| Literature DB >> 29460995 |
Mara Colombo1, Irene Lòpez-Perolio2, Huong D Meeks3, Laura Caleca1, Michael T Parsons4, Hongyan Li3, Giovanna De Vecchi1, Emma Tudini4, Claudia Foglia1, Patrizia Mondini1, Siranoush Manoukian5, Raquel Behar2, Encarna B Gómez Garcia6, Alfons Meindl7, Marco Montagna8, Dieter Niederacher9, Ane Y Schmidt10, Liliana Varesco11, Barbara Wappenschmidt12,13, Manjeet K Bolla14, Joe Dennis14, Kyriaki Michailidou14,15, Qin Wang14, Kristiina Aittomäki16, Irene L Andrulis17,18, Hoda Anton-Culver19, Volker Arndt20, Matthias W Beckmann21, Alicia Beeghly-Fadel22, Javier Benitez23,24, Bram Boeckx25,26, Natalia V Bogdanova27,28,29, Stig E Bojesen30,31,32, Bernardo Bonanni33, Hiltrud Brauch34,35,36, Hermann Brenner20,36,37, Barbara Burwinkel38,39, Jenny Chang-Claude40,41, Don M Conroy42, Fergus J Couch43, Angela Cox44, Simon S Cross45, Kamila Czene46, Peter Devilee47,48, Thilo Dörk28, Mikael Eriksson46, Peter A Fasching21,49, Jonine Figueroa50,51, Olivia Fletcher52, Henrik Flyger53, Marike Gabrielson46, Montserrat García-Closas51, Graham G Giles54,55, Anna González-Neira23, Pascal Guénel56, Christopher A Haiman57, Per Hall46, Ute Hamann58, Mikael Hartman59,60, Jan Hauke12,13,61, Antoinette Hollestelle62, John L Hopper55, Anna Jakubowska63, Audrey Jung40, Veli-Matti Kosma64,65,66, Diether Lambrechts25,26, Loid Le Marchand67, Annika Lindblom68, Jan Lubinski63, Arto Mannermaa64,65,66, Sara Margolin69, Hui Miao59, Roger L Milne54,55, Susan L Neuhausen70, Heli Nevanlinna71, Janet E Olson72, Paolo Peterlongo73, Julian Peto74, Katri Pylkäs75,76, Elinor J Sawyer77, Marjanka K Schmidt78,79, Rita K Schmutzler12,13,61, Andreas Schneeweiss38,80, Minouk J Schoemaker81, Mee Hoong See82, Melissa C Southey83, Anthony Swerdlow81,84, Soo H Teo82,85, Amanda E Toland86, Ian Tomlinson87, Thérèse Truong56, Christi J van Asperen88, Ans M W van den Ouweland89, Lizet E van der Kolk90, Robert Winqvist75,76, Drakoulis Yannoukakos91, Wei Zheng22, Alison M Dunning42, Douglas F Easton14,42, Alex Henderson92, Frans B L Hogervorst90, Louise Izatt93, Kenneth Offitt94, Lucy E Side95, Elizabeth J van Rensburg96, Study Embrace97, Study Hebon98, Lesley McGuffog14, Antonis C Antoniou14, Georgia Chenevix-Trench4, Amanda B Spurdle4, David E Goldgar3, Miguel de la Hoya2, Paolo Radice1.
Abstract
Although the spliceogenic nature of the BRCA2 c.68-7T > A variant has been demonstrated, its association with cancer risk remains controversial. In this study, we accurately quantified by real-time PCR and digital PCR (dPCR), the BRCA2 isoforms retaining or missing exon 3. In addition, the combined odds ratio for causality of the variant was estimated using genetic and clinical data, and its associated cancer risk was estimated by case-control analysis in 83,636 individuals. Co-occurrence in trans with pathogenic BRCA2 variants was assessed in 5,382 families. Exon 3 exclusion rate was 4.5-fold higher in variant carriers (13%) than controls (3%), indicating an exclusion rate for the c.68-7T > A allele of approximately 20%. The posterior probability of pathogenicity was 7.44 × 10-115 . There was neither evidence for increased risk of breast cancer (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.86-1.24) nor for a deleterious effect of the variant when co-occurring with pathogenic variants. Our data provide for the first time robust evidence of the nonpathogenicity of the BRCA2 c.68-7T > A. Genetic and quantitative transcript analyses together inform the threshold for the ratio between functional and altered BRCA2 isoforms compatible with normal cell function. These findings might be exploited to assess the relevance for cancer risk of other BRCA2 spliceogenic variants.Entities:
Keywords: BRCA2; digital PCR; multifactorial likelihood analysis; quantitative real-time PCR; spliceogenic variants
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29460995 PMCID: PMC5947288 DOI: 10.1002/humu.23411
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Mutat ISSN: 1059-7794 Impact factor: 4.878
Figure 3BRCA2 exon 3 exclusion rate in LCLs from BRCA2 c.68‐7T > A carriers and controls. The boxplots (displaying low, Q1, median, Q3, and high values) show qPCR (left panel) and dPCR (right panel) measures of exclusion rate. The data is expressed as the fold‐increase relative to the average of 12 controls. Outliers (> 1.5 inter quartile range, IQR) are displayed as small circles. On average, a 5.2‐fold increase is observed in carriers according to qPCR data and a 4.2‐fold increase according to dPCR data (3.8‐fold increase if outliers are included in the analysis)
Figure 1Evaluation of the effects of the BRCA2 c.68‐7T > A variant at mRNA level. (A) Capillary electrophoresis analysis of BRCA2 cDNA showing the relative increase of Δ3 transcript and decrease of ▼3 transcript in c.68‐7T > A carriers compared to normal controls B2M reference transcript. Since the PCR assays were performed under end‐point conditions, the results of these assays were not used to quantify the fold‐change of Δ3 versus ▼3 transcript ratio in cases compared to controls. (B) Assessment of allele‐specific expression of the ▼3 and ∆3 transcripts in c.68‐7T > A carriers and normal controls by analysis of the common c.‐26G > A variant. The sequencing of the RT‐PCR products obtained by selectively amplifying the ▼3 and ∆3 transcripts in separate reactions (left panels and right panels, respectively) shows that the variant allele, which is in linkage with the A allele of the common variant, retained the ability to synthesize the ▼3 transcript
Figure 2Relative expression of BRCA2 ▼3 and ∆3 transcripts in six c.68‐7T > A carriers and 12 normal controls by quantitative PCR. The boxplots (displaying low, Q1, median, Q3, and high values) show qPCR levels of ▼3 and ∆3 transcripts in carriers and controls. Values are normalized to GUSB mRNA and expressed as fold difference relative to pooled control cDNAs using the ∆ΔCq method (see Materials and Methods). The analysis shows in carriers a statistically significant increase of the relative level of ∆3 transcripts compared to controls (2.98 vs. 0.97; p < 0.0001). Conversely, the decrease observed in the relative level of ▼3 transcripts (0,44 vs.0,86) is not statistically significant (p = 0.4)