Publications by authors named "Miguel de la Hoya"

125 Publications

Genomic Mapping of Splicing-Related Genes Identify Amplifications in , and in Luminal Breast Cancer.

Cancers (Basel) 2021 Aug 16;13(16). Epub 2021 Aug 16.

Translational Oncology Laboratory, Translational Research Unit, Albacete University Hospital, 02008 Albacete, Spain.

Alternative splicing is an essential biological process, which increases the diversity and complexity of the human transcriptome. In our study, 304 splicing pathway-related genes were evaluated in tumors from breast cancer patients (TCGA dataset). A high number of alterations were detected, including mutations and copy number alterations (CNAs), although mutations were less frequently present compared with CNAs. In the four molecular subtypes, 14 common splice genes showed high level amplification in >5% of patients. Certain genes were only amplified in specific breast cancer subtypes. Most altered genes in each molecular subtype clustered to a few chromosomal regions. In the Luminal subtype, amplifications of , , and showed a strong significant association with prognosis. An even more robust association with OS and RFS was observed when expression of these three genes was combined. Inhibition of , , and , using siRNA in MCF7 and T47D cells, showed a decrease in cell proliferation. The mRNA expression of these genes was reduced by treatment with BET inhibitors, a family of epigenetic modulators. We map the presence of splicing-related genes in breast cancer, describing three novel genes, , , and , that have an oncogenic role and can be modulated with BET inhibitors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13164118DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8391113PMC
August 2021

Altered regulation of BRCA1 exon 11 splicing is associated with breast cancer risk in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants.

Hum Mutat 2021 Nov 31;42(11):1488-1502. Epub 2021 Aug 31.

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 confer a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The BRCA1 exon 11 (formally exon 10) is one of the largest exons and codes for the nuclear localization signals of the corresponding gene product. This exon can be partially or entirely skipped during pre-mRNA splicing, leading to three major in-frame isoforms that are detectable in most cell types and tissue, and in normal and cancer settings. However, it is unclear whether the splicing imbalance of this exon is associated with cancer risk. Here we identify a common genetic variant in intron 10, rs5820483 (NC_000017.11:g.43095106_43095108dup), which is associated with exon 11 isoform expression and alternative splicing, and with the risk of breast cancer, but not ovarian cancer, in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. The identification of this genetic effect was confirmed by analogous observations in mouse cells and tissue in which a loxP sequence was inserted in the syntenic intronic region. The prediction that the rs5820483 minor allele variant would create a binding site for the splicing silencer hnRNP A1 was confirmed by pull-down assays. Our data suggest that perturbation of BRCA1 exon 11 splicing modifies the breast cancer risk conferred by pathogenic variants of this gene.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.24276DOI Listing
November 2021

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2021 Jul 28. Epub 2021 Jul 28.

Department of Molecular Medicine, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1,318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were three versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen-receptor (ER) negative (PRSER-) or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.

Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07-1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16-1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for both BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28-2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34-1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer ORs were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.

Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and to inform clinical management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab147DOI Listing
July 2021

Aberrant Splicing in Breast Cancer: Identification of Splicing Regulatory Elements and Minigene-Based Evaluation of 53 DNA Variants.

Cancers (Basel) 2021 Jun 7;13(11). Epub 2021 Jun 7.

Splicing and Genetic Susceptibility to Cancer Laboratory, Unidad de Excelencia Instituto de Biología y Genética Molecular, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC-UVa), 47003 Valladolid, Spain.

loss-of-function variants increase lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Splicing disruption is a frequent pathogenic mechanism associated with variants in susceptibility genes. Herein, we have assessed the splicing and clinical impact of splice-site and exonic splicing enhancer (ESE) variants identified through the study of ~113,000 women of the BRIDGES cohort. A RAD51D minigene with exons 2-9 was constructed in splicing vector pSAD. Eleven BRIDGES splice-site variants (selected by MaxEntScan) were introduced into the minigene by site-directed mutagenesis and tested in MCF-7 cells. The 11 variants disrupted splicing, collectively generating 25 different aberrant transcripts. All variants but one produced negligible levels (<3.4%) of the full-length (FL) transcript. In addition, ESE elements of the alternative exon 3 were mapped by testing four overlapping exonic microdeletions (≥30-bp), revealing an ESE-rich interval (c.202_235del) with critical sequences for exon 3 recognition that might have been affected by germline variants. Next, 26 BRIDGES variants and 16 artificial exon 3 single-nucleotide substitutions were also assayed. Thirty variants impaired splicing with variable amounts (0-65.1%) of the FL transcript, although only c.202G>A demonstrated a complete aberrant splicing pattern without the FL transcript. On the other hand, c.214T>C increased efficiency of exon 3 recognition, so only the FL transcript was detected (100%). In conclusion, 41 spliceogenic variants (28 of which were from the BRIDGES cohort) were identified by minigene assays. We show that minigene-based mapping of ESEs is a powerful approach for identifying ESE hotspots and ESE-disrupting variants. Finally, we have classified nine variants as likely pathogenic according to ACMG/AMP-based guidelines, highlighting the complex relationship between splicing alterations and variant interpretation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112845DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8201001PMC
June 2021

Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women.

N Engl J Med 2021 02 20;384(5):428-439. Epub 2021 Jan 20.

