshchiner I Haase K Characterizing genetic intra-tumor heterogeneity across 2,658 human cancer genomes Cell 184 8 2021 2239 2254 e2239 33831375
28 McGranahan N Swanton C. Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: past, present, and the future Cell 168 4 2017 613 628 28187284
29 Bhang HE Ruddy DA Krishnamurthy Radhakrishna V Studying clonal dynamics in response to cancer therapy using high-complexity barcoding Nat Med 21 5 2015 440 448 25849130
30 Greaves M. Evolutionary determinants of cancer Cancer Discov 5 8 2015 806 820 26193902
31 MacDonald C McClelland SE. Chromosome instability through the ages: parallels between speciation and somatic (cancer) evolution Trends Genet 37 8 2021 691 694 34083067
32 Alves JM Prado-Lopez S Cameselle-Teijeiro JM Posada D. Rapid evolution and biogeographic spread in a colorectal cancer Nat Commun 10 1 2019 5139 31723138
33 Chroni A Miura S Hamilton L Clone phylogenetics reveals metastatic tumor migrations, maps, and models Cancers 14 17 2022 4326 36077861
34 Chroni A Miura S Oladeinde O Migrations of cancer cells through the lens of phylogenetic biogeography Sci Rep 11 1 2021 17184 34433859
35 Chroni A Vu T Miura S Kumar S. Delineation of tumor migration paths by using a Bayesian biogeographic approach Cancers 11 12 2019 1880 31783570
36 Kumar S Chroni A Tamura K PathFinder: Bayesian inference of clone migration histories in cancer Bioinformatics 36 Suppl_2 2020 i675 i683 33381835
37 Alonso C Pérez R Bazaga P Herrera CM. Global DNA cytosine methylation as an evolving trait: phylogenetic signal and correlated evolution with genome size in angiosperms Front Genet 6 2015 4 25688257
38 Mazor T Pankov A Johnson BE DNA methylation and somatic mutations converge on the cell cycle and define similar evolutionary histories in brain tumors Cancer Cell 28 3 2015 307 317 26373278
39 Nicolas P Kim KM Shibata D Tavaré S. The stem cell population of the human colon crypt: analysis via methylation patterns PLoS Comput Biol 3 3 2007 e28 17335343
40 Siegmund KD Marjoram P Woo YJ Inferring clonal expansion and cancer stem cell dynamics from DNA methylation patterns in colorectal cancers Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 12 2009 4828 4833 19261858
41 Skinner MK Gurerrero-Bosagna C Haque MM Epigenetics and the evolution of Darwin’s finches Genome Biol Evol 6 8 2014 1972 1989 25062919
42 Fearon ER Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis Cell 61 5 1990 759 767 2188735
43 Desper R Jiang F Kallioniemi OP Inferring tree models for oncogenesis from comparative genome hybridization data J Comput Biol 6 1 1999 37 51 10223663
44 Pinkel D Albertson DG. Array comparative genomic hybridization and its applications in cancer Nat Genet 37 Suppl 2005 S11 S17 15920524
45 Desper R Khan J Schäffer AA. Tumor classification using phylogenetic methods on expression data Theor Biol 228 4 2004 477 496
46 Brocks D Assenov Y Minner S Intratumor DNA methylation heterogeneity reflects clonal evolution in aggressive prostate cancer Cell Rep 8 3 2014 798 806 25066126
47 Sottoriva A Spiteri I Shibata D Single-molecule genomic data delineate patient-specific tumor profiles and cancer stem cell organization Cancer Res 73 1 2013 41 49 23090114
48 Schwarz RF Ng CK Cooke SL Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a phylogenetic analysis PLoS Med 12 2 2015 e1001789
49 Bashashati A Ha G Tone A Distinct evolutionary trajectories of primary high-grade serous ovarian cancers revealed through spatial mutational profiling J Pathol 231 1 2013 21 34 23780408
50 Ng PC Kirkness EF. Whole genome sequencing Methods Mol Biol 628 2010 215 226 20238084
51 Rabbani B Tekin M Mahdieh N. The promise of whole-exome sequencing in medical genetics J Hum Genet 59 1 2014 5 15 24196381
52 Van der Auwera GA BD O’Connor. Genomics in the cloud: Using Docker, GATK, and WDL in Terra 2020 O’Reilly Media
53 Koboldt DC Zhang Q Larson DE VarScan 2: somatic mutation and copy number alteration discovery in cancer by exome sequencing Genome Res 22 3 2012 568 576 22300766
54 Abyzov A Urban AE Snyder M Gerstein M. CNVnator: an approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing Genome Res 21 6 2011 974 984 21324876
55 Riester M Stephan-Otto Attolini C Downey RJ A differentiation-based phylogeny of cancer subtypes PLoS Comput Biol 6 5 2010 e1000777
