Literature DB >> 25248036

Evidence that breast cancer risk at the 2q35 locus is mediated through IGFBP5 regulation.

Maya Ghoussaini1, Stacey L Edwards2, Kyriaki Michailidou3, Silje Nord4, Richard Cowper-Sal Lari5, Kinjal Desai6, Siddhartha Kar3, Kristine M Hillman2, Susanne Kaufmann2, Dylan M Glubb7, Jonathan Beesley7, Joe Dennis3, Manjeet K Bolla3, Qin Wang3, Ed Dicks1, Qi Guo1, Marjanka K Schmidt8, Mitul Shah1, Robert Luben3, Judith Brown3, Kamila Czene9, Hatef Darabi9, Mikael Eriksson9, Daniel Klevebring9, Stig E Bojesen10, Børge G Nordestgaard10, Sune F Nielsen11, Henrik Flyger12, Diether Lambrechts13, Bernard Thienpont14, Patrick Neven15, Hans Wildiers15, Annegien Broeks8, Laura J Van't Veer8, Emiel J Th Rutgers8, Fergus J Couch16, Janet E Olson17, Emily Hallberg17, Celine Vachon17, Jenny Chang-Claude18, Anja Rudolph18, Petra Seibold18, Dieter Flesch-Janys19, Julian Peto20, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva20, Lorna Gibson20, Heli Nevanlinna21, Taru A Muranen21, Kristiina Aittomäki22, Carl Blomqvist23, Per Hall9, Jingmei Li24, Jianjun Liu24, Keith Humphreys9, Daehee Kang25, Ji-Yeob Choi26, Sue K Park25, Dong-Young Noh27, Keitaro Matsuo28, Hidemi Ito29, Hiroji Iwata30, Yasushi Yatabe31, Pascal Guénel32, Thérèse Truong32, Florence Menegaux32, Marie Sanchez32, Barbara Burwinkel33, Frederik Marme34, Andreas Schneeweiss34, Christof Sohn35, Anna H Wu36, Chiu-Chen Tseng36, David Van Den Berg36, Daniel O Stram36, Javier Benitez37, M Pilar Zamora38, Jose Ignacio Arias Perez39, Primitiva Menéndez40, Xiao-Ou Shu41, Wei Lu42, Yu-Tang Gao43, Qiuyin Cai41, Angela Cox44, Simon S Cross45, Malcolm W R Reed44, Irene L Andrulis46, Julia A Knight47, Gord Glendon48, Sandrine Tchatchou49, Elinor J Sawyer50, Ian Tomlinson51, Michael J Kerin52, Nicola Miller52, Christopher A Haiman53, Brian E Henderson53, Fredrick Schumacher53, Loic Le Marchand54, Annika Lindblom55, Sara Margolin56, Soo Hwang Teo57, Cheng Har Yip58, Daphne S C Lee59, Tien Y Wong60, Maartje J Hooning61, John W M Martens61, J Margriet Collée62, Carolien H M van Deurzen63, John L Hopper64, Melissa C Southey65, Helen Tsimiklis65, Miroslav K Kapuscinski64, Chen-Yang Shen66, Pei-Ei Wu67, Jyh-Cherng Yu68, Shou-Tung Chen69, Grethe Grenaker Alnæs4, Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale70, Graham G Giles71, Roger L Milne72, Catriona McLean73, Kenneth Muir74, Artitaya Lophatananon75, Sarah Stewart-Brown75, Pornthep Siriwanarangsan76, Mikael Hartman77, Hui Miao78, Shaik Ahmad Bin Syed Buhari79, Yik Ying Teo80, Peter A Fasching81, Lothar Haeberle82, Arif B Ekici83, Matthias W Beckmann82, Hermann Brenner84, Aida Karina Dieffenbach84, Volker Arndt85, Christa Stegmaier86, Anthony Swerdlow87, Alan Ashworth88, Nick Orr88, Minouk J Schoemaker89, Montserrat García-Closas90, Jonine Figueroa91, Stephen J Chanock91, Jolanta Lissowska92, Jacques Simard93, Mark S Goldberg94, France Labrèche95, Martine Dumont93, Robert Winqvist96, Katri Pylkäs96, Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen97, Hiltrud Brauch98, Thomas Brüning99, Yon-Dschun Koto100, Paolo Radice101, Paolo Peterlongo102, Bernardo Bonanni103, Sara Volorio104, Thilo Dörk105, Natalia V Bogdanova106, Sonja Helbig105, Arto Mannermaa107, Vesa Kataja108, Veli-Matti Kosma107, Jaana M Hartikainen107, Peter Devilee109, Robert A E M Tollenaar110, Caroline Seynaeve111, Christi J Van Asperen62, Anna Jakubowska112, Jan Lubinski112, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek112, Katarzyna Durda112, Susan Slager17, Amanda E Toland113, Christine B Ambrosone114, Drakoulis Yannoukakos115, Suleeporn Sangrajrang116, Valerie Gaborieau117, Paul Brennan117, James McKay117, Ute Hamann118, Diana Torres119, Wei Zheng41, Jirong Long41, Hoda Anton-Culver120, Susan L Neuhausen121, Craig Luccarini1, Caroline Baynes1, Shahana Ahmed1, Mel Maranian1, Catherine S Healey1, Anna González-Neira122, Guillermo Pita122, M Rosario Alonso122, Nuria Alvarez122, Daniel Herrero122, Daniel C Tessier123, Daniel Vincent124, Francois Bacot124, Ines de Santiago125, Jason Carroll125, Carlos Caldas125, Melissa A Brown126, Mathieu Lupien127, Vessela N Kristensen128, Paul D P Pharoah129, Georgia Chenevix-Trench7, Juliet D French2, Douglas F Easton129, Alison M Dunning1.   

Abstract

GWAS have identified a breast cancer susceptibility locus on 2q35. Here we report the fine mapping of this locus using data from 101,943 subjects from 50 case-control studies. We genotype 276 SNPs using the 'iCOGS' genotyping array and impute genotypes for a further 1,284 using 1000 Genomes Project data. All but two, strongly correlated SNPs (rs4442975 G/T and rs6721996 G/A) are excluded as candidate causal variants at odds against >100:1. The best functional candidate, rs4442975, is associated with oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) disease with an odds ratio (OR) in Europeans of 0.85 (95% confidence interval=0.84-0.87; P=1.7 × 10(-43)) per t-allele. This SNP flanks a transcriptional enhancer that physically interacts with the promoter of IGFBP5 (encoding insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 5) and displays allele-specific gene expression, FOXA1 binding and chromatin looping. Evidence suggests that the g-allele confers increased breast cancer susceptibility through relative downregulation of IGFBP5, a gene with known roles in breast cell biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25248036      PMCID: PMC4321900          DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Commun        ISSN: 2041-1723            Impact factor:   14.919


