Molecular profiling of human mammary gland links breast cancer risk to a p27(+) cell population with progenitor characteristics

Early full-term pregnancy is one of the most effective natural protections against breast cancer. To investigate this effect, we have characterized the global gene expression and epigenetic profiles of multiple cell types from normal breast tissue of nulliparous and parous women and carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We found significant differences in CD44+ progenitor cells, where the levels of many stem cell-related genes and pathways, including the cell-cycle regulator p27, are lower in parous women without BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. We also noted a significant reduction in the frequency of CD44+p27+ cells in parous women and showed, using explant cultures, that parity-related signaling pathways play a role in regulating the number of p27+ cells and their proliferation. Our results suggest that pathways controlling p27+ mammary epithelial cells and the numbers of these cells relate to breast cancer risk and can be explored for cancer risk assessment and prevention.

Senataxin plays an essential role with DNA damage response proteins in meiotic recombination and gene silencing

Senataxin, mutated in the human genetic disorder ataxia with oculomotor apraxia type 2 (AOA2), plays an important role in maintaining genome integrity by coordination of transcription, DNA replication, and the DNA damage response. We demonstrate that senataxin is essential for spermatogenesis and that it functions at two stages in meiosis during crossing-over in homologous recombination and in meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). Disruption of the Setx gene caused persistence of DNA double-strand breaks, a defect in disassembly of Rad51 filaments, accumulation of DNA:RNA hybrids (R-loops), and ultimately a failure of crossing-over. Senataxin localised to the XY body in a Brca1-dependent manner, and in its absence there was incomplete localisation of DNA damage response proteins to the XY chromosomes and ATR was retained on the axial elements of these chromosomes, failing to diffuse out into chromatin. Furthermore persistence of RNA polymerase II activity, altered ubH2A distribution, and abnormal XY-linked gene expression in Setx⁻/⁻ revealed an essential role for senataxin in MSCI. These data support key roles for senataxin in coordinating meiotic crossing-over with transcription and in gene silencing to protect the integrity of the genome.

The pragmatic approach : the myriad gene patents before the Australian courts

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics [2014] FCAFC 115 recently upheld the validity of Myriad Genetics' Australian BRCA1 gene patent over isolated DNA sequences.