56 Tarabichi M Salcedo A Deshwar AG A practical guide to cancer subclonal reconstruction from DNA sequencing Nat Methods 18 2 2021 144 155 33398189
57 Miller CA White BS Dees ND SciClone: inferring clonal architecture and tracking the spatial and temporal patterns of tumor evolution PLoS Comput Biol 10 8 2014 e1003665
58 Roth A Khattra J Yap D PyClone: statistical inference of clonal population structure in cancer Nat Methods 11 4 2014 396 398 24633410
59 Khalique L Ayhan A Whittaker JC The clonal evolution of metastases from primary serous epithelial ovarian cancers Int J Cancer 124 7 2009 1579 1586 19123469
60 Navin N Krasnitz A Rodgers L Inferring tumor progression from genomic heterogeneity Genome Res 20 1 2010 68 80 19903760
61 Yates LR Gerstung M Knappskog S Subclonal diversification of primary breast cancer revealed by multiregion sequencing Nat Med 21 7 2015 751 759 26099045
62 De Bruin EC McGranahan N Mitter R Spatial and temporal diversity in genomic instability processes defines lung cancer evolution Science 346 6206 2014 251 256 25301630
63 Gawad C Koh W Quake SR. Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science Nat Rev Genet 17 3 2016 175 188 26806412
64 Kolodziejczyk AA Kim JK Svensson V The technology and biology of single-cell RNA sequencing Mol Cell 58 4 2015 610 620 26000846
65 Levsky JM Singer RH. Fluorescence in situ hybridization: past, present and future J Cell Sci 116 Pt 14 2003 2833 2838 12808017
66 Frumkin D Wasserstrom A Itzkovitz S Cell lineage analysis of a mouse tumor Cancer Res 68 14 2008 5924 5931 18632647
67 Shlush LI Chapal-Ilani N Adar R Cell lineage analysis of acute leukemia relapse uncovers the role of replication-rate heterogeneity and microsatellite instability Blood 120 3 2012 603 612 22645183
68 Navin N Kendall J Troge J Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing Nature 472 7341 2011 90 94 21399628
69 Wang Y Waters J Leung ML Clonal evolution in breast cancer revealed by single nucleus genome sequencing Nature 512 7513 2014 155 160 25079324
70 Qi M Pang J Mitsiades I Loss of chromosome Y in primary tumors Cell 2023 S0092-8674(23)00646-3
71 Liu X Griffiths JI Bishara I Phylogenetic inference from single-cell RNA-seq data Sci Rep 13 1 2023 12854 37553438
72 Schmidt F Efferth T. Tumor heterogeneity, single-cell sequencing, and drug resistance Pharmaceuticals 9 2 2016 33 27322289
73 Hou Y Song L Zhu P Single-cell exome sequencing and monoclonal evolution of a JAK2-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm Cell 148 5 2012 873 885 22385957
74 Tang X Huang Y Lei J The single-cell sequencing: new developments and medical applications Cell Biosci 9 2019 53 31391919
75 Humphries A Cereser B Gay LJ Lineage tracing reveals multipotent stem cells maintain human adenomas and the pattern of clonal expansion in tumor evolution Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110 27 2013 E2490 E2499 23766371
76 Guest RV Boulter L Kendall TJ Cell lineage tracing reveals a biliary origin of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomacholangiocarcinoma can arise from cholangiocytes Cancer Res 74 4 2014 1005 1010 24310400
77 Lamprecht S Schmidt EM Blaj C Multicolor lineage tracing reveals clonal architecture and dynamics in colon cancer Nat Commun 8 1 2017 1406 29127276
78 Shin S Wangensteen KJ Teta-Bissett M Genetic lineage tracing analysis of the cell of origin of hepatotoxin-induced liver tumors in mice Hepatology 64 4 2016 1163 1177 27099001
79 Chen C Liao Y Peng G. Connecting past and present: single-cell lineage tracing Protein Cell 13 11 2022 790 807 35441356
80 McKenna A Gagnon JA. Recording development with single cell dynamic lineage tracing Development 146 12 2019 dev169730
81 Baron CS van Oudenaarden A. Unravelling cellular relationships during development and regeneration using genetic lineage tracing Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 20 12 2019 753 765 31690888
82 McKenna A Findlay GM Gagnon JA Whole-organism lineage tracing by combinatorial and cumulative genome editing Science 353 6298 2016 aaf7907 27229144
83 Spanjaard B Hu B Mitic N Simultaneous lineage tracing and cell-type identification using CRISPR–Cas9-induced genetic scars Nat Biotechnol 36 5 2018 469 473 29644996