The 2q35 breast cancer locus was originally identified in an Icelandic genome-wide association study (GWAS)1, and subsequently confirmed in larger European studies. The largest replication study, comprising 25 studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, yielded odds ratio (OR) of 0.89 (95% CI −0.87 to 0.92) per g-allele for rs13387042 with evidence for association with both oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and ER-negative (ER−) disease2. rs13387042 lies in a 210-kb linkage disequilibrium (LD) block within a gene ‘desert’, bounded centromerically by the transition nuclear protein 1 gene (TNP1—181 kb proximal) and telomerically by the disrupted in renal carcinoma 3 gene (DIRC3—243 kb distal). Additional but more distant centromeric genes are two members of the insulin growth factor-binding protein family, IGFBP5 (345 kb proximal) and IGFBP2 (376 kb proximal). In the current study, we describe the fine-scale mapping of the 2q35 breast cancer susceptibility locus using 1,560 genotyped and imputed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 101,943 subjects from 50 case-control studies. The strongest candidate for causality, SNP rs4442975, flanks a transcriptional enhancer that physically interacts with the promoter of IGFBP5. Furthermore, we demonstrate that rs4442975 is associated with allele-specific FOXA1 binding, chromatin looping and IGFBP5 expression. Our data suggest that the g-allele of rs4442975 confers increased breast cancer susceptibility through reduced IGFBP5 expression.

Results

Fine-scale mapping identifies two candidate causal variants

Association analyses were performed on 1,560 2q35 SNPs (276 genotyped and 1,284 imputed at r2>0.3). Three hundred and fifty-two SNPs are associated with overall breast cancer, 327 with ER+ and none with ER− breast cancer (P values <10−4; Supplementary Data 1) in European-ancestry women. The genotyped SNP rs4442975 displays the strongest association (per-t-allele OR=0.87; 95% CI −0.86 to 0.89; P=3.9 × 10−46; Fig. 1; Table 1; Supplementary Fig. 1) and this is stronger for ER+ disease (OR=0.85; 95% CI −0.84 to 0.87; P=1.69 × 10−43) than for ER− disease (OR=0.95; 95% CI −0.91 to 0.98; P=0.0043; P heterogeneity=2.8 × 10−6; Table 1).
Figure 1

Genetic mapping and epigenetic landscape at the 2q35 locus.

Manhattan plot of the 2q35 breast cancer susceptibility locus. Genotyped (black dots) and imputed (red dots) SNPs are plotted based on their chromosomal position on the x axis and their overall P values (log10 values, likelihood ratio test) from the European BCAC studies (46,451 cases and 42,599 controls) on the y axis. The shaded region represents an area bounded by SNPs correlated with rs4442975 at r2=0.8. Data from the UCSC Genome Browser, including epigenetic marks for methylation of histone H3 at lysine 4 (H3K4me1, H3K4me3) and acetylation of H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27ac) in seven cell types from ENCODE28. The positions of all analysed iCOGS SNPs are marked. LD, using data from the BCAC population, is depicted beneath—white represents r2=0 and black r2=1.

Table 1

Association of the two most strongly associated SNPs (rs4442975 and rs6721996) and the original GWAS SNP (rs13387042) with breast cancer.

SNP Position Ref Alt EAF * OR_overall P1df_overall OR_ER- P1df_ER- OR_ER+ P1df_ER+
Europeans
rs4442975217920769GT0.490.87 (0.86–0.89)3.91E−460.95 (0.91–0.98)0.00430.85 (0.84–0.87)1.69E−43
rs6721996217909463GA0.490.87 (0.86–0.89)7.09E−450.94 (0.91–0.98)0.00280.86 (0.84–0.88)4.02E−42
rs13387042217905832AG0.510.88 (0.86–0.89)1.69E−410.96 (0.92–0.99)0.0230.86 (0.84–0.88)5.63E−40
           
Asians
rs4442975217920769GT0.130.94 (0.87–1.02)0.121.01 (0.89–1.14)0.900.93 (0.85–1.02)0.11
rs6721996217909463GA0.120.95 (0.88–1.03)0.201 (0.89–1.14)0.960.94 (0.86–1.03)0.20
rs13387042217905832AG0.120.95 (0.88–1.03)0.211.01 (0.89–1.14)0.890.94 (0.85–1.03)0.18

Alt, alternative; ER, oestrogen receptor; GWAS, genome-wide association study; OR, odds ratio; Ref, reference; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

The table displays the per-allele odds ratios for breast cancer in Europeans and Asians, and separately for ER-positive and ER-negative disease. In the Asian studies, the protective/rare alleles for these three SNPs are rarer (minor allele frequencies (MAFs)=0.13, 0.12 and 0.12, respectively) than in Europeans (MAF=0.49) but their associated relative risk estimates with overall breast cancer are consistent: per-t-allele OR (rs4442975)=0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to 1.02; P=0.12; per-a-allele OR (rs6721996)=0.95; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.03; P=0.20; and per-a-allele OR (rs13387042)=0.95; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.03; P=0.21.

*EAF, effect allele frequency (frequency of the alternative allele relative to the reference allele).

We next conducted multivariable logistic regression for both overall and ER+ breast cancer, examining each SNP with univariate P<10−4 (N=330) in an analysis adjusted for the most significant SNP rs4442975. No further variants are strongly associated with overall or ER+ disease. The second most strongly associated SNP for overall breast cancer after adjusting for rs4442975 is rs10191184 (OR=0.96; 95% CI=0.93 to 0.99; P=0.0048), consistent with the hypothesis of a single causative variant. We compared the log likelihoods from the ER+ univariate regression models for each SNP with the log likelihood for rs4442975. All SNPs except one (rs6721996), which was almost perfectly correlated with rs4442975 (r2=0.98), have log likelihoods >100 times lower than rs4442975 and hence can reasonably be excluded as being causative. The excluded variants include the original GWAS hit, rs13387042, which is strongly correlated with rs4442975 (r2=0.93) but has odds of 3300:1 against being causative (Table 1). Haplotype analyses of the five most strongly associated SNPs identified two common and one rarer haplotype (frequency 1.4%: Supplementary Table 1). The rare haplotype (1) carries the cancer-protective alleles at rs4442975 (t-allele) and rs6721996 (a-allele), but not rs13387042, and has a similar risk to haplotype 2, carrying the protective alleles at all five SNPs, which is consistent with the hypothesis of rs4442975 and/or rs6721996 being the causal variant. In Asian studies, the protective alleles for both candidate causal variants (rs4442975 and rs6721996) are rarer (minor allele frequencies (MAFs)=0.13 and 0.12, respectively) than in Europeans (MAF=0.49) but their associated relative risk estimates with overall breast cancer are consistent: per t-allele OR (rs4442975)=0.94; 95% CI −0.87 to 1.02; P=0.12 and per a-allele OR (rs6721996)=0.95; 95% CI −0.88 to 1.03; P=0.20 (Table 1).

rs4442975 resides near a putative regulatory element

We used available ENCODE chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing (ChIP-seq) data to map the candidate causal SNPs relative to transcriptional regulatory elements. SNP rs4442975 lies near a putative regulatory element (PRE) as defined by H3K4Me1 histone modifications in seven cell types from ENCODE, and H3K4Me2 in MCF7 cells (Figs 1 and 2a). This PRE also contains DNaseI-hypersensitive sites in both MCF7 and HMEC cell lines (indicative of regions of open chromatin) and binds several transcription factors (TFs) associated with oestrogen signalling3 (Fig. 2a). By contrast, the region surrounding SNP rs6721996 does not contain specific histone modifications or relevant TF binding in the cell lines analysed (Fig. 2a).
Figure 2

Allele-specific binding of FOXA1 at the rs4442975 site.