The empire of cancer: Gene patents and cancer voices

In his book, The Emperor of All Maladies, Siddhartha Mukherjee writes a history of cancer — "It is a chronicle of an ancient disease — once a clandestine, 'whispered-about' illness — that has metamorphosed into a lethal shape-shifting entity imbued with such penetrating metaphorical, medical, scientific, and political potency that cancer is often described as the defining plague of our generation." Increasingly, an important theme in the history of cancer is the role of law, particularly in the field of intellectual property law. It is striking that a number of contemporary policy debates over intellectual property and public health have concerned cancer research, diagnosis, and treatment. In the area of access to essential medicines, there has been much debate over Novartis’ patent application in respect of Glivec, a treatment for leukaemia. India’s Supreme Court held that the Swiss company’s patent application violated a safeguard provision in India’s patent law designed to stop evergreening. In the field of tobacco control, the Australian Government introduced plain packaging for tobacco products in order to address the health burdens associated with the tobacco epidemic. This regime was successfully defended in the High Court of Australia. In the area of intellectual property and biotechnology, there have been significant disputes over the Utah biotechnology company Myriad Genetics and its patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are related to breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision on the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patent in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 in February 2013. The Supreme Court of the United States heard a challenge to the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patents in this area in April 2013, and handed down a judgment in July 2013. Such disputes have involved tensions between intellectual property rights, and public health. This article focuses upon one of these important test cases involving intellectual property, public health, and cancer research. In June 2010, Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy brought an action in the Federal Court of Australia against the validity of a BRCA1 patent — held by Myriad Genetics Inc, the Centre de Recherche du Chul, the Cancer Institute of Japan and Genetic Technologies Limited. Yvonne D’Arcy — a Brisbane woman who has had treatment for breast cancer — maintained: "I believe that what they are doing is morally and ethically corrupt and that big companies should not control any parts of the human body." She observed: "For my daughter, I've had her have [sic] mammograms, etc, because of me but I would still like her to be able to have the test to see if the mutation gene is in there from me." The applicants made the following arguments: "Genes and the information represented by human gene sequences are products of nature universally present in each individual, and the information content of a human gene sequence is fixed. Genetic variations or mutations are products of nature. The isolation of the BRCA1 gene mutation from the human body constitutes no more than a medical or scientific discovery of a naturally occurring phenomenon and does not give rise to a patentable invention." The applicants also argued that "the alleged invention is not a patentable invention in that, so far as claimed in claims 1–3, it is not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies". The applicants suggested that "the alleged invention is a mere discovery". Moreover, the applicants contended that "the alleged invention of each of claims 1-3 is not a patentable invention because they are claims for biological processes for the generation of human beings". The applicants, though, later dropped the argument that the patent claims related to biological processes for the generation of human beings. In February 2013, Nicholas J of the Federal Court of Australia considered the case brought by Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy against Myriad Genetics. The judge presented the issues in the case, as follows: "The issue that arises in this case is of considerable importance. It relates to the patentability of genes, or gene sequences, and the practice of 'gene patenting'. Briefly stated, the issue to be decided is whether under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) a valid patent may be granted for a claim that covers naturally occurring nucleic acid — either deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) — that has been 'isolated'". In this context, the word "isolated" implies that naturally occurring nucleic acid found in the cells of the human body, whether it be DNA or RNA, has been removed from the cellular environment in which it naturally exists and separated from other cellular components also found there. The genes found in the human body are made of nucleic acid. The particular gene with which the patent in suit is concerned (BRCA1) is a human breast and ovarian cancer disposing gene. Various mutations that may be present in this gene have been linked to various forms of cancer including breast cancer and ovarian cancer.' The judge held in this particular case that Myriad Genetics’ patent claims were a "manner of manufacture" under s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies and s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The matter is currently under appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This article interprets the dispute over Myriad Genetics in light of the scholarly work of Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz on inequality. Such work has significant explanatory power in the context of intellectual property and biotechnology. First, Stiglitz has contended that "societal inequality was a result not just of the laws of economics, but also of how we shape the economy — through politics, including through almost every aspect of our legal system". Stiglitz is concerned that "our intellectual property regime … contributes needlessly to the gravest form of inequality." He maintains: "The right to life should not be contingent on the ability to pay." Second, Stiglitz worries that "some of the most iniquitous aspects of inequality creation within our economic system are a result of 'rent-seeking': profits, and inequality, generated by manipulating social or political conditions to get a larger share of the economic pie, rather than increasing the size of that pie". He observes that "the most iniquitous aspect of this wealth appropriation arises when the wealth that goes to the top comes at the expense of the bottom." Third, Stiglitz comments: "When the legal regime governing intellectual property rights is designed poorly, it facilitates rent-seeking" and "the result is that there is actually less innovation and more inequality." He is concerned that intellectual property regimes "create monopoly rents that impede access to health both create inequality and hamper growth more generally." Finally, Stiglitz has recommended: "Government-financed research, foundations, and the prize system … are alternatives, with major advantages, and without the inequality-increasing disadvantages of the current intellectual property rights system.’" This article provides a critical analysis of the Australian litigation and debate surrounding Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1. First, it considers the ruling of Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia that Myriad Genetics’ patent was a manner of manufacture as it related to an artificially created state of affairs, and not mere products of nature. Second, it examines the policy debate over gene patents in Australia, and its relevance to the litigation involving Myriad Genetics. Third, it examines comparative law, and contrasts the ruling by Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia with developments in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Fourth, this piece considers the reaction to the decision of Nicholas at first instance in Australia. Fifth, the article assesses the prospects of an appeal to the Full Federal Court of Australia over the Myriad Genetics’ patents. Finally, this article observes that, whatever happens in respect of litigation against Myriad Genetics, there remains controversy over Genetic Technologies Limited. The Melbourne firm has been aggressively licensing and enforcing its related patents on non-coding DNA and genomic mapping.