The authors' affiliations are as follows: the Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Departments of Public Health and Primary Care (L.D., S. Carvalho, J.A., K.A.P., Q.W., M.K.B., J.D., B.D., N. Mavaddat, K. Michailidou, A.C.A., P.D.P.P., D.F.E.) and Oncology (C.L., P.A.H., C. Baynes, D.M.C., L.F., V.R., M. Shah, P.D.P.P., A.M.D., D.F.E.), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, the Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine (A. Campbell, D.J.P.), and the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, Department of Psychology (D.J.P.), University of Edinburgh, the Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre (D.A.C., J.F.), and the Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh Medical School (A. Campbell, J.F.), Edinburgh, the Divisions of Informatics, Imaging, and Data Sciences (E.F.H.), Cancer Sciences (A. Howell), Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care (A. Lophatananon, K. Muir), and Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences (W.G.N., E.M.V., D.G.E.), University of Manchester, the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Unit (E.F.H.) and the Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital (E.F.H., H.I.), Academic Health Science Centre and North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, and the Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (W.G.N., E.M.V., D.G.E.), Manchester, the School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London (E.J.S.), the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham (I.T.), and the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford (I.T.) - all in the United Kingdom; the Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, Human Cancer Genetic Program (A.G.-N., M.R.A., N.Á., B.H., R.N.-T.), and the Human Genetics Group (V.F., A.O., J.B.), Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (A.O., J.B.), Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario La Paz (M.P.Z.), and Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (M. de la Hoya), Madrid, the Genomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago (A. Carracedo, M.G.-D.), and Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras y Centro Nacional de Genotipado, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (A. Carracedo), Santiago de Compostela, the Oncology and Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria Galicia Sur, Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-Servizo Galeo de Saúde, Vigo (J.E.C.), and Servicio de Cirugía General y Especialidades, Hospital Monte Naranco, Oviedo (J.I.A.P.) - all in Spain; the Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund (C. Wahlström, J.V., M.L., T. Törngren, Å.B., A.K.), the Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro (C. Blomqvist), and the Departments of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (K.C., M.E., M.G., P. Hall, W.H., K.H.), Oncology, Södersjukhuset (P. Hall, S. Margolin), Molecular Medicine and Surgery (A. Lindblom), and Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset (S. Margolin, C. Wendt), Karolinska Institutet, and the Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital (A. Lindblom), Stockholm - all in Sweden; the Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD (M.T.P., C.F., G.C.-T., A.B.S.), the Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria (G.G.G., R.J.M., R.L.M.), the Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health (G.G.G., R.J.M., R.L.M.), and the Department of Clinical Pathology (M.C.S.), University of Melbourne, Anatomical Pathology, Alfred Hospital (C.M.), and the Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria (M.C.S.), Melbourne, VIC, and Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC (G.G.G., M.C.S., R.L.M.) - all in Australia; the Division of Molecular Pathology (R.K., S. Cornelissen, M.K.S.), Family Cancer Clinic (F.B.L.H., L.E.K.), Department of Epidemiology (M.A.R.), and Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology (M.K.S.), the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center, Utrecht (M.G.E.M.A.), the Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center (J.M.C., A.M.W.O.), and the Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute (B.A.M.H.-G., A. Hollestelle, M.J.H.), Rotterdam, the Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (E.B.G.G.), the Departments of Human Genetics (I.M.M.L., M.P.G.V., P.D.), Clinical Genetics (C.J.A.), and Pathology (P.D.), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen (A.R.M.), and the Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen (J.C.O.) - all in the Netherlands; the Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute (B.D.), and the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (T.A., S.J.C., X.R.Y., M.G.-C.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; the Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School (B.D.), and the Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (R.M.V.D.), Boston; the Departments of Clinical Genetics (K.A.), Oncology (C. Blomqvist), and Obstetrics and Gynecology (H.N., M. Suvanto), Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, and the Unit of Clinical Oncology, Kuopio University Hospital (P. Auvinen), the Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oncology (P. Auvinen), the Translational Cancer Research Area (J.M.H., V.-M.K., A. Mannermaa), and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology, and Forensic Medicine (J.M.H., V.-M.K., A. Mannermaa), University of Eastern Finland, and the Biobank of Eastern Finland, Kuopio University Hospital (V.-M.K., A. Mannermaa), Kuopio - both in Finland; the N.N. Alexandrov Research Institute of Oncology and Medical Radiology, Minsk, Belarus (N.N.A., N.V.B.); the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel (N.A.), the Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology (H. Becher) and Cancer Epidemiology Group (T.M., J.C.-C.), University Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics (M.W.B., P.A.F., L.H.) and Institute of Human Genetics (A.B.E.), University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg, Erlangen, the Division of Cancer Epidemiology (S.B., A. Jung, P.M.K., J.C.-C.), Molecular Epidemiology Group, C080 (B. Burwinkel, H.S.), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology (A.F.), and Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer (U.H., M.M., M.U.R., D.T.), German Cancer Research Center, Molecular Biology of Breast Cancer, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg (B. Burwinkel, A.S., H.S.), Hopp Children's Cancer Center (A.F.), Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg (P.M.K.), and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center (A.S., C.S.), Heidelberg, the Department of Radiation Oncology (N.V.B., M. Bremer, H.C.) and the Gynecology Research Unit (N.V.B., T.D., P. Hillemanns, T.-W.P.-S., P.S.), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, the Institute of Human Genetics, University of Münster, Münster (N.B.-M.), Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart (H. Brauch, W.-Y.L.), iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, University of Tübingen, and the German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Center, Partner Site Tübingen (H. Brauch), and the University of Tübingen (W.-Y.L.), Tübingen, Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum (T.B.), Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics, and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig (C.E.), Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (E.H., R.K.S.) and Center for Integrated Oncology (E.H., R.K.S.), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn (Y.-D.K.), the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Munich, Campus Großhadern, Munich (A. Meindl), and the Institute of Pathology, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe (T.R.) - all in Germany; the Gynecological Cancer Registry, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon (P. Arveux), and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Team Exposome and Heredity, INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif (E.C.-D., P.G., T. Truong) - both in France; the Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (M. Bermisheva, E.K.), the Department of Genetics and Fundamental Medicine, Bashkir State University (E.K., D.P., Y.V.), and the Ufa Research Institute of Occupational Health and Human Ecology (Y.V.), Ufa, Russia; the Department of Genetics and Pathology (K.B., A. Jakubowska, J. Lubiński, K.P.) and the Independent Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetic Diagnostics (A. Jakubowska), Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland; the Copenhagen General Population Study, the Department of Clinical Biochemistry (S.E.B., B.G.N.), and the Department of Breast Surgery (H.F.), Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, and the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (S.E.B., B.G.N.) - both in Denmark; the Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) (B. Bonanni), the Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (S. Manoukian), the Genome Diagnostics Program, FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology (P.P.), and the Unit of Molecular Bases of Genetic Risk and Genetic Testing, Department of Research, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (P.R.), Milan; the Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital-Radiumhospitalet (A.-L.B.-D., G.I.G.A., V.N.K.), and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo (A.-L.B.-D., V.N.K.), Oslo; Medical Faculty, Universidad de La Sabana (I.B.), and the Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department (F.G.) and Institute of Human Genetics (D.T.), Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia; the Department of Internal Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (N.J.C., M.J.M., J.A.W.), and the Intermountain Healthcare Biorepository and Department of Pathology, Intermountain Healthcare (M.H.C.), Salt Lake City; the David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles (P.A.F.), and Moores Cancer Center (M.G.-D., M.E.M.) and the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health (M.E.M.), University of California San Diego, La Jolla; the Departments of Medical Oncology (V.G., D.M.) and Pathology (M.T.), University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, and the Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa (E.S.) - both in Greece; the Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital (G.G., I.L.A.), the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology (A.M.M.) and Molecular Genetics (I.L.A.), University of Toronto, and the Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network (A.M.M.), Toronto, and the Genomics Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, QC (J.S.) - both in Canada; the Department of Electron Microscopy and Molecular Pathology (A. Hadjisavvas, K.K., M.A.L.), the Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine (A. Hadjisavvas, K.K., M.A.L., K. Michailidou), and the Biostatistics Unit (K. Michailidou), Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus; the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (M. Hartman, R.M.V.D.) and the Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (R.M.V.D.), National University of Singapore, the Department of Surgery, National University Health System (M. Hartman, J. Li), and the Human Genetics Division, Genome Institute of Singapore (J. Li), Singapore; the Department of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia (W.K.H.), and the Breast Cancer Research Programme, Cancer Research Malaysia (W.K.H., P.S.N., S.-Y.Y., S.H.T.), Selangor, and the Breast Cancer Research Unit, Cancer Research Institute (N.A.M.T.), and the Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine (N.A.M.T., P.S.N., S.H.T.), University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur - both in Malaysia; Surgery, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway (M.J.K., N. Miller); the Department of Surgery, Daerim Saint Mary's Hospital (S.-W.K.), the Department of Surgery, Ulsan University College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center (J.W.L.), the Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine and Soonchunhyang University Hospital (M.H.L.), Integrated Major in Innovative Medical Science, Seoul National University College of Medicine (S.K.P.), and the Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University (S.K.P.), Seoul, South Korea; the Department of Basic Sciences, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan (M.U.R.); and the National Cancer Institute, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand (S.T.).