(a) Epigenetic and transcriptional landscape of the 2q35 risk interval. Coloured histogram denotes histone modification ChIP-seq data from ENCODE. Data from the UCSC Genome Browser, including epigenetic marks for H3K4me1 in seven cell types from ENCODE28, H3K4me2 from MCF7 cells4, DNaseI hypersensitivity clusters in 125 cell types from ENCODE28, and TF ChIP-seq data from MCF7 and T47D ER+ breast cancer cells, which are homozygous for the g-allele of rs4442975 and rs6721996 (ENCODE). The PRE contains SNP rs4442975. (b) Position weight matrix of FOXA1 from JASPAR, with homology to the risk (g) and cancer-protective (t) alleles of rs4442975 coloured below. (c) IGR histogram for SNP rs4442975 predicting the binding intensity of FOXA1 using a seven-nucleotide affinity model5. The top row of coloured numbers shows the number of instances for each K-mer found genome wide within H3K4me2 elements in MCF7 cells. The bottom row shows the averaged binding intensities at the K-mers (50 bp window). Control profiles, shown in grey, are generated by scrambling the probed sequence. (d) Allele-specific FOXA1 ChIP-qPCR results assessed at the rs4442975 SNP in heterozygous BT474 breast cancer cells. Error bars denote s.d. P values were determined with a two-tailed t-test. **P<0.01.

rs4442975 alters FOXA1 DNA binding

Breast cancer susceptibility loci have been shown to be enriched for FOXA1-binding sites at active regulatory elements in breast cancer cells; and the 2q35 locus contains variants predicted to modulate the affinity of FOXA1 (ref. 4). FOXA1 is a pioneer factor and master regulator of ER activity due to its ability to open local chromatin and recruit ER to target gene promoters56. SNP rs4442975 is predicted, in silico, to lie in a FOXA1-binding site with the t-allele promoting increased FOXA1 binding compared with the g-allele (Fig. 2b,c; Supplementary Fig. 2). To assess occupancy of FOXA1 in vivo, we conducted ChIP followed by allele-specific quantitative PCR (qPCR) in the heterozygous BT474 breast cancer cell line. We found that FOXA1 is indeed preferentially recruited to the t (cancer-protective) allele of candidate causal SNP rs4442975 (Fig. 2d; Supplementary Fig. 3). Of note, ChIP-seq data from ENCODE identified a second, albeit weaker, FOXA1-binding motif upstream of rs4442975 that may also influence FOXA1 recruitment (Fig. 2a). However, ChIP-qPCR did not detect FOXA1 binding in vivo to this additional site, and due to the limited availability of FOXA1-positive breast cancer cell lines with the relevant genotypes, we are unable to unequivocally discern its affinity for FOXA1. Consequently, while our results support a role for rs4442975 in modulating FOXA1-binding affinity on the site of overlap, we cannot exclude additional cis-effects typical of multi-enhancer variants7 where a rare variant, yet to be identified, would be in LD with rs4442975 and influence the recruitment of FOXA1 or other factors found in the same LD block.

rs4442975 interacts with the IGFBP5 promoter

To determine the target gene(s), we used chromatin conformation capture (3C), which revealed that the PRE containing rs4442975 frequently interacts with the IGFBP5 promoter (located 345 kb proximal) in both ER+ breast cancer cell lines (MCF7 and BT474) and in normal breast epithelial cells (MCF10A and Bre-80; Fig. 3a). No significant interactions were detected between this PRE and other flanking genes including IGFBP2, XRCC5, TNP1 and DIRC3 (Fig. 3a; Supplementary Figs 4–7). The region surrounding SNP rs6721996 did not interact with any flanking genes including the IGFBP5 promoter (Supplementary Figs 4–7). To assess any potential impact of SNP rs4442975 on this chromatin interaction, allele-specific 3C was performed in heterozygous BT474 cell lines. Sequence profiles indicate that the rs4442975 t-allele is more strongly associated with looping of this PRE to the IGFBP5 promoter than the g-allele (Fig. 3b; Supplementary Fig. 8), suggesting that the cancer-protective t-allele may increase IGFBP5 expression through preferential contact between this element and the IGFBP5 promoter.
Figure 3

Chromatin interactions at the 2q35 risk region with IGFBP5 in breast cell lines.

(a) 3C interaction profiles between the PRE (containing rs4442975) and the IGFBP5 promoter region (grey box). 3C libraries were generated with EcoRI, with the anchor point set at the PRE. A physical map of the region interrogated by 3C is shown above, with the grey bar representing the position of the IGFBP5 promoter (not to scale). Graphs represent three biological replicates assayed in duplicate. Error bars denote s.d. (b) 3C followed by sequencing for the rs4442975-containing region in heterozygous BT474 breast cancer cells shows allele-specific chromatin looping. Chromatograms represent one of the three independent 3C libraries generated and sequenced. (c) Luciferase reporter assays in breast cell lines demonstrating enhancer activity of the PRE at the 2q35 risk locus. The PRE was cloned upstream of an IGFBP5 promoter-driven luciferase reporter with and without SNP rs4442975. Cells were transiently transfected with each of these constructs and assayed for luciferase activity after 24 h. Graphs represent two independent experiments assayed in triplicate. Error bars denote s.d. P values were determined with a two-tailed t-test. ****P<0.0001.

rs4442975 influences IGFBP5 expression

The regulatory capability of the PRE, combined with the effect of SNP rs4442975, was further examined in luciferase reporter assays, using constructs containing the IGFBP5 promoter. The wild-type PRE acts as a transcriptional enhancer, leading to a 2–3 fold increase in IGFBP5 promoter activity (Fig. 3c; PRE REF-G), but inclusion of the rs4442975 t-allele has no significant effect on the PRE enhancer activity (Fig. 3c; PRE REF-T). While this appears to rule out an effect of this SNP on transactivation, it is possible that rs4442975 is influencing gene expression through other regulatory mechanisms. To assess the impact of the rs4442975 alleles on IGFBP5 expression, we measured endogenous levels of IGFBP5 mRNA in ER-positive breast cancer cell lines either homozygous (G/G) or heterozygous (G/T) for SNP rs4442975. While limited in number, the results showed that IGFBP5 mRNA was significantly increased in heterozygous cell lines (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, given the importance of FOXA1 in oestrogen–ER activity, we also measured endogenous levels of IGFBP5 mRNA in MCF7 (G/G) and BT474 (G/T) cells following oestrogen induction and found that IGFBP5 mRNA was significantly increased but only in the heterozygous BT474 cells (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Fig. 9). To evaluate allele-specific IGFBP5 expression, we identified a heterozygous variant (pos271557291) in the first intron of IGFBP5 in BT474 cells. Sequencing of the 3C product showed that the t-allele of rs4442975 is physically linked to the variant c-allele of pos271557291 (Supplementary Fig. 10). Allele-specific expression assays revealed that the c-allele of variant pos271557291 is preferentially expressed, supporting our conclusion that the protective t-allele of rs4442975 is associated with an increase in IGFBP5 expression (Fig. 4c; Supplementary Fig. 11).
Figure 4

IGFBP5 expression in breast cancer cell lines and normal breast tissue.

