Literature DB >> 23028381

Heterozygous mutations in DNA repair genes and hereditary breast cancer: a question of power.

Nathan A Ellis1, Kenneth Offit.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23028381      PMCID: PMC3459983          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Genet        ISSN: 1553-7390            Impact factor:   5.917


× No keyword cloud information.
The emerging technology of massively parallel DNA sequencing has had a major impact on progress in genomics and personalized medicine [1]. Most recently, DNA sequencing of whole exomes (complete coding regions of the human genome) has revealed the genetic basis of many previously-not-localized Mendelian traits [2]. In diseases where the underlying genetic basis is more dilute and complex, old challenges reappear in new clothes [1], [3]. Both the promise and the limitations of these new technologies have been evident in the untangling of the polygenic basis of susceptibility to human breast cancer. The identification of single-gene defects in cancer susceptibility syndromes in the 1990s provided a deterministic model of genetic susceptibility to cancer. Discovery and genetic analysis of the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 offered a preview of personalized genomics, improving medical management of a common form of inherited human neoplasia [4], [5]. Supporting the idea that new breast cancer genes (often referred to collectively as BRCA3) could be identified, analysis of the genetic variance remaining after BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations had been excluded suggested that most of the excess genetic risk was concentrated in a small percentage of persons [6]. Yet, genetic linkage studies provided little encouragement for the existence of BRCA3 [7]. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) uncovered new pathways in cancer biology, the GWAS results identified markers of very modest effect size [8]. The realization that a small proportion of excess genetic risk can be accounted for by common variants has resulted in a return to the study of multiplex breast cancer kindreds and the utilization of massively parallel DNA sequencing to uncover rare, disease-causing mutations in hereditary breast cancer. The article by Thompson et al. published in this issue of PLOS Genetics [9], along with a similar article published recently in the American Journal of Human Genetics [10], provide a glimpse of the early applications of new sequencing technologies to the search for the “missing heritability” in hereditary breast cancer. In Thompson et al., the authors performed exome sequencing of multiple breast cancer cases from a small number of families (33 persons in 15 families) in whom BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations had been excluded, and they focused on mutations that are predicted to ablate the function of the gene product, namely, mutations that cause premature termination of translation or that destroy splice-sites. After filtering out the overtly deleterious mutations that are polymorphic in the human population (under the assumption that the risk-causing variation in these breast cancer families should be rare), each sequenced individual harbored on average 35 overtly deleterious mutations. Thus, additional filtering criteria were needed to narrow the field: various strategies are possible, and here the authors focused on genes both hit by mutation in multiple individuals and participating in DNA repair through the homologous recombination pathway, a pathway that repairs double-strand breaks with high fidelity. Previous candidate-gene DNA sequencing studies have implicated homologous recombination in breast cancer susceptibility [11]–[16], and BRCA1 and BRCA2 themselves are players in this pathway [17]. Remarkably, two families carried overtly deleterious mutations in the Fanconi anemia (FA) gene FANCC and one family carried an overtly deleterious mutation in the Bloom's syndrome (BS) gene BLM. FA and BS are rare, autosomal recessive conditions that are characterized by multiple developmental abnormalities (small size and congenital defects of the dermal, immune, skeletal, and reproductive systems), striking DNA repair defects and genomic instability in the somatic cells, and enormous predisposition to the development of various cancers (Figure 1) [18], [19]. Bi-allelic mutations in FANCC and BLM result in FA and BS, respectively, whereas in Thompson et al. heterozygous mutations in FANCC and BLM were identified in a few breast cancer families studied. The notion that heterozygous mutations in DNA repair genes might predispose carriers to incremental increases in cancer susceptibility is a long-standing and sometimes controversial hypothesis in cancer genetics that has increasingly gained traction. As noted above, heterozygous mutations in FA genes have been associated previously with increased breast cancer risk, and, conversely, bi-allelic mutations in breast cancer-associated genes BRCA2, BRIP1, PALB2, and RAD51C have been identified in persons with FA or FA–like syndromes [20]–[23]. Although the concept of increased cancer risk conferred by heterozygous mutations now seems unassailable, the evidence for specific associations between FANCC and BLM and breast cancer risk is not yet convincing [24]–[28]. The challenge of the “heterozygous-mutation” hypothesis is generally one of power. Because the allele frequency of FANCC and BLM mutations in most populations is very low (<0.001), large numbers of individuals are needed to test for differences in the allele frequency between cases and controls. Moreover, heterogeneity in the frequency of mutations across different populations could complicate interpretation of associations when populations are admixed and as investigators combine results from different populations to increase power. As an example of frequency heterogeneity, FANCC and BLM mutations are more frequent in Ashkenazi Jews (∼0.008), where a specific allele is present in most cases of FA and BS [29], [30].
Figure 1

Fanconi anemia (FA) and Bloom's syndrome (BS) overlap at the clinical and molecular levels.

