BACKGROUND & AIMS: Inherited deleterious mutations in mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 predispose to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. A major diagnostic challenge is the difficulty in evaluating the pathogenicity of missense mutations. Previously we showed that most missense variants in MSH6 do not impair MMR capability and are associated with no or low cancer susceptibility, whereas in MLH1, functional studies distinguished nontruncating mutations with severe defects from those not or slightly impaired in protein expression or function. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the pathogenicity of inherited missense mutations in MSH2. METHODS: Fifteen mutated MSH2 proteins including 14 amino acid substitutions and one in-frame deletion were tested for expression/stability, MSH2/MSH6 interaction, and repair efficiency. The genetic and biochemical data were correlated with the clinical data. Comparative sequence analysis was performed to assess the value of sequence homology as a tool for predicting functional results. RESULTS: None of the studied MSH2 mutations destroyed the protein or abolished MSH2/MSH6 interaction, whereas 12 mutations impaired the repair capability of the protein. Comparative sequence analysis correctly predicted functional studies for 13 of 14 amino acid substitutions. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation was pathogenic for 12, nonpathogenic for 2, and contradictory for 1 mutation. The pathogenicity could not be distinguished unambiguously by phenotypic characteristics, although correlation between the absence of staining for MSH2 and pathogenicity of the missense mutation was notable. Unlike in MSH6 and MLH1, the pathogenicity of missense mutations in MSH2 was always associated with impaired repair capability of the mutated protein.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Inherited deleterious mutations in mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 predispose to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. A major diagnostic challenge is the difficulty in evaluating the pathogenicity of missense mutations. Previously we showed that most missense variants in MSH6 do not impair MMR capability and are associated with no or low cancer susceptibility, whereas in MLH1, functional studies distinguished nontruncating mutations with severe defects from those not or slightly impaired in protein expression or function. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the pathogenicity of inherited missense mutations in MSH2. METHODS: Fifteen mutated MSH2 proteins including 14 amino acid substitutions and one in-frame deletion were tested for expression/stability, MSH2/MSH6 interaction, and repair efficiency. The genetic and biochemical data were correlated with the clinical data. Comparative sequence analysis was performed to assess the value of sequence homology as a tool for predicting functional results. RESULTS: None of the studied MSH2 mutations destroyed the protein or abolished MSH2/MSH6 interaction, whereas 12 mutations impaired the repair capability of the protein. Comparative sequence analysis correctly predicted functional studies for 13 of 14 amino acid substitutions. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation was pathogenic for 12, nonpathogenic for 2, and contradictory for 1 mutation. The pathogenicity could not be distinguished unambiguously by phenotypic characteristics, although correlation between the absence of staining for MSH2 and pathogenicity of the missense mutation was notable. Unlike in MSH6 and MLH1, the pathogenicity of missense mutations in MSH2 was always associated with impaired repair capability of the mutated protein.
Authors: Brian H Shirts; Eric Q Konnick; Sarah Upham; Tom Walsh; John Michael O Ranola; Angela L Jacobson; Mary-Claire King; Rachel Pearlman; Heather Hampel; Colin C Pritchard Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Lise Lotte Christensen; Reetta Kariola; Mari K Korhonen; Friedrik P Wikman; Lone Sunde; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Henrik Okkels; Carsten A Brandt; Inge Bernstein; Thomas V O Hansen; Rikke Hagemann-Madsen; Claus L Andersen; Minna Nyström; Torben F Ørntoft Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2009-08-21 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Leah C Young; Kathleen M Bone; Peng Wang; Fang Wu; Benjamin A Adam; Samar Hegazy; Pascal Gelebart; Jelena Holovati; Liang Li; Susan E Andrew; Raymond Lai Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Fergus J Couch; Lene Juel Rasmussen; Robert Hofstra; Alvaro N A Monteiro; Marc S Greenblatt; Niels de Wind Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Mef Nilbert; Friedrik P Wikman; Thomas V O Hansen; Henrik B Krarup; Torben F Orntoft; Finn C Nielsen; Lone Sunde; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Dorthe Cruger; Susanne Timshel; Marie-Louise Bisgaard; Inge Bernstein; Henrik Okkels Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Hellen Houlleberghs; Marleen Dekker; Hildo Lantermans; Roos Kleinendorst; Hendrikus Jan Dubbink; Robert M W Hofstra; Senno Verhoef; Hein Te Riele Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J Kantelinen; M Kansikas; M K Korhonen; S Ollila; K Heinimann; R Kariola; M Nyström Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 7.640