(a) Endogenous IGFBP5 expression measured by qPCR in untreated ER+ human breast cancer cell lines and (b) oestrogen-stimulated breast cancer cell lines. Graphs represent three independent experiments. Error bars denote s.e.m. P values were determined by a two-tailed t-test. ****P<0.0001. (c) Allele-specific IGFBP5 expression measured by allelic amplification of intronic marker variant pos271557291. Chromatograms represent one of the three independent experiments performed and sequenced.

Gene expression analyses in breast tissue

Finally, we examined the associations of rs4442975 with expression levels of genes within 1 Mb of the SNPs, in 123 normal breast tissue samples and 254 breast tumour samples in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Study (NBCS), and additionally in 135 normal breast tissue samples from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) study. In normal breast tissue from NBCS, SNP rs4442975 is associated with expression levels of the IGFBP5 probe, A_23_P154115 (P=0.045), and similarly in METABRIC with the IGFBP5 probe, ilmn_1750324 (P=0.026; Supplementary Table 2), but there are no associations with other IGFBP5 probes used in these studies. In both studies, the protective t-allele of rs4442975 was associated with slightly increased IGFBP5 levels (Supplementary Fig. 12). However, for each tested IGFBP5 probe there are other more strongly expression-associated SNPs (eSNPs) at this locus, none of which are significantly correlated with the breast cancer risk candidate SNP, rs4442975 (r2<0.001; Supplementary Table 2). No significant associations were observed between rs4442975 and expression of any other genes in NBCS normal breast tissues or breast tumours, nor in METABRIC normal breast samples (Supplementary Table 3).

Discussion

In this study, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis of all known common variants within a 210-kb interval of the original 2q35 locus. We identified one independent set of correlated, highly trait-associated variants (iCHAV)8 for ER-positive breast cancer. Our data are consistent with a single disease-associated variant, with no evidence for further SNPs being associated with breast cancer risk after adjustment for the candidate causal SNP, rs4442975. However, we recently identified another iCHAV for breast cancer >300 Kb telomeric to rs4442975 (ref. 9). These two iCHAVs are separated by several recombination hotspots, and their tagging SNPs are uncorrelated (r2=0.002). This observation fits the general pattern that multiple independent cancer susceptibility variants fall within GWAS-identified loci710, and raises the possibility that both associations are mediated through the same target gene. Our allele-specific 3C and expression analyses provided evidence that rs4442975 contributes to changes in IGFBP5 expression. Although not robustly supported by our expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) studies, two independent data sets showed that the protective t-allele of rs4442975 was associated with slightly increased IGFBP5 levels, which is consistent with our functional results. However, we also identified other eSNPs in the region that are more strongly associated with IGFBP5 expression in normal breast tissue, but do not drive breast cancer risk. This situation is not dissimilar to other loci we have studied, where we have not found that the causal risk SNPs are strong eQTLs for the gene they regulate111213. This disparity may at least partly be explained by the fact that eSNPs are acting in multiple tissues, but risk-associated SNPs may only act in one specific cell type. Given that normal breast tissue is so heterogeneous, any eQTL effect that is specific to one cell type (such as stem cells) is going to be significantly diluted. In addition, eQTLs are very context dependent, so might only be expressed in breast tissue under particular stimuli or stages of development. It is also possible that the relevant cells for the analysis are luminal progenitor cells in adolescence, when the human breast seems susceptible to environmental and hormonal influences, but we have no access to data from them. The best understood activity of the IGFBPs is sequestration of extracellular IGFs to control their growth-promoting actions. IGFBP5, which is expressed in both normal and cancer tissues, is a key member of this IGF axis—regulating cellular growth, differentiation and apoptosis1415, but IGF-independent actions of IGFBP5 have also been demonstrated in various cell types1617. The roles of IGFBP5 in human breast cancer are complex and there are many contradictory findings: some lines of evidence suggest that IGFBP5 acts as an inhibitor of tumour growth. For example, Butt et al.18 reported that increased expression of IGFBP5 inhibits human breast cancer cell growth. Consistent with a pro-apoptotic effect, transgenic mice, expressing IGFBP5 in mammary gland, have impaired mammary development and increased apoptotic cell death19. Other evidence indicates, conversely, that IGFBP5 has anti-apoptotic and tumour-promoting actions; Perks et al.20 reported that exogenous IGFBP5 inhibits apoptosis of breast cancer cells in vitro. Very low IGFBP5 expression has been detected in benign breast epithelium with high expression levels in adjacent breast tumour tissue2122. We propose that the g-allele of SNP rs4442975 (associated with increased risk) reduces FOXA1 binding and hence results in reduced chromatin accessibility, cofactor recruitment and long-range chromatin interactions. Taken together, all these lines of evidence point to increased breast cancer risk, associated with the rs4442975 g-allele, being mediated through reduced IGFBP5 expression. The IGF axis is already an important therapeutic target in other human cancers23, and our findings suggest further studies on IGFBP5 and breast cancer prevention may be merited.

Methods

Study populations and genotyping

Epidemiological data were obtained from 50 breast cancer case-control studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium; these comprised 41 studies from populations of European ancestry and 9 studies from populations of East Asian ancestry9. Genotyping was conducted using the iCOGS array, a custom array comprising ~200,000 SNPs. Details of the participating studies, genotyping calling and quality control are given elsewhere9. After quality control exclusions, we analysed data from 46,451 cases and 42,599 controls of European ancestry and 6,269 cases and 6,624 controls of Asian ancestry. ER status of the primary tumour was available for 34,539 European and 4,972 Asian cases; of these 7465 (22%) European and 1610 (32%) Asian cases were ER negative9.

SNP selection and genetic mapping

We first defined a mapping interval of 210,596 bp (positions 217, 732, 119–217, 942, 715; NCBI build 37 assembly) based on the LD block that included rs13387042 in Hapmap (CEU). We catalogued 1,578 variants in the region using the 1000 Genomes Project (March 2010 Pilot version 60 CEU project data), of which 751 variants had a MAF >2%. Of these, we selected all SNPs correlated with the rs13387042 at r2>0.1 (N=150), plus a set of SNPs designed to tag all remaining SNPs with r2>0.9 (N=137). All but 11 SNPs passed a designability score (DS) provided by Illumina (DS>0.9) and were included on the iCOGS array. The 276 SNPs included on the array all passed quality control and were included in this analysis. The genotype data were then used to impute genotypes at all additional known SNPs in the interval using IMPUTE version 2.0 and the 1000 Genome Project data (March 2012 version) as a reference panel. One thousand two hundred and eighty-four variants were successfully imputed, with imputation r2>0.3 in Europeans.