Left panel: Comparison of the clinical and cellular features present in FA and BS. FA and BS have features that are distinct to each syndrome; however, there are broad similarities. Some individuals with mutations in BLM have been diagnosed with FA, exhibiting classical FA features. Right panel: Depiction of a super-complex that is formed at sites of repair of replication forks that have been impeded by an inter-strand crosslink. The super-complex consists of two complexes that form independently in the nucleus. One complex consists of the interacting proteins identified through FA mutations and the other complex consists of proteins that interact with BLM, the gene mutated in BS [33]. These two complexes are brought together by mutual interactions with the FA gene product FANCM [34]. Molecular interactions between FANCJ and BLM at stalled forks have also been described [35]. Downstream signaling effects (FAND2 ubiquitylation and ATR activation) are also depicted. Figure was redrawn from Deans and West [34].

Fanconi anemia (FA) and Bloom's syndrome (BS) overlap at the clinical and molecular levels.

Left panel: Comparison of the clinical and cellular features present in FA and BS. FA and BS have features that are distinct to each syndrome; however, there are broad similarities. Some individuals with mutations in BLM have been diagnosed with FA, exhibiting classical FA features. Right panel: Depiction of a super-complex that is formed at sites of repair of replication forks that have been impeded by an inter-strand crosslink. The super-complex consists of two complexes that form independently in the nucleus. One complex consists of the interacting proteins identified through FA mutations and the other complex consists of proteins that interact with BLM, the gene mutated in BS [33]. These two complexes are brought together by mutual interactions with the FA gene product FANCM [34]. Molecular interactions between FANCJ and BLM at stalled forks have also been described [35]. Downstream signaling effects (FAND2 ubiquitylation and ATR activation) are also depicted. Figure was redrawn from Deans and West [34]. Selecting cases with strong family history of cancer is an enrichment strategy that can reduce the numbers of cases needed to find associations [31]. In Thompson et al., the authors sequenced FANCC and BLM, and in total they found FANCC mutations in four probands out of 1,395 BRCA-negative hereditary breast cancer families from Australia and BLM mutations in two probands out of 438 such families. No mutation carriers were found in either gene in 464 controls. No overtly deleterious FANC or BLM mutations have been reported in 1,192 completely sequenced persons in the 1000 genomes data [32]. On the other hand, in the NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/), three FANCC and four BLM mutation carriers had been identified in 3,510 exomes. Persons from the 1000 genomes and EVS do not constitute a good control group; thus the authors refrained from calculating p-values, 95% confidence intervals, and effect sizes. Going forward it will be important to compare consecutive breast cancer cases and matched controls drawn from the same population to provide robust data to calculate these important parameters; it may take tens of thousands of cases and controls to quantify them! In addition, we will need to combine studies of hereditary breast cancer cases to increase power and drive segregation analysis, to conduct larger case-control studies in the Ashkenazi Jewish population where the increased frequency of specific alleles increases the power of the study group, and to continue to quantify cancer risk in the relatives of persons with FA and BS. Thus, rare alleles identified by sequencing of multiplex kindreds pose significant challenges for the estimation of effect sizes in cancer susceptibility. In the end, the critical questions that grip rare alleles are how much increased risk do they confer and do they account for the missing heritability? The resolution of these questions is of paramount importance to genetic epidemiologists studying human populations as well as to clinicians caring for families at risk for hereditary breast cancer.
  33 in total

1.  A multiprotein nuclear complex connects Fanconi anemia and Bloom syndrome.

Authors:  Amom Ruhikanta Meetei; Salvatore Sechi; Michael Wallisch; Dafeng Yang; Mary K Young; Hans Joenje; Maureen E Hoatlin; Weidong Wang
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.272

2.  Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population-based study.

Authors:  A C Antoniou; P D Pharoah; G McMullan; N E Day; B A Ponder; D Easton
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.135

3.  BLM heterozygosity and the risk of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Stephen B Gruber; Nathan A Ellis; Karen K Scott; Ronit Almog; Prema Kolachana; Joseph D Bonner; Tomas Kirchhoff; Lynn P Tomsho; Khedoudja Nafa; Heather Pierce; Marcelo Low; Jaya Satagopan; Hedy Rennert; Helen Huang; Joel K Greenson; Joanna Groden; Beth Rapaport; Jinru Shia; Stephen Johnson; Peter K Gregersen; Curtis C Harris; Jeff Boyd; Gad Rennert; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-09-20       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery.