Background: Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking.

Methods: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity.

Results: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (, , , , and ) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (, , , and ) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in and , odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in , , , , , and , odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in , , and were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For , , and , missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants.

Conclusions: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1913948DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7611105PMC
February 2021

Comprehensive Functional Characterization and Clinical Interpretation of 20 Splice-Site Variants of the Gene.

Cancers (Basel) 2020 Dec 15;12(12). Epub 2020 Dec 15.

Splicing and Genetic Susceptibility to Cancer, Instituto de Biología y Genética Molecular, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC-UVa), 47003 Valladolid, Spain.

Hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease with more than 10 known disease-associated genes. In the framework of the BRIDGES project (Breast Cancer Risk after Diagnostic Gene Sequencing), the gene has been sequenced in 60,466 breast cancer patients and 53,461 controls. We aimed at functionally characterizing all the identified genetic variants that are predicted to disrupt the splicing process. Forty variants of the intron-exon boundaries were bioinformatically analyzed, 20 of which were selected for splicing functional assays. To test them, a splicing reporter minigene with exons 2 to 8 was designed and constructed. This minigene generated a full-length transcript of the expected size (1062 nucleotides), sequence, and structure (Vector exon V1- exons_2-8- Vector exon V2). The 20 candidate variants were genetically engineered into the wild type minigene and functionally assayed in MCF-7 cells. Nineteen variants (95%) impaired splicing, while 18 of them produced severe splicing anomalies. At least 35 transcripts were generated by the mutant minigenes: 16 protein-truncating, 6 in-frame, and 13 minor uncharacterized isoforms. According to ACMG/AMP-based standards, 15 variants could be classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants: c.404G > A, c.405-6T > A, c.571 + 4A > G, c.571 + 5G > A, c.572-1G > T, c.705G > T, c.706-2A > C, c.706-2A > G, c.837 + 2T > C, c.905-3C > G, c.905-2A > C, c.905-2_905-1del, c.965 + 5G > A, c.1026 + 5_1026 + 7del, and c.1026 + 5G > T.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123771DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7765170PMC
December 2020

A Collaborative Effort to Define Classification Criteria for ATM Variants in Hereditary Cancer Patients.