Statistical analysis

Per-allele ORs and s.e. were estimated for each SNP using logistic regression, separately for subjects of European and Asian ancestry, and separately for overall, ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. The association between each SNP and breast cancer risk was tested using a one-degree-of-freedom trend test adjusted for study and seven principal components. The statistical significance of each SNP was derived using a Wald test. To evaluate evidence for multiple association signals, we performed conditional analyses, in which the association for each SNP was re-evaluated after including other associated SNPs in the model. SNPs with a P value <10−4 and MAF >2% in the single SNP analysis were included in this analysis9. Differences in the OR between ER-positive and ER-negative disease were assessed using a case-only analysis, with ER status as the dependent variable. Haplotype-specific ORs and confidence limits were estimated using haplo.stats24.

Cell lines and treatments

Breast cancer cell lines MCF7 (ER+; ATCC #HTB22), T47D (ER+; ATCC #HTB-133), ZR751 (ER+; ATCC #CRL-1500), MDAMB415 (ER+; ATCC #HTB-128) and BT474 (ER+; ATCC #HTB20) were grown in RPMI medium with 10% fetal calf serum and antibiotics. MDAMB361 (ER+; kindly provided by Sunil Lakhani, UQCCR, Brisbane) were grown in DMEM with 20% fetal calf serum and antibiotics. Normal breast epithelial cell lines MCF10A (ATCC #CRL 10317) and Bre-80 (kindly provided by Roger Reddel, CMRI, Sydney) were grown in DMEM/F12 medium with 5% horse serum, 10 μg ml−1 insulin, 0.5 μg ml−1 hydrocortisone, 20 ng ml−1 epidermal growth factor and 100 ng ml−1 cholera toxin and antibiotics. For oestrogen induction, 24 h after plating MCF7 or BT474 cells into 24-well plates, medium was replaced with that containing 10 nM fulvestrant. Cells were incubated for 48 h and then fresh medium containing either 10 nM oestrogen or DMSO (dimethylsulphoxide; as vehicle control) was added25. All cell lines were maintained under standard conditions, routinely tested for Mycoplasma and identity profiled with short tandem repeat markers.

Chromatin conformation capture (3C)

Breast cancer cell lines were grown to 80% confluence, then crosslinked with 1% formaldehyde at 37 °C for 10 min, quenched with ice-cold 125 mM glycine and collected by cell scraping. Cells were then washed twice in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), lysed for 30 min on ice in 10 ml lysis buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 10 mM NaCl, 0.2% Igepal, 1 × protease inhibitor cocktail) and homogenized with 15 strokes in a Dounce homogenizer. Nuclei were then pelleted for 10 min (800g at 4 °C), washed in PBS and resuspended in 1 ml 1.2 × EcoRI restriction buffer and 0.3% SDS for 1 h at 37 °C with shaking. Triton X-100 (2%) was added to sequester SDS, and then each tube was digested with 1,500 U EcoRI for 24 h at 37 °C with shaking. One aliquot of digested cells was set aside to assess restriction enzyme efficiency by real-time PCR (qPCR), the rest was ligated with 4,000 U of T4 DNA ligase for 4 h at 16 °C. Crosslinks were reversed by proteinase K digestion overnight, and then the 3C DNA template was purified by phenol–chloroform extraction followed by four rounds of ethanol precipitation. The final DNA pellet was dissolved in 10 mM Tris (pH 7.5) overnight at 4 °C, purified through Amicon Ultra 0.5 ml columns (EMD Millipore) and quantitated by qPCR. 3C interactions were quantitated by qPCR using primers designed within EcoRI restriction fragments (Supplementary Table 4). All qPCRs were performed on a RotorGene 6000 using MyTaq HS DNA polymerase with the addition of 5 mM of Syto9, annealing temperature of 66 °C and extension of 30 s. 3C analyses were performed in three independent experiments with each experiment quantified in duplicate. BAC clones (RP11-96E20, RP11-944D16, RP11-14F16, RP11-639B13, RP11-43F9, RP11-22K2) covering the 2q35 region were used to create artificial libraries of ligation products to normalize for PCR efficiency. Data were normalized to the signal from the BAC clone library and, between cell lines, by reference to a region within GAPDH. All qPCR products were electrophoresed on 2% agarose gels, gel purified and sequenced to verify the 3C product.

Plasmid construction and luciferase assays

The IGFBP5 promoter-driven luciferase reporter construct was generated by inserting a 1,071-bp fragment containing the IGFBP5 promoter into the KpnI and XhoI sites of pGL3-basic. To assist cloning, AgeI and SbfI sites were inserted into the BamHI and SalI sites downstream of luciferase. A 1,296-bp fragment containing the PRE was inserted into the AgeI and SbfI sites downstream of luciferase. SNP rs4442975 was incorporated into the PRE using overlap extension PCR. All constructs were sequenced to confirm variant incorporation (AGRF, Australia). Primers used to generate all constructs are listed in Supplementary Table 4. MCF7, BT474, MCF10A and Bre-80 breast cells were transfected with equimolar amounts of luciferase reporter plasmids and 50 ng of pRLTK using Lipofectamine 2000. The total amount of transfected DNA was kept constant per experiment by adding carrier plasmid (pUC19). Luciferase activity was measured 24 h post transfection using the Dual-Glo Luciferase Assay System on a Beckman-Coulter DTX-880 plate reader. To correct for any differences in transfection efficiency or cell lysate preparation, Firefly luciferase activity was normalized to Renilla luciferase. The activity of each test construct was calculated relative to IGFBP5 promoter construct, the activity of which was arbitrarily defined as 1.

Intragenomic replicates

Intragenomic replicates (IGR) predicts the modulation in affinity produced by a SNP at a TF-binding site4. The affinity of a TF for a particular DNA sequence of length K (K-mer) is obtained by averaging binding data across a ChIP-seq data set for that TF. IGR accounts for displacement effects by computing affinity models over a sliding window of K-mers around the SNP of interest. Through this process, the collection of affinity models for increasing values of K is placed in a lattice structure that connects K-mers, which are 1 bp apart. Two lattices are constructed, one for each of the variants alleles. The maxima among the affinity models in the lattices is used to calculate the IGR score. T-tests are used to assess the statistical significance of the affinity modulation between the two K-mers with the maximum affinities.