84 Pei W Feyerabend TB Rössler J Polylox barcoding reveals haematopoietic stem cell fates realized in vivo Nature 548 7668 2017 456 460 28813413
85 Peikon ID Gizatullina DI. Zador AM. In vivo generation of DNA sequence diversity for cellular barcoding Nucleic Acids Res 42 16 2014 e127 25013177
86 Raj B Wagner DE McKenna A Simultaneous single-cell profiling of lineages and cell types in the vertebrate brain Nat Biotechnol 36 5 2018 442 450 29608178
87 Wagner DE Weinreb C Collins ZM Single-cell mapping of gene expression landscapes and lineage in the zebrafish embryo Science 360 6392 2018 981 987 29700229
88 Quinn JJ Jones MG Okimoto RA Single-cell lineages reveal the rates, routes, and drivers of metastasis in cancer xenografts Science 371 6532 2021 eabc1944 33479121
89 Simeonov KP Byrns CN Clark ML Single-cell lineage tracing of metastatic cancer reveals selection of hybrid EMT states Cancer Cell 39 8 2021 1150 1162 e9 34115987
90 Vinuesa-Pitarch E Ortega-Álvarez D Rodilla V. How lineage tracing studies can unveil tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer Biomedicines 10 1 2021 3 35052683
91 Yang D Jones MG Naranjo S Lineage tracing reveals the phylodynamics, plasticity, and paths of tumor evolution Cell 185 11 2022 1905 1923 e25 35523183
92 Sokal RR. A statiscal method for evaluating systematic relationships Univ Kans Sci Bull 38 1958 1409 1438
93 Saitou N Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees Mol Biol Evol 4 4 1987 406 425 3447015
94 Desper R Gascuel O. Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction algorithms based on the minimum-evolution principle J Comput Biol 9 5 2002 687 705 12487758
95 Fitch WM. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology Syst Biol 20 4 1971 406 416
96 Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach J Mol Evol 17 6 1981 368 376 7288891
97 Rannala B Yang Z. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference J Mol Evol 17 6 1981 304 311
98 Felsenstein J. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package), Version 3.5 c 1993 Joseph Felsenstein
99 Zhang J Fujimoto J Zhang J Intratumor heterogeneity in localized lung adenocarcinomas delineated by multiregion sequencing Science 346 6206 2014 256 259 25301631
100 Drummond AJ Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees BMC Evol Biol 7 2007 214 17996036
101 Kostadinov RL Kuhner MK Li X NSAIDs modulate clonal evolution in Barrett’s esophagus PLoS Genet 9 6 2013 e1003553
102 Formenti SC Rudqvist NP Golden E Radiotherapy induces responses of lung cancer to CTLA-4 blockade Nat Med 24 12 2018 1845 1851 30397353
103 Gao R Davis A McDonald TO Punctuated copy number evolution and clonal stasis in triple-negative breast cancer Nat Genet 48 10 2016 1119 1130 27526321
104 Schliep KP. phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R Bioinformatics 27 4 2011 592 593 21169378
105 vonHeydebreck A Gunawan B Füzesi L. Maximum likelihood estimation of oncogenetic tree models Biostatistics 5 4 2004 545 556 15475418
106 Beerenwinkel N Rahnenführer J Kaiser R Mtreemix: a software package for learning and using mixture models of mutagenetic trees Bioinformatics 21 9 2005 2106 2107 15657098
107 Bogojeska J Alexa A Altmann A Rtreemix: an R package for estimating evolutionary pathways and genetic progression scores Bioinformatics 24 20 2008 2391 2392 18718947
108 Desper R Jiang F Kallioniemi OP Distance-based reconstruction of tree models for oncogenesis J Comput Biol 7 6 2000 789 803 11382362
109 Clement M Posada D Crandall KA. TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies Mol Ecol 9 10 2000 1657 1659 11050560
110 Strino F Parisi F Micsinai M Kluger Y. TrAp: a tree approach for fingerprinting subclonal tumor composition Nucleic Acids Res 41 17 2013 e165 23892400
111 Ha G Roth A Khattra J TITAN: inference of copy number architectures in clonal cell populations from tumor whole-genome sequence data Genome Res 24 11 2014 1881 1893 25060187
112 Qiao Y Quinlan AR Jazaeri AA SubcloneSeeker: a computational framework for reconstructing tumor clone structure for cancer variant interpretation and prioritization Genome Biol 15 8 2014 443 25160522
