Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 37 references

Population dynamics of multiple ecDNA types

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under equal fitness, switching among ecDNA types does not change total copy-number dynamics.

desk verdict Rigorous two-type ecDNA result with an unexamined mix-fitness assumption that deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14588 v3 pith:I47DDWJX submitted 2024-11-21 q-bio.PE q-bio.QM

Elisa Scanu , Benjamin Werner , Weini Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEq-bio.QM MSC 92D2560J85
keywords extrachromosomalDNA(ecDNA)randomsegregationtypeswitchingcopynumberdistributionbranchingprocessintratumorheterogeneitymathematicaloncologypopulationdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a mathematical model of tumor cells carrying two types of extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA), each with its own fitness and its own probability of switching into the other type. Its central result is that when the two types have equal selection strength, the total number of ecDNA copies per cell evolves exactly as in the known single-type model, independent of switching rates. The fraction of ecDNA-free cells is likewise unaffected by switching. Switching only reshuffles cells between pure-type and mixed subpopulations; it does not change the overall ecDNA burden. The paper also shows that without switching, mixed cells cannot be maintained, whereas two-way switching lets them persist and even dominate the ecDNA-positive population, which matters for tumor heterogeneity and resistance.

What carries the argument

The central object is a master equation counting cells by copy numbers of two ecDNA colors, $C_{i,k}(t)$. The load-bearing identity is that the sum over all switching outcomes of a binomial distribution, or of a convolution of two binomials, equals one, because switching only relabels copies without changing how many copies are inherited. Summing the two-color equations over color partitions collapses the process to the single-type branching process of Eq. (9). The approximate moment equations then track weighted first and second moments of pure and mixed subpopulations, with an infinite geometric-like sum truncated to its first four terms.

What would settle it

Simulate Eq. (8) with mix-cell fitness set to $\max(s_y,s_r)-\varepsilon$ for a range of positive $\varepsilon$ and compare the mixed-cell fraction over time; if even a small fitness cost removes the predicted persistence and dominance, the core persistence claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a reduction: by summing the master equation over all color configurations, all switching terms cancel via complete binomial probability sums, leaving $\frac{dN_k}{dt} = -sN_k + 2s \sum_{i \ge \lceil k/2 \rceil} N_i \binom{2i}{k} 2^{-2i}$, which is exactly the single-type ecDNA equation. Therefore, for $s_y = s_r = s \ge 1$, the distribution of total ecDNA copies and the fraction of ecDNA-free cells are independent of $p_y$ and $p_r$ at all times. With $s_y \neq s_r$ the cancellation fails and switching shapes total copy dynamics. For ecDNA species without switching, mixed-type cells are transient; with two-way switching, mixed-type cells can persist and dominate the ecDNA-positive population.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that mixed cells can persist under switching rests on treating a cell that carries both ecDNA types as no fitter and no sicker than a cell carrying only the fitter type, an assumption the paper adopts without testing alternatives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For cells carrying two ecDNA types with equal fitness, the total ecDNA copy distribution and the fraction of ecDNA-free cells can be predicted from the single-type model without measuring switching rates.
  • When selection is identical, switching affects only the composition of cells among pure-yellow, pure-red, and mixed subpopulations, not the overall ecDNA burden.
  • Under two-way switching, mixed cells can persist and even dominate the ecDNA-positive population despite receiving no extra fitness benefit, with intermediate switching rates most effective.
  • If the two ecDNA types have different fitness, switching changes the total ecDNA dynamics, so type identity cannot be ignored.
  • The framework generalizes to more than two ecDNA types, allowing the same switching parameter to model species, genotypes, or phenotypes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: if mix cells pay any fitness cost, the persistence and dominance of mixed cells under switching is fragile; rerunning Eq. (8) with mix fitness set to $\max(s_y,s_r)-\varepsilon$ would show how quickly the effect disappears.
  • Unstated consequence: for equal fitness, therapies aimed at lowering total ecDNA copy number cannot be tuned by knowing switching rates; only the sum of copies matters, while type composition remains relevant for heterogeneity and resistance.
  • Testable extension: the four-term truncation of the moment sums can be stress-tested by comparing the approximate moment equations against the untruncated master equation for larger $p$ or higher moments, to see whether the predicted mix-cell dominance is quantitatively robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a master-equation framework for cell populations carrying two types of extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA), with independent binomial segregation, possible switching between types at cell division, and selection. The model covers two ecDNA 'species' (no switching), two genotypes/phenotypes (one-way or two-way switching), and the resulting subpopulations of pure yellow, pure red, mix, and ecDNA-free cells. The central exact result is that when the two ecDNA types have identical fitness, the total number N_k of cells with k ecDNA copies satisfies the single-type equation -sN_k + 2s Σ_{i≥⌈k/2⌉} N_i (2i choose k)/2^{2i}, independent of the switching rates (Eq. 9); consequently the total ecDNA-positive distribution and the fraction of ecDNA-free cells are claimed to be switching-independent. For the subpopulations, the authors derive approximate first- and second-moment ODEs using a four-term truncation of infinite sums and small-p Taylor expansions, and compare them with Gillespie simulations. They conclude that without switching, mix cells cannot be maintained, while with switching they can persist and even dominate the ecDNA-positive population. The model assumes that mix cells have the fitness of the fitter pure type, i.e., no extra fitness cost for carrying both ecDNA types.