Authors:  Michael J Bamshad; Sarah B Ng; Abigail W Bigham; Holly K Tabor; Mary J Emond; Deborah A Nickerson; Jay Shendure
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Evaluation of linkage of breast cancer to the putative BRCA3 locus on chromosome 13q21 in 128 multiple case families from the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  Deborah Thompson; Csilla I Szabo; Jon Mangion; Rogier A Oldenburg; Fabrice Odefrey; Sheila Seal; Rita Barfoot; Karin Kroeze-Jansema; Dawn Teare; Nazneen Rahman; Hélène Renard; Graham Mann; John L Hopper; Saundra S Buys; Irene L Andrulis; Ruby Senie; Mary B Daly; Dee West; Elaine A Ostrander; Ken Offit; Tamar Peretz; Ana Osorio; J Benitez; Katherine L Nathanson; Olga M Sinilnikova; Edith Olàh; Yves-Jean Bignon; Pablo Ruiz; Michael D Badzioch; Hans F A Vasen; Andrew P Futreal; Catherine M Phelan; Steven A Narod; Henry T Lynch; Bruce A J Ponder; Ros A Eeles; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Fergus J Couch; Diana M Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Jenny Chang-Claude; Gilbert Lenoir; Barbara L Weber; Peter Devilee; Douglas F Easton; David E Goldgar; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Heterozygosity for the BLM(Ash) mutation and cancer risk.

Authors:  Sean P Cleary; William Zhang; Nando Di Nicola; Melyssa Aronson; Jennifer Aube; Amanda Steinman; Riad Haddad; Mark Redston; Steven Gallinger; Steven A Narod; Robert Gryfe
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Authors:  Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; Jan Klijn; Marijke Wasielewski; Anja de Snoo; Rogier Oldenburg; Antoinette Hollestelle; Mark Houben; Ellen Crepin; Monique van Veghel-Plandsoen; Fons Elstrodt; Cornelia van Duijn; Carina Bartels; Carel Meijers; Mieke Schutte; Lesley McGuffog; Deborah Thompson; Douglas Easton; Nayanta Sodha; Sheila Seal; Rita Barfoot; Jon Mangion; Jenny Chang-Claude; Diana Eccles; Rosalind Eeles; D Gareth Evans; Richard Houlston; Victoria Murday; Steven Narod; Tamara Peretz; Julian Peto; Catherine Phelan; Hong Xiang Zhang; Csilla Szabo; Peter Devilee; David Goldgar; P Andrew Futreal; Katherine L Nathanson; Barbara Weber; Nazneen Rahman; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2002-04-22       Impact factor: 38.330

8.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-20       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  The search for low-penetrance cancer susceptibility alleles.

Authors:  Richard S Houlston; Julian Peto
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-08-23       Impact factor: 9.867

10.  Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia.

Authors:  Niall G Howlett; Toshiyasu Taniguchi; Susan Olson; Barbara Cox; Quinten Waisfisz; Christine De Die-Smulders; Nicole Persky; Markus Grompe; Hans Joenje; Gerard Pals; Hideyuki Ikeda; Edward A Fox; Alan D D'Andrea
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-06-13       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Next-generation sequencing for inherited breast cancer risk: counseling through the complexity.

Authors:  Irene R Rainville; Huma Q Rana
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Genetic counseling for Fanconi anemia: crosslinking disciplines.

Authors:  Heather A Zierhut; Rebecca Tryon; Erica M Sanborn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  FANCM c.5791C>T nonsense mutation (rs144567652) induces exon skipping, affects DNA repair activity and is a familial breast cancer risk factor.

Authors:  Paolo Peterlongo; Irene Catucci; Mara Colombo; Laura Caleca; Eliseos Mucaki; Massimo Bogliolo; Maria Marin; Francesca Damiola; Loris Bernard; Valeria Pensotti; Sara Volorio; Valentina Dall'Olio; Alfons Meindl; Claus Bartram; Christian Sutter; Harald Surowy; Valérie Sornin; Marie-Gabrielle Dondon; Séverine Eon-Marchais; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Nadine Andrieu; Olga M Sinilnikova; Gillian Mitchell; Paul A James; Ella Thompson; Marina Marchetti; Cristina Verzeroli; Carmen Tartari; Gabriele Lorenzo Capone; Anna Laura Putignano; Maurizio Genuardi; Veronica Medici; Isabella Marchi; Massimo Federico; Silvia Tognazzo; Laura Matricardi; Simona Agata; Riccardo Dolcetti; Lara Della Puppa; Giulia Cini; Viviana Gismondi; Valeria Viassolo; Chiara Perfumo; Maria Antonietta Mencarelli; Margherita Baldassarri; Bernard Peissel; Gaia Roversi; Valentina Silvestri; Piera Rizzolo; Francesca Spina; Caterina Vivanet; Maria Grazia Tibiletti; Maria Adelaide Caligo; Gaetana Gambino; Stefania Tommasi; Brunella Pilato; Carlo Tondini; Chiara Corna; Bernardo Bonanni; Monica Barile; Ana Osorio; Javier Benitez; Luisa Balestrino; Laura Ottini; Siranoush Manoukian; Marco A Pierotti; Alessandra Renieri; Liliana Varesco; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Peter Devilee; Florentine S Hilbers; Christi J van Asperen; Alessandra Viel; Marco Montagna; Laura Cortesi; Orland Diez; Judith Balmaña; Jan Hauke; Rita K Schmutzler; Laura Papi; Miguel Angel Pujana; Conxi Lázaro; Anna Falanga; Kenneth Offit; Joseph Vijai; Ian Campbell; Barbara Burwinkel; Anders Kvist; Hans Ehrencrona; Sylvie Mazoyer; Sara Pizzamiglio; Paolo Verderio; Jordi Surralles; Peter K Rogan; Paolo Radice
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 6.150

