Germline DNA copy number variation in familial and early-onset breast cancer

Introduction: Genetic factors predisposing individuals to cancer remain elusive in the majority of patients with a familial or clinical history suggestive of hereditary breast cancer. Germline DNA copy number variation (CNV) has recently been implicated in predisposition to cancers such as neuroblastomas as well as prostate and colorectal cancer. We evaluated the role of germline CNVs in breast cancer susceptibility, in particular those with low population frequencies (rare CNVs), which are more likely to cause disease." Methods: Using whole-genome comparative genomic hybridization on microarrays, we screened a cohort of women fulfilling criteria for hereditary breast cancer who did not carry BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Results: The median numbers of total and rare CNVs per genome were not different between controls and patients. A total of 26 rare germline CNVs were identified in 68 cancer patients, however, a proportion that was significantly different (P = 0.0311) from the control group (23 rare CNVs in 100 individuals). Several of the genes affected by CNV in patients and controls had already been implicated in cancer. Conclusions: This study is the first to explore the contribution of germline CNVs to BRCA1/2-negative familial and early-onset breast cancer. The data suggest that rare CNVs may contribute to cancer predisposition in this small cohort of patients, and this trend needs to be confirmed in larger population samples.

Li-Fraumeni-like syndrome associated with a large BRCA1 intragenic deletion

Background: Li-Fraumeni (LFS) and Li-Fraumeni-like (LFL) syndromes are associated to germline TP53 mutations, and are characterized by the development of central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, adrenocortical carcinomas, and other early-onset tumors. Due to the high frequency of breast cancer in LFS/LFL families, these syndromes clinically overlap with hereditary breast cancer (HBC). Germline point mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 genes are associated with high risk of breast cancer. Large rearrangements involving these genes are also implicated in the HBC phenotype. Methods: We have screened DNA copy number changes by MLPA on BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 genes in 23 breast cancer patients with a clinical diagnosis consistent with LFS/LFL; most of these families also met the clinical criteria for other HBC syndromes. Results: We found no DNA copy number alterations in the BRCA2 and TP53 genes, but we detected in one patient a 36.4 Kb BRCA1 microdeletion, confirmed and further mapped by array-CGH, encompassing exons 9-19. Breakpoints sequencing analysis suggests that this rearrangement was mediated by flanking Alu sequences. Conclusion: This is the first description of a germline intragenic BRCA1 deletion in a breast cancer patient with a family history consistent with both LFL and HBC syndromes. Our results show that large rearrangements in these known cancer predisposition genes occur, but are not a frequent cause of cancer susceptibility.

SET overexpression decreases cell detoxification efficiency: ALDH2 and GSTP1 are downregulated, DDR is impaired and DNA damage accumulates

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are risk factors for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) and glutathione Stransferase pi 1 (GSTP1) are important enzymes for cellular detoxification and low efficiencies are implicated in cancer. We assessed the potential role of SET protein overexpression, a histone acetylation modulator accumulated in HNSCC, in gene regulation and protein activity of ALDH2 and GSTP1. SET was knocked down in HN13, HN12 and Cal27, and overexpressed in HEK293 cells; ethanol and cisplatin were the chemical agents. Cells with SET overexpression (HEK293/SET, HN13 and HN12) showed lower ALDH2 and GSTP1 mRNA levels and trichostatin A increased them (real-time PCR). Ethanol upregulated GSTP1 and ALDH2 mRNAs, whereas cisplatin upregulated GSTP1 in HEK293 cells. SET-chromatin binding revealed SET interaction with ALDH2 and GSTP1 promoters, specifically via SET NAP domain; ethanol and cisplatin abolished SET binding. ALDH2 and GSTP1 efficiency was assessed by enzymatic and comet assay. A lower ALDH2 activity was associated with greater DNA damage (tail intensity) in HEK293/SET compared with HEK293 cells, whereas HN13/siSET showed ALDH2 activity higher than HN13 cells. HN13/siSET cells showed increased tail intensity. Cisplatin-induced DNA damage response showed negative relationship between SET overexpression and BRCA2 recruitment. SET downregulated repair genes ATM, BRCA1 and CHEK2 and upregulated TP53. Cisplatin-induced cell-cycle arrest occurred in G0/G1 and S in HEK293 cells, whereas HEK293/SET showed G2/M stalling. Overall, cisplatin was more cytotoxic for HN13 than HN13/siSET cells. Our data suggest a role for SET in cellular detoxification, DNA damage response and genome integrity.

Prevalence of the BRCA1 founder mutation c.5266dupin Brazilian individuals at-risk for the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome

About 5-10% of breast and ovarian carcinomas are hereditary and most of these result from germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In women of Ashkenazi Jewish ascendance, up to 30% of breast and ovarian carcinomas may be attributable to mutations in these genes, where 3 founder mutations, c.68_69del (185delAG) and c.5266dup (5382insC) in BRCA1 and c.5946del (6174delT) in BRCA2, are commonly encountered. It has been suggested by some authors that screening for founder mutations should be undertaken in all Brazilian women with breast cancer. Thus, the goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of three founder mutations, commonly identified in Ashkenazi individuals in a sample of non-Ashkenazi cancer-affected Brazilian women with clearly defined risk factors for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Among 137 unrelated Brazilian women from HBOC families, the BRCA1c.5266dup mutation was identified in seven individuals (5%). This prevalence is similar to that encountered in non-Ashkenazi HBOC families in other populations. However, among patients with bilateral breast cancer, the frequency of c.5266dup was significantly higher when compared to patients with unilateral breast tumors (12.1% vs 1.2%, p = 0.023). The BRCA1 c.68_69del and BRCA2 c.5946del mutations did not occur in this sample. We conclude that screening non-Ashkenazi breast cancer-affected women from the ethnically heterogeneous Brazilian populations for the BRCA1 c.68_69del and BRCA2 c.5946del is not justified, and that screening for BRCA1c.5266dup should be considered in high risk patients, given its prevalence as a single mutation. In high-risk patients, a negative screening result should always be followed by comprehensive BRCA gene testing. The finding of a significantly higher frequency of BRCA1 c.5266dup in women with bilateral breast cancer, as well as existence of other as yet unidentified founder mutations in this population, should be further assessed in a larger well characterized high-risk cohort.