Clin Chem 2021 03;67(3):518-533

Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.

Background: Gene panel testing by massive parallel sequencing has increased the diagnostic yield but also the number of variants of uncertain significance. Clinical interpretation of genomic data requires expertise for each gene and disease. Heterozygous ATM pathogenic variants increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer. For this reason, ATM is included in most hereditary cancer panels. It is a large gene, showing a high number of variants, most of them of uncertain significance. Hence, we initiated a collaborative effort to improve and standardize variant classification for the ATM gene.

Methods: Six independent laboratories collected information from 766 ATM variant carriers harboring 283 different variants. Data were submitted in a consensus template form, variant nomenclature and clinical information were curated, and monthly team conferences were established to review and adapt American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) criteria to ATM, which were used to classify 50 representative variants.

Results: Amid 283 different variants, 99 appeared more than once, 35 had differences in classification among laboratories. Refinement of ACMG/AMP criteria to ATM involved specification for twenty-one criteria and adjustment of strength for fourteen others. Afterwards, 50 variants carried by 254 index cases were classified with the established framework resulting in a consensus classification for all of them and a reduction in the number of variants of uncertain significance from 58% to 42%.

Conclusions: Our results highlight the relevance of data sharing and data curation by multidisciplinary experts to achieve improved variant classification that will eventually improve clinical management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa250DOI Listing
March 2021

, a Gene Potentially Implicated in Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X.

Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021 02 28;14(2):185-194. Epub 2020 Oct 28.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, IdISSC, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Oncología (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain.

Familial colorectal cancer Type X (FCCTX) comprises a heterogeneous group of families with an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer and other related tumors, but with mismatch repair-proficient, microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors. Unfortunately, the genetic basis underlying their cancer predisposition remains unknown. Although pathogenic germline variants in increase the risk of developing hereditary ovarian cancer, the involvement of in hereditary colorectal cancer is still not well known. In order to identify new variants associated with inherited colorectal cancer, affected and nonaffected individuals from 18 FCCTX or high-risk MSS colorectal cancer families were evaluated by whole-exome sequencing, and another 62 colorectal cancer patients from FCCTX or high-risk MSS colorectal cancer families were screened by a next-generation sequencing (NGS) multigene panel. The families were recruited at the Genetic Counseling Unit of Hospital Clínico San Carlos of Madrid. A total of three different mutations in three unrelated families were identified. Among them, there were two frameshift variants [c.1702_1703del, p.(Asn568TrpfsTer9) and c.903del, p.(Leu301PhefsTer2)] that result in the truncation of the protein and are thus classified as pathogenic (class 5). The remaining was a missense variant [c.2220G>T, p.(Gln740His)] considered a variant of uncertain significance (class 3). The segregation and loss-of-heterozygosity studies provide evidence linking the two frameshift variants to colorectal cancer risk, with suggestive but not definitive evidence that the third variant may be benign. The results here presented suggest that germline pathogenic variants could be associated with hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition. We suggest that BRIP1 pathogenic germline variants may have a causal role in CRC as moderate cancer susceptibility alleles and be associated with hereditary CRC predisposition. A better understanding of hereditary CRC may provide important clues to disease predisposition and could contribute to molecular diagnostics, improved risk stratification, and targeted therapeutic strategies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0316DOI Listing
February 2021

Haplotype analysis of the internationally distributed BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG founder mutation reveals a common ancestral origin in Iberia.

Breast Cancer Res 2020 10 21;22(1):108. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Background: The BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG founder mutation has been reported in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families from multiple Hispanic groups. We aimed to evaluate BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG haplotype diversity in cases of European, African, and Latin American ancestry.

Methods: BC mutation carrier cases from Colombia (n = 32), Spain (n = 13), Portugal (n = 2), Chile (n = 10), Africa (n = 1), and Brazil (n = 2) were genotyped with the genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays to evaluate haplotype diversity around BRCA1 c.3331_3334delCAAG. Additional Portuguese (n = 13) and Brazilian (n = 18) BC mutation carriers were genotyped for 15 informative SNPs surrounding BRCA1. Data were phased using SHAPEIT2, and identical by descent regions were determined using BEAGLE and GERMLINE. DMLE+ was used to date the mutation in Colombia and Iberia.

Results: The haplotype reconstruction revealed a shared 264.4-kb region among carriers from all six countries. The estimated mutation age was ~ 100 generations in Iberia and that it was introduced to South America early during the European colonization period.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that this mutation originated in Iberia and later introduced to Colombia and South America at the time of Spanish colonization during the early 1500s. We also found that the Colombian mutation carriers had higher European ancestry, at the BRCA1 gene harboring chromosome 17, than controls, which further supported the European origin of the mutation. Understanding founder mutations in diverse populations has implications in implementing cost-effective, ancestry-informed screening.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01341-3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7579869PMC
October 2020

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Genet Med 2020 10 15;22(10):1653-1666. Epub 2020 Jul 15.

Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Department of Clinical Genetics, Exeter, UK.

Purpose: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Methods: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.

Results: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.

Conclusion: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0862-xDOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521995PMC
October 2020

Characterization of the Cancer Spectrum in Men With Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants: Results From the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

JAMA Oncol 2020 08;6(8):1218-1230

Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Importance: The limited data on cancer phenotypes in men with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have hampered the development of evidence-based recommendations for early cancer detection and risk reduction in this population.

Objective: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.

Main Outcomes And Measures: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.

