Karyotype coding, which encompasses the complete chromosome sets and their topological genomic relationships within a given species, encodes system-level information that organizes and preserves genes\' function, and determines the macroevolution of cancer. This new recognition emphasizes the crucial role of karyotype characterization in cancer research. To advance this cancer cytogenetic/cytogenomic concept and its platforms, this study outlines protocols for monitoring the karyotype landscape during treatment-induced rapid drug resistance in cancer. It emphasizes four key perspectives: combinational analyses of phenotype and karyotype, a focus on the entire evolutionary process through longitudinal analysis, a comparison of whole landscape dynamics by including various types of NCCAs (including genome chaos), and the use of the same process to prioritize different genomic scales. This protocol holds promise for studying numerous evolutionary aspects of cancers, and it further enhances the power of karyotype analysis in cancer research.

Cytogenetic analysis has traditionally focused on the clonal chromosome aberrations, or CCAs, and considered the large number of diverse non-clonal chromosome aberrations, or NCCAs, as insignificant noise. Our decade-long karyotype evolutionary studies have unexpectedly demonstrated otherwise. Not only the baseline of NCCAs is associated with fuzzy inheritance, but the frequencies of NCCAs can also be used to reliably measure genome or chromosome instability (CIN). According to the Genome Architecture Theory, CIN is the common driver of cancer evolution that can unify diverse molecular mechanisms, and genome chaos, including chromothripsis, chromoanagenesis, and polypoidal giant nuclear and micronuclear clusters, and various sizes of chromosome fragmentations, including extrachromosomal DNA, represent some extreme forms of NCCAs that play a key role in the macroevolutionary transition. In this chapter, the rationale, definition, brief history, and current status of NCCA research in cancer are discussed in the context of two-phased cancer evolution and karyotype-coded system information. Finally, after briefly describing various types of NCCAs, we call for more research on NCCAs in future cytogenetics.

The promises of the cancer genome sequencing project, combined with various -omics technologies, have raised questions about the importance of cancer cytogenetic analyses. It is suggested that DNA sequencing provides high resolution, speed, and automation, potentially replacing cytogenetic testing. We disagree with this reductionist prediction. On the contrary, various sequencing projects have unexpectedly challenged gene theory and highlighted the importance of the genome or karyotype in organizing gene network interactions. Consequently, profiling the karyotype can be more meaningful than solely profiling gene mutations, especially in cancer where karyotype alterations mediate cellular macroevolution dominance. In this chapter, recent studies that illustrate the ultimate importance of karyotype in cancer genomics and evolution are briefly reviewed. In particular, the long-ignored non-clonal chromosome aberrations or NCCAs are linked to genome or chromosome instability, genome chaos is linked to genome reorganization under cellular crisis, and the two-phased cancer evolution reconciles the relationship between genome alteration-mediated punctuated macroevolution and gene mutation-mediated stepwise microevolution. By further synthesizing, the concept of karyotype coding is discussed in the context of information management. Altogether, we call for a new era of cancer cytogenetics and cytogenomics, where an array of technical frontiers can be explored further, which is crucial for both basic research and clinical implications in the cancer field.

In the light of illusions of the Modern Synthesis (MS) listed by Noble (2021a), its key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within microevolution leads to macroevolution, requires reexamination. In this article, additional illusions of the MS are identified as being caused by the absence of system information and correct history. First, the MS lacks distinction among the two basic types of information: genome-defined system and gene-defined parts-information, as its treatment was based mostly on gene information. In contrast, it is argued here that system information is maintained by species-specific karyotype code, and macroevolution is based on the whole genome information package rather than on specific genes. Linking the origin of species with system information shows that the creation and accumulation of the latter in evolution is the fundamental question omitted from the MS. Second, modern evidence eliminates the MS\'s preferred theory that present evolutionary events can be linearly extrapolated to the past to reconstruct Life\'s history, wrongly assuming that most of the fossil record supports the gradual change while ignoring the true karyotype/genome patterns. Furthermore, stasis, as the most prominent pattern of the deep history of Life, remains a puzzle to the MS, but can be explained by the mechanism of karyotype-preservation-via-sex. Consequently, the concept of system-information is smoothly integrated into the two-phased evolutionary model that paleontology requires (Eldredge and Gould, 1972). Finally, research on genome-level causation of evolution, which does not fit the MS, is summarized. The availability of alternative concepts further illustrates that it is time to depart from the MS.