| Literature DB >> 34063511 |
Lisa Anne Cannon-Albright1,2,3, Craig Carl Teerlink1,3, Jeff Stevens1, Franklin W Huang4, Csilla Sipeky5,6, Johanna Schleutker5,7, Rolando Hernandez8, Julio Facelli8,9, Neeraj Agarwal2,10, Donald L Trump11,12.
Abstract
Pairs of related bladder cancer cases who belong to pedigrees with an excess of bladder cancer were sequenced to identify rare, shared variants as candidate predisposition variants. Candidate variants were tested for association with bladder cancer risk. A validated variant was assayed for segregation to other related cancer cases, and the predicted protein structure of this variant was analyzed. This study of affected bladder cancer relative pairs from high-risk pedigrees identified 152 bladder cancer predisposition candidate variants. One variant in ERF (ETS Repressing Factor) was significantly associated with bladder cancer risk in an independent population, was observed to segregate with bladder and prostate cancer in relatives, and showed evidence for altering the function of the associated protein. This finding of a rare variant in ERF that is strongly associated with bladder and prostate cancer risk in an extended pedigree both validates ERF as a cancer predisposition gene and shows the continuing value of analyzing affected members of high-risk pedigrees to identify and validate rare cancer predisposition variants.Entities:
Keywords: ERF; UPDB; bladder cancer; high-risk pedigree; predisposition; prostate cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063511 PMCID: PMC8156789 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13102399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Pedigree segregating rare ERF variant. The male founder is shown with two marriages, indicated with an arrow on the marriage line. Sampled cancer cases and relatives are shown; assayed variant carriers are shown with “+”, the original sequenced bladder-cancer-affected cousin probands are indicated with an arrow. Prostate cancer cases are fully shaded, individuals with cancers of other sites are half-shaded; case details are censored to protect confidentiality.
Figure 2Two ERF wild type and variant structures (wildtype: blue; variant: tan) were compared side-by-side in UCSF Chimera. The DNA binding regions of the proteins are highlighted (wildtype: green; variant: red).
Figure 3ERF structures were superimposed in UCSF Chimera and were found to be structurally dissimilar (RMSD across all pairs: 29.567 Å).
Figure 4DNA binding domains of the wildtype and variant structures (green: wildtype; red: variant) were superimposed in UCSF Chimera and were found to be nearly identical (RMSD across all pairs: 0.058 Å).