Significance. If Eq. (9) and the supporting analyses are correct, the paper provides a useful reduction result: selectively equivalent ecDNA types do not affect the total ecDNA load regardless of switching, while switching can maintain multiple ecDNA types in a way that non-switching species cannot. The combinatorial proof of Eq. (9) is a genuine strength, as is the systematic comparison with Gillespie simulations in Figures 3-6 and the clear separation of exact from approximate results. The main caveats are that the closed form in Eq. (18) relies on an undefined quantity, the moment approximations use an uncontrolled truncation, and the persistence/dominance conclusions depend on an untested no-cost assumption for mix cells. With these points resolved, the framework would be a valuable contribution to the quantitative cancer-evolution literature.

major comments (5)
  1. [Under neutral and identical positive selection, Eq. (18)] The function δ(s) is listed in Table 1 as a 'zeroing function' but is never defined or derived, so the claimed closed form ρ0,0(t)=t/(2+t e^{δ(s)t}) for sy=sr>1 cannot be verified. In particular, the statement that ρ0,0 shrinks to zero requires a sign and magnitude condition on δ(s) that is not given. Please provide the definition and derivation, or label Eq. (18) as an ansatz and support it with simulations.
  2. [Methods, Eq. (8), last line] The equation for C0,0 as printed includes the term 2sr Σ_{h=0}∞ C0,h (2h choose 0)/2^{2h}; with h=0 this contributes 2sr C0,0 on top of the -C0,0+2C0,0 division term already present. For sr=1 the free-cell compartment would grow at three times its correct rate. The lower index should be h≥1, and the first sum in that line should be clarified, since as printed 'j+h=1' is ambiguous. Please correct the complete system.
  3. [Moment analysis for multiple ecDNA species when switching is off, Eq. (24) and Tables 2-5] The infinite sums E∞_j and V∞_j are truncated to their first four terms with only the heuristic statement that the terms decay geometrically in h. No bound on the remainder is given, and these truncated moment equations are part of the evidence for the persistence/dominance of mix cells under switching. Please add a quantitative truncation-error estimate or a convergence check by increasing the truncation order, or explicitly state that the persistence claim rests on the Gillespie simulations rather than on the truncated moment equations.
  4. [Under identical fitness and one-way switching, Table 4] The Total row gives dM^(1)/dt=0 for sy=sr>1, which contradicts Eq. (27) and Table 2, where dM^(1)/dt=(s-1)ρ0,0M^(1). Since Figure 5 compares subpopulation moments against this system, the contradiction should be resolved and the normalization of the plotted moments clarified.
  5. [Methods, 'A general framework of two ecDNA types' and Figure 1d] The assumption that mix cells have reproduction rate max(sy,sr), i.e., no extra fitness cost or benefit from carrying both types, is load-bearing for the exact reduction in Eq. (9) when sy=sr and for the conclusion that mix cells can persist and dominate under switching. The text notes this assumption 'can be easily released' but does not explore the consequences, and ref. [28] is an unpublished preprint. Please provide a sensitivity analysis with a mix-cell fitness cost (e.g., max(sy,sr)-c in Eqs. (5)-(8)) and state whether the switching-independence and persistence results survive, or explicitly limit the conclusions to the no-cost regime.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (2)] The rates γ(t), g1, g2, h1, h2, k1, k2 in Eq. (2) are listed in Table 1 but never defined; please define them or remove Eq. (2) if it is superseded by Eqs. (8).
  2. [Eq. (36) versus Eq. (37) and Table 4] Eq. (36) has '+ (s-1)ρ0,0(t)ρi,0(t)' but Eq. (37) and Table 4 use the opposite sign in the corresponding moment equation; please align the signs.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The notation ρ0(τ) in Eq. (17) should presumably be ρ0,0(τ), the frequency of ecDNA-free cells; please use one consistent notation.
  4. [Discussion, paragraph beginning 'Moreover, if the switching is identical and two-way'] The sentence refers to Figure 2b&d for intermediate switching values, but those panels show the non-identical fitness scenario; please rephrase to distinguish identical switching rates (py=pr) from identical selection (sy=sr).