Allele-specific ChIP-qPCR

Breast cancer cell lines were grown to 95% confluence, crosslinked with 1% formaldehyde at 37 °C for 10 min, cells were rinsed with ice-cold PBS plus 5% bovine serum albumin and then with PBS and collected with PBS plus 1 × protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Indianapolis, IN). Collected cells were centrifuged for 2 min at 3,000 r.p.m. Cell pellet was then resuspended in 0.35 ml of lysis buffer (1% SDS, 10 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.1, 1 × protease inhibitor cocktail) and sonicated 20 times in 30 s on 30 s off cycles at the maximum setting (Diagenode Biorupter 300) followed by centrifugation at maximum speed for 15 min. Supernatants were collected and diluted in dilution buffer (1% Triton X-100, 2 mM EDTA, 150 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.1). Four micrograms of FOXA1 antibody (Acris, AP16139PU-N) was prebound for 6 h to protein A and protein G Dynal magnetic beads (Dynal Biotech, Norway) and washed three times with ice-cold PBS plus 5% bovine serum albumin and then added to the diluted chromatin for overnight immunoprecipitation. The magnetic bead–chromatin complexes were collected and washed six times in RIPA buffer (50 mM HEPES (pH 7.6), 1 mM EDTA, 0.7% Na deoxycholate, 1% NP-40, 0.5 M LiCl), then washed twice with Tris-EDTA buffer. To reverse the formaldehyde crosslinking, decrosslinking buffer (1% SDS, 0.1 M NaHCO3) was added to the complexes overnight at 65 °C. DNA fragments were purified with a QIAquick Spin Kit (Qiagen, CA). For PCR, 2.5 μl from a 125-μl immunoprecipitated chromatin extraction and 250-μl input extraction, and 40 cycles of amplification were used. To assess differential FOXA1 binding at the heterozygous alleles, the MAMA (Mismatch Amplification Mutation Assays) PCR-based technique was used26. Reverse MAMA primers specific to each allele were designed with one mismatched nucleotide at the 3′ end26. The primers are listed in Supplementary Table 4.

Gene expression analysis

MCF7 and BT474 total RNA was extracted using Trizol (Life Technologies) from untreated, oestrogen (10 nM)- or vehicle (DMSO)-treated cells. Residual DNA contaminants were removed by DNAse treatment (Ambion) and complementary DNA was synthesized using random primers as per manufacturers’ instructions (Life Technologies). All qPCRs were performed on a RotorGene 6000 (Corbett Research) with TaqMan Gene Expression assays (Hs00181213_m1 for IGFBP5 and Hs00907239_m1 for TFF1) and TaqMan Universal PCR master mix. All reactions were normalized against B-glucuronidase (MIM 611499; Catalogue No. 4326320E). For in vivo allele-specific gene expression, a primer outside of the rs4442975 SNP and its closest EcoRI restriction enzyme site and a primer outside of the SNP pos271557291 and its closest EcoRI site were first used to PCR amplify the EcoRI 3C product from BT474 cells. PCR-amplified products were cloned into pBLUNT empty vector (Life Technologies), then sequenced using the Sanger sequencing, which revealed the linkage between the two alleles (Supplementary Fig. 10). BT474 genomic DNA was extracted using Qiagen DNeasy blood and tissue kit. BT474 total nuclear RNA was extracted using Trizol and cDNA synthesized using a gene-specific primer. PCR-amplified sequences from BT474 genomic DNA or cDNA were gel purified (Qiagen) and Sanger sequenced to measure the DNA and RNA levels of each allele. All experiments were conducted in biological triplicates and qPCR reactions as technical duplicates. The primers are listed in Supplementary Table 4.

eQTL analysis

eQTL analyses were conducted in two studies: 123 normal breast tissue and 254 breast tumours from women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Study (NBCS); all women were of Caucasian origin. The 123 normal breast tissue is a cohort of expression data from normal breasts biopsy (n=74), reduction plastic surgery (n=37) and adjacent normal (n=12) (adjacent to tumour). Correlations between the two most likely causative SNPs (rs4442975 and rs6721996) and expression levels of nearby genes (500 kb upstream and downstream of the SNPs) were assessed using a linear regression model in which an additive effect on expression level was assumed for each copy of the rare allele. Calculations were carried out using the eMap library in R ( www.bios.unc.edu/~weisun/software/eMap). The second eQTL analysis was based on 135 adjacent normal breast samples from women of Caucasian origin in the METABRIC study27. Matched gene expression (Illumina HT-12 v3 microarray) and germline SNP data that were either genotyped (Affymetrix SNP 6.0) or imputed (1000 Genomes Project, March 2012 data using IMPUTE version 2.0) were used. Statistical methods were identical to the NBCS analysis.

Additional information

How to cite this article: Ghoussaini, M. et al. Evidence that breast cancer risk at the 2q35 locus is mediated through IGFBP5 regulation. Nat. Commun. 5:4999 doi: 10.1038/ncomms5999 (2014).

Supplementary Figures and Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Figures 1-12 and Supplementary Tables 1-4

Supplementary Data 1

Strongest Associated SNPs (N=352, p<10-4) overall breast cancer from 41 European BCAC studies (n= 89,050).
  28 in total

1.  Score tests for association between traits and haplotypes when linkage phase is ambiguous.

Authors:  Daniel J Schaid; Charles M Rowland; David E Tines; Robert M Jacobson; Gregory A Poland
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2001-12-27       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4.

Authors:  Lisa Ann Cirillo; Frank Robert Lin; Isabel Cuesta; Dara Friedman; Michal Jarnik; Kenneth S Zaret
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 17.970

3.  Common variants on chromosomes 2q35 and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Simon N Stacey; Andrei Manolescu; Patrick Sulem; Thorunn Rafnar; Julius Gudmundsson; Sigurjon A Gudjonsson; Gisli Masson; Margret Jakobsdottir; Steinunn Thorlacius; Agnar Helgason; Katja K Aben; Luc J Strobbe; Marjo T Albers-Akkers; Dorine W Swinkels; Brian E Henderson; Laurence N Kolonel; Loic Le Marchand; Esther Millastre; Raquel Andres; Javier Godino; Maria Dolores Garcia-Prats; Eduardo Polo; Alejandro Tres; Magali Mouy; Jona Saemundsdottir; Valgerdur M Backman; Larus Gudmundsson; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Jon T Bergthorsson; Jelena Kostic; Michael L Frigge; Frank Geller; Daniel Gudbjartsson; Helgi Sigurdsson; Thora Jonsdottir; Jon Hrafnkelsson; Jakob Johannsson; Thorarinn Sveinsson; Gardar Myrdal; Hlynur Niels Grimsson; Thorvaldur Jonsson; Susanna von Holst; Barbro Werelius; Sara Margolin; Annika Lindblom; Jose I Mayordomo; Christopher A Haiman; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Oskar Th Johannsson; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2007-05-27       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Differential IGF-independent effects of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (1-6) on apoptosis of breast epithelial cells.

Authors:  C M Perks; S Bowen; Z P Gill; P V Newcomb; J M Holly
Journal:  J Cell Biochem       Date:  1999-12-15       Impact factor: 4.429

Review 5.  Targeting IGF-1 signaling pathways in gynecologic malignancies.

Authors:  Ilan Bruchim; Haim Werner
Journal:  Expert Opin Ther Targets       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 6.902

6.  Estrogen-induced activation of Cdk4 and Cdk2 during G1-S phase progression is accompanied by increased cyclin D1 expression and decreased cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor association with cyclin E-Cdk2.