Results: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P < .001), as well as developing 2 (OR, 7.97; 95% CI, 5.47-11.60; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 19.60; 95% CI, 4.64-82.89; P < .001) primary tumors. A higher frequency of breast (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.06-7.37; P < .001) and prostate (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .008) cancers was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2 PV carrier. Among cancers other than breast and prostate, pancreatic cancer was associated with a higher probability (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.55-5.81; P = .001) and colorectal cancer with a lower probability (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; P = .003) of being a BRCA2 PV carrier.

Conclusions And Relevance: Significant differences in the cancer spectrum were observed in male BRCA2, compared with BRCA1, PV carriers. These data may inform future recommendations for surveillance of BRCA1/2-associated cancers and guide future prospective studies for estimating cancer risks in men with BRCA1/2 PVs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2134DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333177PMC
August 2020

Correction: Alternative mRNA splicing can attenuate the pathogenicity of presumed loss-of-function variants in BRCA2.

Genet Med 2020 Aug;22(8):1427-1428

Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0883-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394880PMC
August 2020

Alternative mRNA splicing can attenuate the pathogenicity of presumed loss-of-function variants in BRCA2.

Genet Med 2020 08 13;22(8):1355-1365. Epub 2020 May 13.

Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Purpose: Current interpretation guidelines for germline variants in high-risk cancer susceptibility genes consider predicted loss-of-function (LoF) variants, such as nonsense variants and variants in the canonical splice site sequences ofBRCA2, to be associated with high cancer risk. However, some variant alleles produce alternative transcripts that encode (partially) functional protein isoforms leading to possible incorrect risk estimations. For accurate classification of variants it is therefore essential that alternative transcripts are identified and functionally characterized.

Methods: We systematically evaluated a large panel of human BRCA2 variants for the production of alternative transcripts and assessed their capacity to exert BRCA2 protein functionality. Evaluated variants included all single-exon deletions, various multiple-exon deletions, intronic variants at the canonical splice donor and acceptor sequences, and variants that previously have been shown to affect messenger RNA (mRNA) splicing in carriers.

Results: Multiple alternative transcripts encoding (partially) functional protein isoforms were identified (e.g., ∆[E4-E7], ∆[E6-E7], ∆E[6q39_E8], ∆[E10], ∆[E12], ∆E[12-14]). Expression of these transcripts did attenuate the impact of predicted LoF variants such as the canonical splice site variants c.631+2T>G, c.517-2A>G, c.6842-2A>G, c.6937+1G>A, and nonsense variants c.491T>A, c.581G>A, and c.6901G>T.

Conclusion: These results allow refinement of variant interpretation guidelines for BRCA2 by providing insight into the functional consequences of naturally occurring and variant-related alternative splicing events.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0814-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394881PMC
August 2020

Transcriptome-wide association study of breast cancer risk by estrogen-receptor status.

Genet Epidemiol 2020 07 1;44(5):442-468. Epub 2020 Mar 1.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Previous transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype-specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta-analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER-). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER- subtypes, using a case-only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER- breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS-significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast-cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS-significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER- breast cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gepi.22288DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987299PMC
July 2020

Ovarian and Breast Cancer Risks Associated With Pathogenic Variants in RAD51C and RAD51D.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2020 12;112(12):1242-1250

Department of Clinical Genetics Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate precise age-specific tubo-ovarian carcinoma (TOC) and breast cancer (BC) risks for carriers of pathogenic variants in RAD51C and RAD51D.

Methods: We analyzed data from 6178 families, 125 with pathogenic variants in RAD51C, and 6690 families, 60 with pathogenic variants in RAD51D. TOC and BC relative and cumulative risks were estimated using complex segregation analysis to model the cancer inheritance patterns in families while adjusting for the mode of ascertainment of each family. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Pathogenic variants in both RAD51C and RAD51D were associated with TOC (RAD51C: relative risk [RR] = 7.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.60 to 10.19; P = 5 × 10-40; RAD51D: RR = 7.60, 95% CI = 5.61 to 10.30; P = 5 × 10-39) and BC (RAD51C: RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.39 to 2.85; P = 1.55 × 10-4; RAD51D: RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.72; P = .002). For both RAD51C and RAD51D, there was a suggestion that the TOC relative risks increased with age until around age 60 years and decreased thereafter. The estimated cumulative risks of developing TOC to age 80 years were 11% (95% CI = 6% to 21%) for RAD51C and 13% (95% CI = 7% to 23%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. The estimated cumulative risks of developing BC to 80 years were 21% (95% CI = 15% to 29%) for RAD51C and 20% (95% CI = 14% to 28%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. Both TOC and BC risks for RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers varied by cancer family history and could be as high as 32-36% for TOC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with TOC, or 44-46% for BC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with BC.

Conclusions: These estimates will facilitate the genetic counseling of RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers and justify the incorporation of RAD51C and RAD51D into cancer risk prediction models.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa030DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735771PMC
December 2020

Fine-mapping of 150 breast cancer risk regions identifies 191 likely target genes.

Nat Genet 2020 01 7;52(1):56-73. Epub 2020 Jan 7.

Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Genome-wide association studies have identified breast cancer risk variants in over 150 genomic regions, but the mechanisms underlying risk remain largely unknown. These regions were explored by combining association analysis with in silico genomic feature annotations. We defined 205 independent risk-associated signals with the set of credible causal variants in each one. In parallel, we used a Bayesian approach (PAINTOR) that combines genetic association, linkage disequilibrium and enriched genomic features to determine variants with high posterior probabilities of being causal. Potentially causal variants were significantly over-represented in active gene regulatory regions and transcription factor binding sites. We applied our INQUSIT pipeline for prioritizing genes as targets of those potentially causal variants, using gene expression (expression quantitative trait loci), chromatin interaction and functional annotations. Known cancer drivers, transcription factors and genes in the developmental, apoptosis, immune system and DNA integrity checkpoint gene ontology pathways were over-represented among the highest-confidence target genes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0537-1DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974400PMC
January 2020

Comprehensive Assessment of Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Splicing With Implications for Variant Classification.

Front Genet 2019 19;10:1139. Epub 2019 Nov 19.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, CIBERONC, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos), Madrid, Spain.

Case-control analyses have shown variants to be associated with up to >2-fold increase in risk of breast cancer, and potentially greater risk of triple negative breast cancer. is included in several gene sequencing panels currently marketed for the prediction of risk of cancer, however there are no gene-specific guidelines for the classification of variants. We present the most comprehensive assessment of messenger RNA splicing, and demonstrate the application of these data for the classification of truncating and splice site variants according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines. Nanopore sequencing, short-read RNA-seq (whole transcriptome and targeted), and capillary electrophoresis analysis were performed by four laboratories to investigate alternative splicing in blood, breast, and fimbriae/ovary related specimens from non-cancer affected tissues. Splicing data were also collated from published studies of nine different tissues. The impact of the findings for PVS1 annotation was assessed for truncating and splice site variants. We identified 62 naturally occurring alternative spliced splicing events, including 19 novel events found by next generation sequencing and/or reverse transcription PCR analysis performed for this study. Quantitative analysis showed that naturally occurring splicing events causing loss of clinically relevant domains or nonsense mediated decay can constitute up to 11.9% of overlapping natural junctions, suggesting that aberrant splicing can be tolerated up to this level. Nanopore sequencing of whole transcripts characterized 16 alternative isoforms from healthy controls, revealing that the most complex transcripts combined only two alternative splicing events. Bioinformatic analysis of ClinVar submitted variants at or near splice sites suggest that all consensus splice site variants in should be considered likely pathogenic, with the possible exception of variants at the donor site of exon 5. No candidate rescue transcripts were identified in this study, indicating that all premature translation-termination codons variants can be annotated as PVS1. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that all donor and acceptor (IVS+/-1,2) variants can be considered PVS1 or PVS1_strong, with the exception of variants targeting the exon 5 donor site, that we recommend considering as PVS1_moderate.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01139DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6877745PMC
November 2019

Association of Genomic Domains in and with Prostate Cancer Risk and Aggressiveness.

Cancer Res 2020 02 13;80(3):624-638. Epub 2019 Nov 13.

Unité de Prévention et d'Epidémiologie Génétique, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in or () are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 and 171 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 and 2,880 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3' region of (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-2.52; = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95; = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71-4.68; = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12-11.54; = 0.0002). No genotype-phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in . These results demonstrate that specific PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1840DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553241PMC
February 2020

The :p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

NPJ Breast Cancer 2019 1;5:38. Epub 2019 Nov 1.

25University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Houston, TX USA.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes , , , , and are associated with breast cancer risk. , which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants :p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of or . These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that :p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44,  = 0.034 and OR = 3.79;  = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for :p.Arg658* and found that also :p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96;  = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with :p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat -associated tumors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-019-0127-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6825205PMC
November 2019

Contribution of New Adenomatous Polyposis Predisposition Genes in an Unexplained Attenuated Spanish Cohort by Multigene Panel Testing.

Sci Rep 2019 07 8;9(1):9814. Epub 2019 Jul 8.

Laboratorio de Oncología Molecular, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, IdISSC, CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain.

Attenuated adenomatous polyposis (AAP) is a heterogeneous syndrome in terms of clinical manifestations, heritability and etiology of the disease. Genetic heterogeneity and low penetrance alleles are probably the best explanation for this variability. Certainly, it is known that APC and MUTYH are high penetrance predisposition genes for adenomatous polyposis, but they only account for 5-10% of AAP. Other new predisposition genes, such as POLE, POLD1, NTHL1, AXIN2 or MSH3, have been recently described and have been associated with AAP, but their relative contribution is still not well defined. In order to evaluate the genetic predisposition to AAP in a hospital based population, germline DNAs from 158 AAP subjects were screened for genetic variants in the coding regions and intron-exon boundaries of seven associated genes through a next-generation sequencing (NGS) custom gene panel. Splicing, segregation studies, somatic mutational screening and RNA quantitative expression assays were conducted for selected variants. In four of the probands the adenoma susceptibility could be explained by actionable mutations in APC or MUTYH, and one other patient was a double carrier of two truncating variants in both POLE and NTHL1. Furthermore, 16 additional patients harbored uncertain significance variants in the remaining tested genes. This report gives information about the contribution of the newly described adenomatous polyposis predisposition genes in a Spanish attenuated polyposis cohort. Our results highly support the convenience of NGS multigene panels for attenuated polyposis genetic screening and reveals POLE frameshift variants as a plausible susceptibility mechanism for AAP.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46403-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6614360PMC
July 2019

Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: An ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification.

Hum Mutat 2019 09;40(9):1557-1578

Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23818DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6772163PMC
September 2019

Genome-wide association and transcriptome studies identify target genes and risk loci for breast cancer.