Intellectual Property and Biotechnology: Biological Inventions

This book documents and evaluates the dramatic expansion of intellectual property law to accommodate various forms of biotechnology from micro-organisms, plants, and animals to human genes and stem cells. It makes a unique theoretical contribution to the controversial public debate over the commercialization of biological inventions. The author also considers the contradictions between the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in respect of the Harvard oncomouse, and genetically modified canola. He explores law, policy, and practice in both Australia and New Zealand in respect to gene patents and non-coding DNA. This study charts the rebellion against the European Union Biotechnology Directive – particularly in respect of Myriad Genetics’ BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents, and stem cell patent applications. The book also considers whether patent law will accommodate frontier technologies – such as bioinformatics, haplotype mapping, proteomics, pharmacogenomics, and nanotechnology. Intellectual Property and Biotechnology will be of prime interest to lawyers and patent attorneys, scientists and researchers, business managers and technology transfer specialists.

Intellectual property and emerging technologies: The new biology

This unique and comprehensive collection investigates the challenges posed to intellectual property by recent paradigm shifts in biology. It explores the legal ramifications of emerging technologies, such as genomics, synthetic biology, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and biodiscovery. Extensive contributions examine recent controversial court decisions in patent law – such as Bilski v. Kappos, and the litigation over Myriad’s patents in respect of BRCA1 and BRCA2 – while other papers explore sui generis fields, such as access to genetic resources, plant breeders' rights, and traditional knowledge. The collection considers the potential and the risks of the new biology for global challenges – such as access to health-care, the protection of the environment and biodiversity, climate change, and food security. It also considers Big Science projects – such as biobanks, the 1000 Genomes Project, and the Doomsday Vault. The inter-disciplinary research brings together the work of scholars from Australia, Canada, Europe, the UK and the US and involves not only legal analysis of case law and policy developments, but also historical, comparative, sociological, and ethical methodologies. Intellectual Property and Emerging Technologies will appeal to policy-makers, legal practitioners, business managers, inventors, scientists and researchers.

Dominant negative ATM mutations in breast cancer families

BACKGROUND: The ATM gene encoding a putative protein kinase is mutated in ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T), an autosomal recessive disorder with a predisposition for cancer. Studies of A-T families suggest that female heterozygotes have an increased risk of breast cancer compared with noncarriers. However, neither linkage analyses nor mutation studies have provided supporting evidence for a role of ATM in breast cancer predisposition. Nevertheless, two recurrent ATM mutations, T7271G and IVS10-6T-->G, reportedly increase the risk of breast cancer. We examined these two ATM mutations in a population-based, case-control series of breast cancer families and multiple-case breast cancer families. METHODS: Five hundred twenty-five or 262 case patients with breast cancer and 381 or 68 control subjects, respectively, were genotyped for the T7271G and IVS10-6T-->G ATM mutations, as were index patients from 76 non-BRCA1/2 multiple-case breast cancer families. Linkage and penetrance were analyzed. ATM protein expression and kinase activity were analyzed in lymphoblastoid cell lines from mutation carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In case and control subjects unselected for family history of breast cancer, one case patient had the T7271G mutation, and none had the IVS10-6T-->G mutation. In three multiple-case families, one of these two mutations segregated with breast cancer. The estimated average penetrance of the mutations was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 32% to 90%) to age 70 years, equivalent to a 15.7-fold (95% CI = 6.4-fold to 38.0-fold) increased relative risk compared with that of the general population. Expression and activity analyses of ATM in heterozygous cell lines indicated that both mutations are dominant negative. CONCLUSION: At least two ATM mutations are associated with a sufficiently high risk of breast cancer to be found in multiple-case breast cancer families. Full mutation analysis of the ATM gene in such families could help clarify the role of ATM in breast cancer susceptibility.