Authors:  O W Prall; B Sarcevic; E A Musgrove; C K Watts; R L Sutherland
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1997-04-18       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-5 inhibits the growth of human breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Alison J Butt; Kristie A Dickson; Fiona McDougall; Robert C Baxter
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2003-05-30       Impact factor: 5.157

8.  In vivo regulation of the insulin-like growth factor system of mitogens by human chorionic gonadotropin.

Authors:  H Huynh
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.650

9.  IGF-independent effects of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-5 (Igfbp5) in vivo.

Authors:  Gyanendra Tripathi; Dervis A M Salih; Anja C Drozd; Ruth A Cosgrove; Laura J Cobb; Jennifer M Pell
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2009-03-30       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Functional variants at the 11q13 risk locus for breast cancer regulate cyclin D1 expression through long-range enhancers.

Authors:  Juliet D French; Maya Ghoussaini; Stacey L Edwards; Kerstin B Meyer; Kyriaki Michailidou; Shahana Ahmed; Sofia Khan; Mel J Maranian; Martin O'Reilly; Kristine M Hillman; Joshua A Betts; Thomas Carroll; Peter J Bailey; Ed Dicks; Jonathan Beesley; Jonathan Tyrer; Ana-Teresa Maia; Andrew Beck; Nicholas W Knoblauch; Constance Chen; Peter Kraft; Daniel Barnes; Anna González-Neira; M Rosario Alonso; Daniel Herrero; Daniel C Tessier; Daniel Vincent; Francois Bacot; Craig Luccarini; Caroline Baynes; Don Conroy; Joe Dennis; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Senno Verhoef; Sten Cornelissen; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Sarah Stewart-Brown; Pornthep Siriwanarangsan; Peter A Fasching; Christian R Loehberg; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Julian Peto; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Nichola Johnson; Zoe Aitken; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Michael J Kerin; Nicola Miller; Frederik Marme; Andreas Schneeweiss; Christof Sohn; Barbara Burwinkel; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Florence Menegaux; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Henrik Flyger; Roger L Milne; M Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias Perez; Javier Benitez; Hoda Anton-Culver; Hermann Brenner; Heiko Müller; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Alfons Meindl; Peter Lichtner; Rita K Schmutzler; Christoph Engel; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Christina Justenhoven; Kirsimari Aaltonen; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Hiroji Iwata; Aiko Sueta; Natalia V Bogdanova; Natalia N Antonenkova; Thilo Dörk; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Vesa Kataja; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jaana M Hartikainen; Anna H Wu; Chiu-chen Tseng; David Van Den Berg; Daniel O Stram; Diether Lambrechts; Stephanie Peeters; Ann Smeets; Giuseppe Floris; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Stefan Nickels; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Bernardo Bonanni; Domenico Sardella; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vernon S Pankratz; Adam Lee; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Laura Baglietto; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Fredrick Schumacher; Loic Le Marchand; Jacques Simard; Mark S Goldberg; France Labrèche; Martine Dumont; Soo Hwang Teo; Cheng Har Yip; Char-Hong Ng; Eranga Nishanthie Vithana; Vessela Kristensen; Wei Zheng; Sandra Deming-Halverson; Martha Shrubsole; Jirong Long; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Mervi Grip; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Gord Glendon; Anna Marie Mulligan; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; Montserrat García-Closas; Jonine Figueroa; Stephen J Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Kamila Czene; Daniel Klevebring; Nils Schoof; Maartje J Hooning; John W M Martens; J Margriet Collée; Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Per Hall; Jingmei Li; Jianjun Liu; Keith Humphreys; Xiao-Ou Shu; Wei Lu; Yu-Tang Gao; Hui Cai; Angela Cox; Sabapathy P Balasubramanian; William Blot; Lisa B Signorello; Qiuyin Cai; Paul D P Pharoah; Catherine S Healey; Mitul Shah; Karen A Pooley; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Jen-Hwei Sng; Xueling Sim; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Katarzyna Durda; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; James McKay; Amanda E Toland; Christine B Ambrosone; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Andrew K Godwin; Chen-Yang Shen; Chia-Ni Hsiung; Pei-Ei Wu; Shou-Tung Chen; Anthony Swerdlow; Alan Ashworth; Nick Orr; Minouk J Schoemaker; Bruce A J Ponder; Heli Nevanlinna; Melissa A Brown; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Alison M Dunning
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  67 in total

1.  Long Noncoding RNAs CUPID1 and CUPID2 Mediate Breast Cancer Risk at 11q13 by Modulating the Response to DNA Damage.

Authors:  Joshua A Betts; Mahdi Moradi Marjaneh; Fares Al-Ejeh; Yi Chieh Lim; Wei Shi; Haran Sivakumaran; Romain Tropée; Ann-Marie Patch; Michael B Clark; Nenad Bartonicek; Adrian P Wiegmans; Kristine M Hillman; Susanne Kaufmann; Amanda L Bain; Brian S Gloss; Joanna Crawford; Stephen Kazakoff; Shivangi Wani; Shu W Wen; Bryan Day; Andreas Möller; Nicole Cloonan; John Pearson; Melissa A Brown; Timothy R Mercer; Nicola Waddell; Kum Kum Khanna; Eloise Dray; Marcel E Dinger; Stacey L Edwards; Juliet D French
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  IGFBP-2 and -5: important regulators of normal and neoplastic mammary gland physiology.

Authors:  James Beattie; Yousef Hawsawi; Hanaa Alkharobi; Reem El-Gendy
Journal:  J Cell Commun Signal       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 5.782

Review 3.  Postpartum Involution and Cancer: An Opportunity for Targeted Breast Cancer Prevention and Treatments?

Authors:  Virginia F Borges; Traci R Lyons; Doris Germain; Pepper Schedin
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Identifying high-confidence capture Hi-C interactions using CHiCANE.

Authors:  Erle M Holgersen; Andrea Gillespie; Olivia C Leavy; Joseph S Baxter; Alisa Zvereva; Gareth Muirhead; Nichola Johnson; Orsolya Sipos; Nicola H Dryden; Laura R Broome; Yi Chen; Igor Kozin; Frank Dudbridge; Olivia Fletcher; Syed Haider
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 13.491

5.  An intergenic risk locus containing an enhancer deletion in 2q35 modulates breast cancer risk by deregulating IGFBP5 expression.