4.  RECQL: a new breast cancer susceptibility gene.

Authors:  Taraswi Banerjee; Robert M Brosh
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.534

5.  Two truncating variants in FANCC and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Thilo Dörk; Paolo Peterlongo; Arto Mannermaa; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Thomas Ahearn; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Volker Arndt; Kristan J Aronson; Annelie Augustinsson; Laura E Beane Freeman; Matthias W Beckmann; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Sabine Behrens; Marina Bermisheva; Carl Blomqvist; Natalia V Bogdanova; Stig E Bojesen; Hiltrud Brauch; Hermann Brenner; Barbara Burwinkel; Federico Canzian; Tsun L Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Ji-Yeob Choi; Hans Christiansen; Christine L Clarke; Fergus J Couch; Kamila Czene; Mary B Daly; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Miriam Dwek; Diana M Eccles; Arif B Ekici; Mikael Eriksson; D Gareth Evans; Peter A Fasching; Jonine Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Lin Fritschi; Marike Gabrielson; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Chi Gao; Susan M Gapstur; Montserrat García-Closas; José A García-Sáenz; Mia M Gaudet; Graham G Giles; Mark S Goldberg; David E Goldgar; Pascal Guénel; Lothar Haeberle; Christopher A Haiman; Niclas Håkansson; Per Hall; Ute Hamann; Mikael Hartman; Jan Hauke; Alexander Hein; Peter Hillemanns; Frans B L Hogervorst; Maartje J Hooning; John L Hopper; Tony Howell; Dezheng Huo; Hidemi Ito; Motoki Iwasaki; Anna Jakubowska; Wolfgang Janni; Esther M John; Audrey Jung; Rudolf Kaaks; Daehee Kang; Pooja Middha Kapoor; Elza Khusnutdinova; Sung-Won Kim; Cari M Kitahara; Stella Koutros; Peter Kraft; Vessela N Kristensen; Ava Kwong; Diether Lambrechts; Loic Le Marchand; Jingmei Li; Sara Lindström; Martha Linet; Wing-Yee Lo; Jirong Long; Artitaya Lophatananon; Jan Lubiński; Mehdi Manoochehri; Siranoush Manoukian; Sara Margolin; Elena Martinez; Keitaro Matsuo; Dimitris Mavroudis; Alfons Meindl; Usha Menon; Roger L Milne; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib; Kenneth Muir; Anna Marie Mulligan; Susan L Neuhausen; Heli Nevanlinna; Patrick Neven; William G Newman; Kenneth Offit; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrew F Olshan; Janet E Olson; Håkan Olsson; Sue K Park; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Julian Peto; Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska; Esther Pohl-Rescigno; Nadege Presneau; Brigitte Rack; Paolo Radice; Muhammad U Rashid; Gad Rennert; Hedy S Rennert; Atocha Romero; Matthias Ruebner; Emmanouil Saloustros; Marjanka K Schmidt; Rita K Schmutzler; Michael O Schneider; Minouk J Schoemaker; Christopher Scott; Chen-Yang Shen; Xiao-Ou Shu; Jacques Simard; Susan Slager; Snezhana Smichkoska; Melissa C Southey; John J Spinelli; Jennifer Stone; Harald Surowy; Anthony J Swerdlow; Rulla M Tamimi; William J Tapper; Soo H Teo; Mary Beth Terry; Amanda E Toland; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Diana Torres; Gabriela Torres-Mejía; Melissa A Troester; Thérèse Truong; Shoichiro Tsugane; Michael Untch; Celine M Vachon; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Elke M van Veen; Joseph Vijai; Camilla Wendt; Alicja Wolk; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Wei Zheng; Argyrios Ziogas; Elad Ziv; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Detlev Schindler; Peter Devilee; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Prevalence and clinical implications of germline predisposition gene mutations in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Borahm Kim; Woobin Yun; Seung-Tae Lee; Jong Rok Choi; Keon Hee Yoo; Hong Hoe Koo; Chul Won Jung; Sun Hee Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.