Mobilization of retrotransposons, genetic elements able to move around in the genome where they can become incorporated and start to amplify themselves, is normally suppressed in somatic cells. However, recent reports indicate that L1 retrotransposons can be mobilized in the human brain; this has important consequences for intercellular variation. Using a high-throughput approach, Baillie et al. identify numerous germ-line mutations and putative somatic insertions in the human hippocampus and caudate nucleus, including those of Alu elements. The implication is that retrotransposition-driven somatic mosaicism may reshape the genetic circuitry that underpins normal and abnormal neurobiological processes. Retrotransposons are mobile genetic elements that use a germline ‘copy-and-paste’ mechanism to spread throughout metazoan genomes1. At least 50 per cent of the human genome is derived from retrotransposons, with three active families (L1, Alu and SVA) associated with insertional mutagenesis and disease2,3. Epigenetic and post-transcriptional suppression block retrotransposition in somatic cells4,5, excluding early embryo development and some malignancies6,7. Recent reports of L1 expression8,9 and copy number variation10,11 in the human brain suggest that L1 mobilization may also occur during later development. However, the corresponding integration sites have not been mapped. Here we apply a high-throughput method to identify numerous L1, Alu and SVA germline mutations, as well as 7,743 putative somatic L1 insertions, in the hippocampus and caudate nucleus of three individuals. Surprisingly, we also found 13,692 somatic Alu insertions and 1,350 SVA insertions. Our results demonstrate that retrotransposons mobilize to protein-coding genes differentially expressed and active in the brain. Thus, somatic genome mosaicism driven by retrotransposition may reshape the genetic circuitry that underpins normal and abnormal neurobiological processes.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an aggressive brain tumor for which current immunotherapy approaches have been unsuccessful. Here, we explore the mechanisms underlying immune evasion in GBM. By serially transplanting GBM stem cells (GSCs) into immunocompetent hosts, we uncover an acquired capability of GSCs to escape immune clearance by establishing an enhanced immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Mechanistically, this is not elicited via genetic selection of tumor subclones, but through an epigenetic immunoediting process wherein stable transcriptional and epigenetic changes in GSCs are enforced following immune attack. These changes launch a myeloid-affiliated transcriptional program, which leads to increased recruitment of tumor-associated macrophages. Furthermore, we identify similar epigenetic and transcriptional signatures in human mesenchymal subtype GSCs. We conclude that epigenetic immunoediting may drive an acquired immune evasion program in the most aggressive mesenchymal GBM subtype by reshaping the tumor immune microenvironment.

LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposons are mobile genetic elements comprising ~17% of the human genome. New L1 insertions can profoundly alter gene function and cause disease, though their significance in cancer remains unclear. Here, we applied enhanced retrotransposon capture sequencing (RC-seq) to 19 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) genomes and elucidated two archetypal L1-mediated mechanisms enabling tumorigenesis. In the first example, 4/19 (21.1%) donors presented germline retrotransposition events in the tumor suppressor mutated in colorectal cancers (MCC). MCC expression was ablated in each case, enabling oncogenic β-catenin/Wnt signaling. In the second example, suppression of tumorigenicity 18 (ST18) was activated by a tumor-specific L1 insertion. Experimental assays confirmed that the L1 interrupted a negative feedback loop by blocking ST18 repression of its enhancer. ST18 was also frequently amplified in HCC nodules from Mdr2(-/-) mice, supporting its assignment as a candidate liver oncogene. These proof-of-principle results substantiate L1-mediated retrotransposition as an important etiological factor in HCC.

Somatic LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposition during neurogenesis is a potential source of genotypic variation among neurons. As a neurogenic niche, the hippocampus supports pronounced L1 activity. However, the basal parameters and biological impact of L1-driven mosaicism remain unclear. Here, we performed single-cell retrotransposon capture sequencing (RC-seq) on individual human hippocampal neurons and glia, as well as cortical neurons. An estimated 13.7 somatic L1 insertions occurred per hippocampal neuron and carried the sequence hallmarks of target-primed reverse transcription. Notably, hippocampal neuron L1 insertions were specifically enriched in transcribed neuronal stem cell enhancers and hippocampus genes, increasing their probability of functional relevance. In addition, bias against intronic L1 insertions sense oriented relative to their host gene was observed, perhaps indicating moderate selection against this configuration in vivo. These experiments demonstrate pervasive L1 mosaicism at genomic loci expressed in hippocampal neurons.

Translation of survival benefits observed in glioblastoma clinical trials to populations and to longer-term survival remains uncertain. We aimed to assess if ≥ 2-year survival has changed in relation to the trial of radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide published in 2005. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for population-based studies with ≥ 50 patients published after 2002 reporting survival at ≥ 2 years following glioblastoma diagnosis. Primary endpoints were survival at 2-, 3- and 5-years stratified by recruitment period. We meta-analysed survival estimates using a random effects model stratified according to whether recruitment ended before 2005 (earlier) or started during or after 2005 (later). PROSPERO registration number CRD42019130035. Twenty-three populations from 63 potentially eligible studies contributed to the meta-analyses. Pooled 2-year overall survival estimates for the earlier and later study periods were 9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6–12%; n/N = 1,488/17,507) and 18% (95% CI 14–22%; n/N = 5,670/32,390), respectively. Similarly, pooled 3-year survival estimates increased from 4% (95% CI 2–6%; n/N = 325/10,556) to 11% (95% CI 9–14%; n/N = 1900/16,397). One study with a within-population comparison showed similar improvement in survival among the older population. Pooled 5-year survival estimates were 3% (95% CI 1–5%; n/N = 401/14,919) and 4% (95% CI 2–5%; n/N = 1,291/28,748) for the earlier and later periods, respectively. Meta-analyses of real-world data suggested a doubling of 2- and 3-year survival in glioblastoma patients since 2005. However, 5-year survival remains poor with no apparent improvement. Detailed clinically annotated population-based data and further molecular characterization of longer-term survivors may explain the unchanged survival beyond 5 years.