Authors:  Asaf Wyszynski; Chi-Chen Hong; Kristin Lam; Kyriaki Michailidou; Christian Lytle; Song Yao; Yali Zhang; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Julian Peto; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Barbara Burwinkel; Frederik Marme; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Anna González-Neira; Javier Benitez; Susan L Neuhausen; Hermann Brenner; Aida Karina Dieffenbach; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Hiltrud Brauch; Heli Nevanlinna; Sofia Khan; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Thilo Dörk; Natalia V Bogdanova; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Anna H Wu; David Van Den Berg; Diether Lambrechts; Hans Wildiers; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Martine Dumont; Soo Hwang Teo; Tien Y Wong; Vessela Kristensen; Wei Zheng; Jirong Long; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; Montserrat García-Closas; Jonine Figueroa; Daniel Klevebring; Kamila Czene; Maartje J Hooning; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Hatef Darabi; Xiao-Ou Shu; Yu-Tang Gao; Angela Cox; William Blot; Lisa B Signorello; Mitul Shah; Daehee Kang; Ji-Yeob Choi; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Ute Hamann; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; James McKay; Amanda E Toland; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Anthony Swerdlow; Nick Orr; Jacques Simard; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Per Hall; Elisa Bandera; Chris Amos; Christine Ambrosone; Douglas F Easton; Michael D Cole
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 6.150

6.  Breast cancer risk variants at 6q25 display different phenotype associations and regulate ESR1, RMND1 and CCDC170.

Authors:  Alison M Dunning; Kyriaki Michailidou; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Deborah Thompson; Juliet D French; Jonathan Beesley; Catherine S Healey; Siddhartha Kar; Karen A Pooley; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Ed Dicks; Daniel Barrowdale; Nicholas A Sinnott-Armstrong; Richard C Sallari; Kristine M Hillman; Susanne Kaufmann; Haran Sivakumaran; Mahdi Moradi Marjaneh; Jason S Lee; Margaret Hills; Monika Jarosz; Suzie Drury; Sander Canisius; Manjeet K Bolla; Joe Dennis; Qin Wang; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Annegien Broeks; Marjanka K Schmidt; Artitaya Lophatananon; Kenneth Muir; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Julian Peto; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Barbara Burwinkel; Frederik Marme; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Stig E Bojesen; Henrik Flyger; Anna González-Neira; Jose I A Perez; Hoda Anton-Culver; Lee Eunjung; Volker Arndt; Hermann Brenner; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Hidemi Ito; Keitaro Matsuo; Natasha Bogdanova; Thilo Dörk; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Veli-Matti Kosma; Arto Mannermaa; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Anna H Wu; Diether Lambrechts; Hans Wildiers; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Paolo Peterlongo; Paolo Radice; Janet E Olson; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Mark S Goldberg; Soo H Teo; Cheng Har Yip; Silje Nord; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Vessela Kristensen; Jirong Long; Wei Zheng; Katri Pylkäs; Robert Winqvist; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; Jonine Figueroa; Mark E Sherman; Kamila Czene; Hatef Darabi; Antoinette Hollestelle; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Keith Humphreys; Yu-Tang Gao; Xiao-Ou Shu; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; William Blot; Qiuyin Cai; Maya Ghoussaini; Barbara J Perkins; Mitul Shah; Ji-Yeob Choi; Daehee Kang; Soo Chin Lee; Mikael Hartman; Maria Kabisch; Diana Torres; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Christine B Ambrosone; Amanda E Toland; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Nick Orr; Anthony Swerdlow; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Andrew Lee; Miroslav Kapuscinski; Esther M John; Mary Beth Terry; Mary B Daly; David E Goldgar; Saundra S Buys; Ramunas Janavicius; Laima Tihomirova; Nadine Tung; Cecilia M Dorfling; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Susan L Neuhausen; Bent Ejlertsen; Thomas V O Hansen; Ana Osorio; Javier Benitez; Rachel Rando; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Bernardo Bonanni; Bernard Peissel; Siranoush Manoukian; Laura Papi; Laura Ottini; Irene Konstantopoulou; Paraskevi Apostolou; Judy Garber; Muhammad Usman Rashid; Debra Frost; Louise Izatt; Steve Ellis; Andrew K Godwin; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Kerstin Rhiem; Nadja Bogdanova-Markov; Charlotte Sagne; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Francesca Damiola; Olga M Sinilnikova; Sylvie Mazoyer; Claudine Isaacs; Kathleen B M Claes; Kim De Leeneer; Miguel de la Hoya; Trinidad Caldes; Heli Nevanlinna; Sofia Khan; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Maartje J Hooning; Matti A Rookus; Ava Kwong; Edith Olah; Orland Diez; Joan Brunet; Miquel Angel Pujana; Jacek Gronwald; Tomasz Huzarski; Rosa B Barkardottir; Rachel Laframboise; Penny Soucy; Marco Montagna; Simona Agata; Manuel R Teixeira; Sue Kyung Park; Noralane Lindor; Fergus J Couch; Marc Tischkowitz; Lenka Foretova; Joseph Vijai; Kenneth Offit; Christian F Singer; Christine Rappaport; Catherine M Phelan; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai; Gad Rennert; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Peter J Hulick; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Marion Piedmonte; Anna Marie Mulligan; Gord Glendon; Anders Bojesen; Mads Thomassen; Maria A Caligo; Sook-Yee Yoon; Eitan Friedman; Yael Laitman; Ake Borg; Anna von Wachenfeldt; Hans Ehrencrona; Johanna Rantala; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Patricia A Ganz; Robert L Nussbaum; Simon A Gayther; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek; Banu K Arun; Gillian Mitchell; Beth Y Karlan; Jenny Lester; Gertraud Maskarinec; Christy Woolcott; Christopher Scott; Jennifer Stone; Carmel Apicella; Rulla Tamimi; Robert Luben; Kay-Tee Khaw; Åslaug Helland; Vilde Haakensen; Mitch Dowsett; Paul D P Pharoah; Jacques Simard; Per Hall; Montserrat García-Closas; Celine Vachon; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton; Stacey L Edwards
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Association between breast cancer genetic susceptibility variants and terminal duct lobular unit involution of the breast.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Jonine D Figueroa; Clara Bodelon; Hannah Oh; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Maya Palakal; Mark E Sherman; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Berta Geller; Pamela Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael Chicoine; Daphne Papathomas; Jackie Xiang; Deesha A Patel; Zeina G Khodr; Laura Linville; Susan E Clare; Daniel W Visscher; Carolyn Mies; Stephen M Hewitt; Louise A Brinton; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Chunyan He; Stephen J Chanock
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 8.  The Post-GWAS Era: From Association to Function.

Authors:  Michael D Gallagher; Alice S Chen-Plotkin
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  A Comprehensive cis-eQTL Analysis Revealed Target Genes in Breast Cancer Susceptibility Loci Identified in Genome-wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Xingyi Guo; Weiqiang Lin; Jiandong Bao; Qiuyin Cai; Xiao Pan; Mengqiu Bai; Yuan Yuan; Jiajun Shi; Yaqiong Sun; Mi-Ryung Han; Jing Wang; Qi Liu; Wanqing Wen; Bingshan Li; Jirong Long; Jianghua Chen; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Long-Range Modulation of PAG1 Expression by 8q21 Allergy Risk Variants.

Authors:  Cristina T Vicente; Stacey L Edwards; Kristine M Hillman; Susanne Kaufmann; Hayley Mitchell; Lisa Bain; Dylan M Glubb; Jason S Lee; Juliet D French; Manuel A R Ferreira
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.