  5. [References] References [30] and [31] are duplicates, and reference [10] cites the current manuscript as 'in preparation'; please remove the self-citation or replace it with an appropriate published reference.
  6. [Figures 3-5] The x-axis labels are inconsistent across panels (number of cells vs. time in generations); please unify the axis convention and state clearly how the number of cells relates to generation time.
  7. [Eqs. (13)-(14)] The statement that the term in Eq. (13) '= 1' should be stated more carefully: the sum over k of the convolution is 1 for each v, and the additional summation over v yields the binomial identity in Eq. (14).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the switching-independence of total ecDNA copy distribution is derived algebraically from the stated model, and the subpopulation moment results are self-consistent with simulations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eq. 9) is obtained by explicitly summing the master equations (Eqs. 8) and applying binomial identities; switch terms cancel because switching is defined as a recoloring event that conserves the total number of ecDNA copies per cell. This is a mathematical consequence of the stated model, not a circular definition of the predicted quantity. The moment equations (Tables 2-6) are derived from the same master equations with stated approximations (e.g., first-four-term truncation, Eq. 24) and are compared with Gillespie simulations of the same stochastic process; no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. Self-citations to refs. [21], [22], and [28] provide background or motivate modeling assumptions, such as the mix-cell fitness equal to max(sy, sr) stated in Methods; the main derivations do not rely on these citations as evidence for their conclusions. The mix-fitness assumption is an unvalidated modeling input and a legitimate robustness concern for the persistence/dominance interpretation, but it is not a circular step: the paper's derivations are conditional on that assumption and do not assume the conclusion. The uncontrolled truncation of infinite sums in Eq. 24 is an approximation, not a circular reduction. The paper is therefore not circular in the sense of a prediction reducing to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard branching-process assumptions and on two biological assumptions taken from the authors' prior work without external validation: independent segregation of the two ecDNA types, and no fitness penalty for mix cells. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Truncation order of infinite moment sums (E4) = 4
    In Eqs. (24), (31), (32) and Tables 2-4, the infinite sum E∞_j (and V∞_j) is replaced by the first four terms in the h index, arguing that terms decay geometrically in h; the discarded remainder is not bounded. This choice is needed to close the moment equations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Independent binomial segregation of the two ecDNA types at each cell division
    Stated in Methods: 'the two types of ecDNA copies are randomly partitioned into the two daughter cells independently following a separate binomial distribution'. This is a core modeling assumption; the paper notes it can be relaxed.
  • domain assumption Mix cell reproductive rate equals max(sy, sr)
    Figure 1d and Methods: 'we assume a cell carrying a mix of yellow and red ecDNA elements has a reproduction rate as the maximum value between sy and sr'. Cited to ref. [28], an unpublished bioRxiv by the same group.
  • domain assumption ecDNA-free cells cannot regain ecDNA (no reacquisition)
    Justifies the ODE system (1): 'Because the origin of ecDNA is often considered a random event due to genomic instability, and generally a specific ecDNA cannot be gained back once lost in a population.'
  • standard math Small-switching Taylor approximations (1-p)^i ≈ 1-p and p^i ≈ p
    Used in Eqs. (29)-(32) and Tables 3-6; valid for p much less than 1, but applied in figures up to p=0.1 where the approximation degrades.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Population dynamics of multiple ecDNA types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I47DDWJX