113 Malikic S McPherson AW Donmez N Sahinalp CS. Clonality inference in multiple tumor samples using phylogeny Bioinformatics 31 9 2015 1349 1356 25568283
114 Deshwar AG Vembu S Yung CK PhyloWGS: reconstructing subclonal composition and evolution from whole-genome sequencing of tumors Genome Biol 16 1 2015 35 25786235
115 Jiang Y Qiu Y Minn AJ Zhang NR. Assessing intratumor heterogeneity and tracking longitudinal and spatial clonal evolutionary history by next-generation sequencing Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 37 2016 E5528 E5537 27573852
116 Ross EM Markowetz F. OncoNEM: inferring tumor evolution from single-cell sequencing data Genome Biol 17 2016 69 27083415
117 Jahn K Kuipers J Beerenwinkel N. Tree inference for single-cell data Genome Biol 17 2016 86 27149953
118 Zafar H Tzen A Navin N SiFit: inferring tumor trees from single-cell sequencing data under finite-sites models Genome Biol 18 1 2017 178 28927434
119 El-Kebir M. SPhyR: tumor phylogeny estimation from single-cell sequencing data under loss and error Bioinformatics 34 17 2018 i671 i679 30423070
120 Jones MG Khodaverdian A Quinn JJ Inference of single-cell phylogenies from lineage tracing data using Cassiopeia Genome Biol 21 1 2020 92 32290857
121 Schwartz R. Computational models for cancer phylogenetics Bioinformatics and Phylogenetics. Computational Biology, Vol 29 2019 Springer Cham 10.1007/978-3-030-10837-3_11
122 Cresswell GD Apps JR Chagtai T Intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity in Wilms tumor: clonal evolution and clinical implications EBioMedicine 9 2016 120 129 27333041
123 Brown D Smeets D Székely B Phylogenetic analysis of metastatic progression in breast cancer using somatic mutations and copy number aberrations Nat Commun 8 2017 14944 28429735
124 Attolini CSO Cheng YK Beroukhim R A mathematical framework to determine the temporal sequence of somatic genetic events in cancer Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107 41 2010 17604 17609 20864632
125 Minussi DC Nicholson MD Ye H Breast tumours maintain a reservoir of subclonal diversity during expansion Nature 592 7853 2021 302 308 33762732
126 Abu-Asab MS Abu-Asab N Loffredo CA Identifying early events of gene expression in breast cancer with systems biology phylogenetics Cytogenet Genome Res 139 3 2013 206 214 23548567
127 Zhao ZM Zhao B Bai Y Early and multiple origins of metastatic lineages within primary tumors Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 8 2016 2140 2145 26858460
128 De Mattos-Arruda L Sammut SJ Ross EM The genomic and immune landscapes of lethal metastatic breast cancer Cell Rep 27 9 2019 2690 2708 e10 31141692
129 Comen E Norton L Massague J. Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8 6 2011 369 377 21522121
130 Sottoriva A Kang H Ma Z A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumor growth Nat Genet 47 3 2015 209 216 25665006
131 Turajlic S Xu H Litchfield K Tracking cancer evolution reveals constrained routes to metastases: TRACERx renal Cell 173 3 2018 581 594 e12 29656895
132 Gautam A Chaudhary K Kumar R Managing drug resistance in cancer: role of cancer informatics Methods Mol Biol 1395 2016 299 312 26910081
133 Fisk JN Mahal AR Dornburg A Premetastatic shifts of endogenous and exogenous mutational processes support consolidative therapy in EGFR-driven lung adenocarcinoma Cancer Lett 526 2022 346 351 34780851
134 Raynaud F Mina M Tavernari D Ciriello G. Pan-cancer inference of intra-tumor heterogeneity reveals associations with different forms of genomic instability PLoS Genet 14 9 2018 e1007669
135 Chai S Ruiz-Velasco C Naghdloo A Identification of epithelial and mesenchymal circulating tumor cells in clonal lineage of an aggressive prostate cancer case NPJ Precis Oncol 6 1 2022 41 35729213
136 Campbell PJ Pleasance ED Stephens PJ Subclonal phylogenetic structures in cancer revealed by ultra-deep sequencing Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 35 2008 13081 13086 18723673
137 Potter NE Ermini L Papaemmanuil E Single-cell mutational profiling and clonal phylogeny in cancer Genome Res 23 12 2013 2115 2125 24056532
138 Anderson K Lutz C Van Delft FW Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia Nature 469 7330 2011 356 361 21160474
139 Tang J Tu K Lu K Single-cell exome sequencing reveals multiple subclones in metastatic colorectal carcinoma Genome Med 13 1 2021 148 34507604