Nat Commun 2019 04 15;10(1):1741. Epub 2019 Apr 15.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, CIBERONC, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos), 28040, Madrid, Spain.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 170 breast cancer susceptibility loci. Here we hypothesize that some risk-associated variants might act in non-breast tissues, specifically adipose tissue and immune cells from blood and spleen. Using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) reported in these tissues, we identify 26 previously unreported, likely target genes of overall breast cancer risk variants, and 17 for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, several with a known immune function. We determine the directional effect of gene expression on disease risk measured based on single and multiple eQTL. In addition, using a gene-based test of association that considers eQTL from multiple tissues, we identify seven (and four) regions with variants associated with overall (and ER-negative) breast cancer risk, which were not reported in previous GWAS. Further investigation of the function of the implicated genes in breast and immune cells may provide insights into the etiology of breast cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08053-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465407PMC
April 2019

Towards controlled terminology for reporting germline cancer susceptibility variants: an ENIGMA report.

J Med Genet 2019 06 8;56(6):347-357. Epub 2019 Apr 8.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

The vocabulary currently used to describe genetic variants and their consequences reflects many years of studying and discovering monogenic disease with high penetrance. With the recent rapid expansion of genetic testing brought about by wide availability of high-throughput massively parallel sequencing platforms, accurate variant interpretation has become a major issue. The vocabulary used to describe single genetic variants in silico, in vitro, in vivo and as a contributor to human disease uses terms in common, but the meaning is not necessarily shared across all these contexts. In the setting of cancer genetic tests, the added dimension of using data from genetic sequencing of tumour DNA to direct treatment is an additional source of confusion to those who are not experienced in cancer genetics. The language used to describe variants identified in cancer susceptibility genetic testing typically still reflects an outdated paradigm of Mendelian inheritance with dichotomous outcomes. Cancer is a common disease with complex genetic architecture; an improved lexicon is required to better communicate among scientists, clinicians and patients, the risks and implications of genetic variants detected. This review arises from a recognition of, and discussion about, inconsistencies in vocabulary usage by members of the ENIGMA international multidisciplinary consortium focused on variant classification in breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. It sets out the vocabulary commonly used in genetic variant interpretation and reporting, and suggests a framework for a common vocabulary that may facilitate understanding and clarity in clinical reporting of germline genetic tests for cancer susceptibility.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105872DOI Listing
June 2019

Alternative splicing and ACMG-AMP-2015-based classification of PALB2 genetic variants: an ENIGMA report.

J Med Genet 2019 07 19;56(7):453-460. Epub 2019 Mar 19.

Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Background: monoallelic germ-line variants confer a breast cancer risk comparable to the average pathogenic variant. Recommendations for risk reduction strategies in carriers are similar. Elaborating robust criteria to identify variants in without incurring overprediction-is thus of paramount clinical relevance. Towards this aim, we have performed a comprehensive characterisation of alternative splicing in , analysing its relevance for the classification of truncating and splice site variants according to the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines.

Methods: Alternative splicing was characterised in RNAs extracted from blood, breast and /ovary-related human specimens (n=112). RNAseq, RT-PCR/CE and CloneSeq experiments were performed by five contributing laboratories. Centralised revision/curation was performed to assure high-quality annotations. Additional splicing analyses were performed in c.212-1G>A, c.1684+1G>A, c.2748+2T>G, c.3113+5G>A, c.3350+1G>A, c.3350+4A>C and c.3350+5G>A carriers. The impact of the findings on PVS1 status was evaluated for truncating and splice site variant.

Results: We identified 88 naturally occurring alternative splicing events (81 newly described), including 4 in-frame events predicted relevant to evaluate PVS1 status of splice site variants. We did not identify tissue-specific alternate gene transcripts in breast or ovarian-related samples, supporting the clinical relevance of blood-based splicing studies.

Conclusions: PVS1 is not necessarily warranted for splice site variants targeting four acceptor sites (exons 2, 5, 7 and 10). As a result, rare variants at these splice sites cannot be assumed / without further evidences. Our study puts a warning in up to five genetic variants that are currently reported as in ClinVar.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105834DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591742PMC
July 2019

RECQL5: Another DNA helicase potentially involved in hereditary breast cancer susceptibility.

Hum Mutat 2019 05 13;40(5):566-577. Epub 2019 Mar 13.

Human Genetics Group, Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain.

There is still around 50% of the familial breast cancer (BC) cases with an undefined genetic cause, here we have used next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology to identify new BC susceptibility genes. This approach has led to the identification of RECQL5, a member of RECQL-helicases family, as a new BC susceptibility candidate, which deserves further study. We have used a combination of whole exome sequencing in a family negative for mutations in BRCA1/2 throughout (BRCAX), in which we found a probably deleterious variant in RECQL5, and targeted NGS of the complete coding regions and exon-intron boundaries of the candidate gene in 699 BC Spanish BRCAX families and 665 controls. Functional characterization and in silico inference of pathogenicity were performed to evaluate the deleterious effect of detected variants. We found at least seven deleterious or likely deleterious variants among the cases and only one in controls. These results prompt us to propose RECQL5 as a gene that would be worth to analyze in larger studies to explore its possible implication in BC susceptibility.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23732DOI Listing
May 2019

Targeted RNA-seq successfully identifies normal and pathogenic splicing events in breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility and Lynch syndrome genes.

Int J Cancer 2019 07 7;145(2):401-414. Epub 2019 Feb 7.

Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

A subset of genetic variants found through screening of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome impact RNA splicing. Through target enrichment of the transcriptome, it is possible to perform deep-sequencing and to identify the different and even rare mRNA isoforms. A targeted RNA-seq approach was used to analyse the naturally-occurring splicing events for a panel of 8 breast and/or ovarian cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, TP53), 3 Lynch syndrome genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6) and the fanconi anaemia SLX4 gene, in which monoallelic mutations were found in non-BRCA families. For BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C and RAD51D the results were validated by capillary electrophoresis and were compared to a non-targeted RNA-seq approach. We also compared splicing events from lymphoblastoid cell-lines with those from breast and ovarian fimbriae tissues. The potential of targeted RNA-seq to detect pathogenic changes in RNA-splicing was validated by the inclusion of samples with previously well characterized BRCA1/2 genetic variants. In our study, we update the catalogue of normal splicing events for BRCA1/2, provide an extensive catalogue of normal RAD51C and RAD51D alternative splicing, and list splicing events found for eight other genes. Additionally, we show that our approach allowed the identification of aberrant splicing events due to the presence of BRCA1/2 genetic variants and distinguished between complete and partial splicing events. In conclusion, targeted-RNA-seq can be very useful to classify variants based on their putative pathogenic impact on splicing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32114DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6635756PMC
July 2019

Novel genetic mutations detected by multigene panel are associated with hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition.

PLoS One 2018 26;13(9):e0203885. Epub 2018 Sep 26.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.

Half of the high-risk colorectal cancer families that fulfill the clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome lack germline mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes and remain unexplained. Genetic testing for hereditary cancers is rapidly evolving due to the introduction of multigene panels, which may identify more mutations than the old screening methods. The aim of this study is the use of a Next Generation Sequencing panel in order to find the genes involved in the cancer predisposition of these families. For this study, 98 patients from these unexplained families were tested with a multigene panel targeting 94 genes involved in cancer predisposition. The mutations found were validated by Sanger sequencing and the segregation was studied when possible. We identified 19 likely pathogenic variants in 18 patients. Out of these, 8 were found in MMR genes (5 in MLH1, 1 in MSH6 and 2 in PMS2). In addition, 11 mutations were detected in other genes, including high penetrance genes (APC, SMAD4 and TP53) and moderate penetrance genes (BRIP1, CHEK2, MUTYH, HNF1A and XPC). Mutations c.1194G>A in SMAD4, c.714_720dup in PMS2, c.2050T>G in MLH1 and c.1635_1636del in MSH6 were novel. In conclusion, the detection of new pathogenic mutations in high and moderate penetrance genes could contribute to the explanation of the heritability of colorectal cancer, changing the individual clinical management. Multigene panel testing is a more effective method to identify germline variants in cancer patients compared to single-gene approaches and should be therefore included in clinical laboratories.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203885PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6157886PMC
March 2019

Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?

Front Genet 2018 5;9:366. Epub 2018 Sep 5.

Oncogenetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.

tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing tools comparing the predictions against RNA results. This was done for natural splice sites of clinically relevant genes in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. A study divided into two stages was used to evaluate SSF-like, MaxEntScan, NNSplice, HSF, SPANR, and dbscSNV tools. A discovery dataset of 99 variants with unequivocal results of RNA studies, located in the 10 exonic and 20 intronic nucleotides adjacent to exon-intron boundaries of , and , was collected from four Spanish cancer genetic laboratories. The best stand-alone predictors or combinations were validated with a set of 346 variants in the same genes with clear splicing outcomes reported in the literature. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and Mathews Coefficient Correlation (MCC) scores were used to measure the performance. The discovery stage showed that HSF and SSF-like were the most accurate for variants at the donor and acceptor region, respectively. The further combination analysis revealed that HSF, HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES achieved a high performance for predicting the disruption of donor sites, and SSF-like or a sequential combination of MES and SSF-like for predicting disruption of acceptor sites. The performance confirmation of these last results with the validation dataset, indicated that the highest sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV (99.44%, 99.44%, and 96.88, respectively) were attained with HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES for donor sites and SSF-like (92.63%, 92.65%, and 84.44, respectively) for acceptor sites. We provide recommendations for combining algorithms to conduct splicing analysis that achieved a high performance. The high NPV obtained allows to select the variants in which the study by RNA analysis is mandatory against those with a negligible probability of being spliceogenic. Our study also shows that the performance of each specific predictor varies depending on whether the natural splicing sites are donors or acceptors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00366DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134256PMC
September 2018

Characterization of spliceogenic variants located in regions linked to high levels of alternative splicing: BRCA2 c.7976+5G > T as a case study.

Hum Mutat 2018 09 13;39(9):1155-1160. Epub 2018 Jul 13.

Oncogenetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain.

Many BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic variants have been studied at mRNA level and linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to splicing alteration. In silico tools are reliable when assessing variants located in consensus splice sites, but we may identify variants in complex genomic contexts for which bioinformatics is not precise enough. In this study, we characterize BRCA2 c.7976 + 5G > T variant located in intron 17 which has an atypical donor site (GC). This variant was identified in three unrelated Spanish families and we have detected exon 17 skipping as the predominant transcript occurring in carriers. We have also detected several isoforms (Δ16-18, Δ17,18, Δ18, and ▼17q ) at different expression levels among carriers and controls. This study remarks the challenge of interpreting genetic variants when multiple alternative isoforms are present, and that caution must be taken when using in silico tools to identify potential spliceogenic variants located in GC-AG introns.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23583DOI Listing
September 2018

The BRCA2 c.68-7T > A variant is not pathogenic: A model for clinical calibration of spliceogenicity.

Hum Mutat 2018 05 6;39(5):729-741. Epub 2018 Apr 6.

Human Cancer Genetics Program, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain.

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 . 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23411DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5947288PMC
May 2018
-->