@misc{pith2026241114588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Population dynamics of multiple ecDNA types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I47DDWJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14588}
}
read the original abstract

Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) can drive oncogene amplification, gene expression and intratumor heterogeneity, representing a major force in cancer initiation and progression. The phenomenon becomes even more intricate as distinct types of ecDNA present within a single cancer cell. While exciting as a new and significant observation across various cancer types, there is a lack of a general framework capturing the dynamics of multiple ecDNA types theoretically. Here, we present novel mathematical models investigating the proliferation and expansion of multiple ecDNA types in a growing cell population. By switching on and off a single parameter, we model different scenarios including ecDNA species with different oncogenes, genotypes with same oncogenes but different point mutations and phenotypes with identical genetic compositions but different functions. We analyse the fraction of ecDNA-positive and free cells as well as how the mean and variance of the copy number of cells carrying one or more ecDNA types change over time. Our results showed that switching does not play a role in the fraction and copy number distribution of total ecDNA-positive cells, if selection is identical among different ecDNA types. In addition, while cells with multiple ecDNA cannot be maintained in the scenario of ecDNA species without extra fitness advantages, they can persist and even dominate the ecDNA-positive population if switching is possible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general framework for modeling two ecDNA types. a. Two ecDNA genotypes or phenotypes through genetic mutations (small py, pr) or phenotypical switching (large py, pr). At each cell division, each type evolves under￾going independent binomial segregation and it can switch between the two ecDNA types with probabilities py and pr. b. Two ecDNA species without switching (py = pr = 0). When the p switching rates are ze… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Weighted first moment dynamics for ecDNA species (py = pr = p = 0). This refers to the contribution of pure and mix cells to the mean copy number of the total population. We compare simulations data with analytical solutions for first moment dynamics of ecDNA species. a shows the neutral selection case, whilst b refers to identical positive selection. Solid lines represent analytical solutions, whilst scatter dots r… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Weighted first moment dynamics in the neutral case for one-way switching (py = p, pr = 0, sy = sr = s = 1). Simulations data in comparison with upper-bound analytical approximations starting from one single pure yellow cells with 1 ecDNA copy (a-c), and starting from one single pure yellow cells with 5 ecDNA copies (d-f). Three different values for py = p are considered; plain lines represent analytical upper-bound … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Weighted first and second moment dynamics in the positive selection case for one-way switching (py = p > 0, pr = 0, sy = sr = s = 2. Simulations data in comparison with upper-bound analytical approximations for weighted first moment dynamics (a-c) and weighted second m…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Weighted first moment dynamics in the neutral selection case for two-way switching (py = pr = p, sy = sr = s = 1). This refers to the contribution of pure and mix cells to the mean copy number of the total population. Simulations data in comparison with upper-bound ana…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Coordinated inheritance of extrachromosomal DNA species in human cancer cells.bioRxiv, 2023

    Hung KL, Jones MG, Wong IT, Lange JT, Luebeck J, Scanu E, He BJ, Brückner L, Li R, González RC, Schmargon R, Dörr JR, Belk JA, Bafna V, Werner B, Huang W, Henssen AG, Mischel PS, and Chang HY. Coordinated inheritance of extrachromosomal DNA species in human cancer cells.bioRxiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Ge- nomic organization and evolution of double minutes/homogeneously staining regions with MYC amplification in human cancer

    L’Abbate A, Macchia G, D’Addabbo P, Lonoce A, Tolomeo D, Trombetta D, Kok K, Bartenhagen C, Whelan CW, Palumbo O, Severgnini M, Cifola I, Dugas M, Carella M, De Bellis G, Rocchi M, Carbone L, and Storlazzi CT. Ge- nomic organization and evolution of double minutes/homogeneously staining regions with MYC amplification in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Researc...