140 Yu G Lam TT Zhu H. Guan Y. Two methods for mapping and visualizing associated data on phylogeny using ggtree Mol Biol Evol 35 12 2018 3041 3043 30351396
141 Zhao ZM Zhao B Bai Y Early and multiple origins of metastatic lineages within primary tumors Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 8 2016 2140 2145 26858460
142 Yang D Jones MG Naranjo S Lineage tracing reveals the phylodynamics, plasticity, and paths of tumor evolution Cell 185 11 2022 1905 1923 e25 35523183
143 Wu HJ Temko D Maliga Z Spatial intra-tumor heterogeneity is associated with survival of lung adenocarcinoma patients Cell Genom 2 8 2022 100165
144 Xu S Dai Z Guo P ggtreeExtra: compact visualization of richly annotated phylogenetic data Mol Biol Evol 38 9 2021 4039 4042 34097064
145 Yu G Smith DK Zhu H ggtree: an R package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data Methods Ecol Evol 8 2017 28 36
146 Wang LG Lam TT Xu S Treeio: an R package for phylogenetic tree input and output with richly annotated and associated data Mol Biol Evol 37 2 2020 599 603 31633786
147 Revell LJ. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things) Methods Ecol Evol 3 2012 217 223
148 Revell LJ. phytools 2.0: an updated R ecosystem for phylogenetic comparative methods (and other things) PeerJ 12 2024 e16505 38192598
149 He Z Zhang H Gao S Evolview v2: an online visualization and management tool for customized and annotated phylogenetic trees Nucleic Acids Res 44 W1 2016 W236 W241 27131786
150 Letunic I Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation Nucleic Acids Res 49 W1 2021 W293 W296 33885785
151 Smith MA Nielsen CB Chan FC E-scape: interactive visualizattr`ion of single-cell phylogenetics and cancer evolution Nat Methods 14 6 2017 549 550 28557980
152 Zhang Y Chang L Yang Y Intratumor heterogeneity comparison among different subtypes of non-small-cell lung cancer through multi-region tissue and matched ctDNA sequencing Mol Cancer 18 1 2019 7 30626401
153 Malikic S Mehrabadi FR Ciccolella S PhISCS: a combinatorial approach for subperfect tumor phylogeny reconstruction via integrative use of single-cell and bulk sequencing data Genome Res 29 11 2019 1860 1877 31628256
154 Liu X Wang W Liu X Multi-omics analysis of intra-tumoural and inter-tumoural heterogeneity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Clin Transl Med 12 1 2022 e670 35061935
155 Nam AS Chaligne R Landau DA. Integrating genetic and non-genetic determinants of cancer evolution by single-cell multi-omics Nat Rev Genet 22 1 2021 3 18 32807900
156 Song Y Zhou J Zhao X Lineage tracing for multiple lung cancer by spatiotemporal heterogeneity using a multi-omics analysis method integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and immune-related features Front Oncol 13 2023 1237308
157 Ortega MA Poirion O Zhu X Using single-cell multiple omics approaches to resolve tumor heterogeneity Clin Transl Med 6 1 2017 46 29285690
158 Sun Y Wu P Zhang Z Integrated multi-omics profiling to dissect the spatiotemporal evolution of metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma Cancer Cell 42 1 2024 135 156 e17 38101410
159 Erickson A Figiel S Rajakumar T Clonal phylogenies inferred from bulk, single cell, and spatial transcriptomic analysis of cancer bioRxiv 2023 2023.2002. 2026.530145
160 Rao A Barkley D França GS Yanai I. Exploring tissue architecture using spatial transcriptomics Nature 596 7871 2021 211 220 34381231
161 Lee D Park Y Kim S. Towards multi-omics characterization of tumor heterogeneity: a comprehensive review of statistical and machine learning approaches Brief Bioinform 22 3 2021 bbaa188 34020548
162 Azer ES Ebrahimabadi MH Malikić S Tumor phylogeny topology inference via deep learning iScience 23 11 2020 101655
163 Caravagna G Heide T Williams MJ Subclonal reconstruction of tumors by using machine learning and population genetics Nat Genet 52 9 2020 898 907 32879509
164 Edrisi M Ogilvie HA Li M Nakhleh L. MoTERNN: classifying the mode of cancer evolution using recursive neural networks Jahn K. Vinař T. Comparative Genomics. RECOMB-CG 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2023 Springer Cham 10.1007/978-3-031-36911-7_15 vol 13883