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    Extrachromosomal DNA- relieving heredity constraints, accelerating tumour evolution.Annals of Oncol- ogy, 31:884–893, 2020

    Bailey C, Shoura MJ, Mischel PS, and Swanton C. Extrachromosomal DNA- relieving heredity constraints, accelerating tumour evolution.Annals of Oncol- ogy, 31:884–893, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Extrachromosomal DNA—relieving heredity constraints, accelerating tumour evolution

    Bailey C, Shoura MJ, Mischel PS, and Swanton C. Extrachromosomal DNA—relieving heredity constraints, accelerating tumour evolution. Annals of Oncology, 31(7):884–893, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Life history trade-offs in cancer evolution.Nature Reviews Cancer, 13:883–892, 2013

    Aktipis CA, Boddy AM, Gatenby RA, Brown JS, and Maley CC. Life history trade-offs in cancer evolution.Nature Reviews Cancer, 13:883–892, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    DNA mismatch repair promotes APOBEC3- mediateddiffusehypermutationinhumancancers

    Mas-Ponte D and Supek F. DNA mismatch repair promotes APOBEC3- mediateddiffusehypermutationinhumancancers. Nature Genetics, 52:958–968, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Targeted therapy resistance medi- ated by dynamic regulation of extrachromosomal mutant EGFR DNA.Science, 343:72–76, 2014

    Nathanson DA, Gini B, Mottahedeh J, Visnyei K, Koga T, Gomez G, Eskin A, Hwang K, Wang J, Masui K, Paucar A, Yang H, Ohashi M, Zhu S, Wykosky J, ReedR,NelsonSF,CloughesyTF,JamesCD,RaoPN,KornblumHI,HeathJR, Cavenee WK, Furnari FB, and Mischel PS. Targeted therapy resistance medi- ated by dynamic regulation of extrachromosomal mutant EGFR DNA.Science, 343:7...

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions

    Gillespie DT. A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions. Journal of Computational Physics , 22(4):403–434, 1976

    work page 1976

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry , 81(25):2340–2361, 1977

    Gillespie DT. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry , 81(25):2340–2361, 1977

    1977

  2. [9]

    Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics

    Gillespie DT. Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 58:35–55, 2007

    2007

  3. [10]

    Population dynamics of multiple ecDNA types

    Scanu E, Werner B, and Huang W. Population dynamics of multiple ecDNA types. in preparation, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Live- cell imaging shows uneven segregation of extrachromosomal DNA elements and transcriptionally active extrachromosomal DNA hubs in cancer.Cancer Discov- ery, 12:468–483, 2022

    Yi E, Gujar AD, Guthrie M, Kim H, Zhao D, Johnson KC, Amin SB, Costa ML, Yu Q, Das S, Jillette N, Clow PA, Cheng AW, and Verhaak RGW. Live- cell imaging shows uneven segregation of extrachromosomal DNA elements and transcriptionally active extrachromosomal DNA hubs in cancer.C...

    2022

  5. [12]

    Extrachromoso- mal DNA amplifications in cancer.Nature Reviews Genetics, 23:760–771, 2022

    Yi E, Chamorro González R, Henssen AG, and Verhaak RGW. Extrachromoso- mal DNA amplifications in cancer.Nature Reviews Genetics, 23:760–771, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Mapping clustered mutations in cancer reveals APOBEC3 mutagenesis of ecDNA

    Bergstrom EN, Luebeck J, Petljak M, Khandekar A, Barnes M, Zhang T, Steele CD, Pillay N, Landi MT, Bafna V, Mischel PS, Harris RS, and Alexandrov LB. Mapping clustered mutations in cancer reveals APOBEC3 mutagenesis of ecDNA. Nature, 602:510–517, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Errorbarsinexperimentalbiology

    CummingG,FidlerF,andVauxDL. Errorbarsinexperimentalbiology. Journal of Cell Biology , 177(1):7–11, 2007

    2007

  8. [15]

    Recent progress in un- derstanding mechanisms of mammalian DNA amplification.Cell, 57:901–908, 1989

    Stark GR, Debatisse M, Giulotto E, and Wahl GM. Recent progress in un- derstanding mechanisms of mammalian DNA amplification.Cell, 57:901–908, 1989

    1989

  9. [16]

    Extra- chromosomal DNA is associated with oncogene amplification and poor outcome across multiple cancers.Nature Genetics, 52:891–897, 2020

    Kim H, Nguyen NP, Turner K, Wu S, Gujar AD, Luebeck J, Liu J, Deshpande V, Rajkumar U, Namburi S, Amin SB, Yi E, Menghi F, Schulte JH, Henssen AG, Chang HY, Beck CR, Mischel PS, Bafna V, and Verhaak RGW. Extra- chromosomal DNA is associated with oncogene amplification and poor...

    2020

  10. [17]

    Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells

    Martincorena I and Peter JC. Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells. Science, 349.625:1483–1489, 2015

    2015

  11. [18]

    Stochastic modelling, bayesian inference, and new in vivo mea- surements elucidate the debated mtDNA bottleneck mechanism.Elife, 4:e07464, 2015

    Johnston IG, Burgstaller JP, Havlicek V, Kolbe T, Rülicke T, Brem G, Poulton J, and Jones NS. Stochastic modelling, bayesian inference, and new in vivo mea- surements elucidate the debated mtDNA bottleneck mechanism.Elife, 4:e07464, 2015. 31

    2015

  12. [19]

    Johnston IG and Jones NS. Closed-form stochastic solutions for non-equilibrium dynamics and inheritance of cellular components over many cell divisions.Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences, 471(2180):20150050, 2015

    2015

  13. [20]

    Disparate pathways for extrachromosomal DNA biogenesis and genomic DNA repair.bioRxiv, 2023

    Rose JC, Wong ITL, Daniel B, Jones MG, Yost KE, Hung KL, Curtis EJ, Mischel PS, and Chang HY. Disparate pathways for extrachromosomal DNA biogenesis and genomic DNA repair.bioRxiv, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Principles of ecDNA random in- heritance drive rapid genome change and therapy resistance in human cancers

    Lange JT, Chen CY, Pichugin Y, Xie, Tang J, Hung KL, Yost KE, Shi Q, Erb ML, Rajkumar U, Wu S, Swanton C, Liu Z, Huang W, Chang HY, Bafna V, Henssen AG, Werner B, and Mischel PS. Principles of ecDNA random in- heritance drive rapid genome change and therapy resistance in human...

    2021

  15. [22]

    The evolutionary dynamics of extrachromosomal DNA in human cancers

    Lange JT, Rose JC, Chen CY, Pichugin Y, Xie L, Tang J, Hung KL, Yost KE, Shi Q, Erb ML, Rajkumar U, Wu S, Taschner-Mandl S, Bernkopf M, Swanton C, Liu Z, Huang W, Chang HY, Bafna V, Henssen AG, Werner B, and Mischel PS. The evolutionary dynamics of extrachromosomal DNA in huma...

    2022

  16. [23]

    Double minute chromosomes in glioblas- toma multiforme are revealed by precise reconstruction of oncogenic amplicons

    Sanborn JZ, Salama SR, Grifford M, Brennan CW, Mikkelsen T, Jhanwar S, Katzman S, Chin L, and Haussler D. Double minute chromosomes in glioblas- toma multiforme are revealed by precise reconstruction of oncogenic amplicons. Cancer Research, 73:6036–6045, 2013

    2013

  17. [24]

    Plasticity of extrachromosomal and intrachromosomal BRAF amplifications in overcoming targeted therapy dosage challenges

    Song K, Minami JK, Huang A, Dehkordi SR, Lomeli SH, Luebeck J, Good- man MH, Moriceau G, Krijgsman O, Dharanipragada P, Ridgley T, Crosson WP, Salazar J, Pazol E, Karin G, Jayaraman R, Balanis NG, Alhani S, Sheu K, Ten Hoeve J, Palermo A, Motika SE, Senaratne TN, Paraiso KH, H...

    2022

  18. [25]

    Single-cell multimodal glioma analyses identify epigenetic regulators of cellular plasticity and environmental stress response

    Johnson KC, Anderson KJ, Courtois ET, Gujar AD, Barthel FP, Varn FS, Luo D, Seignon M, Yi E, Kim H, Estecio MRH, Zhao D, Tang M, Navin NE, Maurya R, Ngan CY, Verburg N, De Witt Hamer PC, Bulsara K, Samuels ML, Das S, Robson P, and Verhaak RGW. Single-cell multimodal glioma ana...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Tar- geted profiling of human extrachromosomal DNA by CRISPR-CATCH.Nature Genetics, 54:1746–1754, 2022

    Hung KL, Luebeck J, Dehkordi SR, Colón CI, Li R, Wong IT, Coruh C, Dhara- nipragada P, Lomeli SH, Weiser NE, Moriceau G, Zhang X, Bailey C, Houlahan KE, Yang W, González RC, Swanton C, Curtis C, Jamal-Hanjani M, Henssen 32 AG, Law JA, Greenleaf WJ, Lo RS, Mischel PS, Bafna V, ...

    2022

  20. [27]

    ecDNA hubs drive cooperative intermolecular oncogene expression.Nature, 600:731–736, 2021

    Hung KL, Yost KE, Xie L, Shi Q, Helmsauer K, Luebeck J, Schöpflin R, Lange JT, Chamorro González R, Weiser NE, Chen C, Valieva ME, Wong IT, Wu S, Dehkordi SR, Duffy CV, Kraft K, Tang J, Belk JA, Rose JC, Corces MR, Granja JM, Li R, Rajkumar U, Friedlein J, Bagchi A, Satpathy A...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Gene regulation on extrachromosomal DNA

    Hung KL, Mischel PS, and Chang HY. Gene regulation on extrachromosomal DNA. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology , 29:736–744, 2022

    2022

  22. [31]

    Extrachromosomal oncogene amplification drives tumour evo- lution and genetic heterogeneity.Nature, 543:122–125, 2017

    Turner KM, Deshpande V, Beyter D, Koga T, Rusert J, Lee C, Li B, Arden K, Ren B, Nathanson DA, Kornblum HI, Taylor MD, Kaushal S, Cavenee WK, Wechsler-Reya R, Furnari FB, Vandenberg SR, Rao PN, Wahl GM, Bafna V, and Mischel PS. Extrachromosomal oncogene amplification drives tu...

    2017

  23. [32]

    Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA): an origin of tumor heterogeneity, genomic remodeling, and drug resistance

    Pecorino LT, Verhaak RGW, Henssen A, and Mischel PS. Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA): an origin of tumor heterogeneity, genomic remodeling, and drug resistance. Biochemical Society Transactions, 50(6):1911–1920, 2022

    1911

  24. [33]

    Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: Past, present, and the future.Cell, 168(4):613–628, 2017

    McGranahan N and Swanton C. Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: Past, present, and the future.Cell, 168(4):613–628, 2017

    2017

  25. [34]

    Extrachromosomal oncogene amplifica- tion in tumour pathogenesis and evolution.Nature Reviews Cancer, 19:283–288, 2019

    Verhaak RG, Bafna V, and Mischel PS. Extrachromosomal oncogene amplifica- tion in tumour pathogenesis and evolution.Nature Reviews Cancer, 19:283–288, 2019

    2019

  26. [35]

    Stochastic simulation of structured skin cell popula- tion dynamics

    Nakaoka S and Aihara K. Stochastic simulation of structured skin cell popula- tion dynamics. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 66:807–835, 2013. 33

    2013

  27. [36]

    Circular ecDNA promotes accessible chromatin and high oncogene expression

    Wu S, Turner KM, Nguyen N, Raviram R, Erb M, Santini J, Luebeck J, Ra- jkumar U, Diao Y, Li B, Zhang W, Jameson N, Corces MR, Granja JM, Chen X, Coruh C, Abnousi A, Houston J, Ye Z, Hu R, Yu M, Kim H, Law JA, Ver- haak RGW, Hu M, Furnari FB, Chang HY, Ren B, Bafna V, and Misch...

    2019

  28. [37]

    Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in cancer pathogenesis

    Wu S, Bafna V, and Mischel PS. Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in cancer pathogenesis. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development , 66:78–82, 2021

    2021

  29. [38]

    Classificationofextrachromosomal circular DNA with a focus on the role of extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in tumor heterogeneity and progression

    LiaoZ,JiangW,YeL,LiT,YuX,andLiuL. Classificationofextrachromosomal circular DNA with a focus on the role of extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in tumor heterogeneity and progression. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta Reviews on Cancer, 1874(1), 2020. 34 Supplementary Figures c. PURE YEL...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.