Identification of two evolutionarily conserved and functional regulatory elements in intron 2 of the human BRCA1 gene

Cross-species comparative genomics is a powerful strategy for identifying functional regulatory elements within noncoding DNA. In this paper, comparative analysis of human and mouse intronic sequences in the breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1) revealed two evolutionarily conserved noncoding sequences (CNS) in intron 2, 5 kb downstream of the core BRCA1 promoter. The functionality of these elements was examined using homologous-recombination-based mutagenesis of reporter gene-tagged cosmids incorporating these regions and flanking sequences from the BRCA1 locus. This showed that CNS-1 and CNS-2 have differential transcriptional regulatory activity in epithelial cell lines. Mutation of CNS-1 significantly reduced reporter gene expression to 30% of control levels. Conversely mutation of CNS-2 increased expression to 200% of control levels. Regulation is at the level of transcription and shows promoter specificity. Both elements also specifically bind nuclear proteins in vitro. These studies demonstrate that the combination of comparative genomics and functional analysis is a successful strategy to identify novel regulatory elements and provide the first direct evidence that conserved noncoding sequences in BRCA1 regulate gene expression. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Metilação e expressão do gene BRCA1 em meningiomas

Pós-graduação em Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (Biotecnologia Médica) - FMB

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.

Germline BRCA1 mutation analysis in Indian breast/ovarian cancer families

Most of the predisposition to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer has been attributed to inherited defects in two tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. To explore the contribution of BRCA1 mutations to hereditary breast cancer among Indian women, we examined the coding sequence of the BRCA1 gene in 14 breast cancer patients with a positive family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Mutation analysis was carried out using conformation sensitive gel electrophoresis (CSGE) followed by sequencing. Three mutations (21%) in the BRCA1 gene were identified. Two of them are novel mutations of which one is a missense mutation in exon 7 near the RING finger domain, while the other is a one base pair deletion in exon 11 which results in protein truncation. The third mutation, 185delAG, has been previously described in Ashkenazi Jewish families. To our knowledge this is the first report of a study of germline BRCA1 mutation analysis in familial breast cancer in India. Our data from 14 different families suggests a lower prevalence but definite involvement of germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene among Indian women with breast cancer and a family history of breast cancer.

BRCA1: mechanisms of inactivation and implications for management of patients.

The BRCA1 gene was cloned in 1994 as one of the genes that conferred genetic predisposition to early-onset breast and ovarian cancer. Since then, a genetic test for identification of high-risk individuals has been developed. Despite being implicated in many important cellular pathways, including DNA repair and regulation of transcription, the exact mechanism by which inactivation of BRCA1 might lead to malignant transformation of cells remains unknown. We examine the mechanisms that underlie inactivation of BRCA1 and assess how they affect management of patients, in terms of both primary and secondary cancer prevention strategies. Furthermore, we look at the potential usefulness of BRCA1 as a prognostic tool and as a predictive marker of response to different classes of drugs. Finally, throughout this review, we draw links between the functional consequences of BRCA1 inactivation, in terms of key cellular signalling pathways, and how they might explain specific clinical observations in individuals who carry mutations in the gene.

BRCA1 and implications for response to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer

Objectives: Treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a challenge, despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy. Hereditary ovarian cancer is primarily due to germline mutations in the BRCA1 tumour suppressor gene. In addition, sporadic EOC tumours display signi?cant of loss of BRCA1 function due to epigenetic inactivation of the BRCA1 gene. This article reviews the preclinical and clinical evidence to support a role for BRCA1 as a potential predictive biomarker of response to both platinum and taxane based chemotherapy in EOC.

Methods: We conducted a Medline and Pubmed search for reports between 1990 and 2008 using the search terms: BRCA1 and hereditary ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and sporadic ovarian cancer, ovarian cancer and chemotherapy, ovarian cancer and taxanes, ovarian cancer and platinums, ovarian cancer and clinical response, BRCA1 and DNA damage, BRCA1 and DNA repair, BRCA1 and mitotic checkpoint. If reports identi?ed by these criteria referred to other papers not in the initial search, then these were also reviewed if relevant to BRCA1 and ovarian cancer.

Results: The BRCA1 pathway plays a signi?cant role in the development of both hereditary and sporadic EOC. Evidence suggests that BRCA1 is a potential biomarker of response to platinum chemotherapy in EOC with BRCA1 de?ciency predicting for enhanced response. In contrast, initial evidence suggests that loss of BRCA1 function results in reduced response to antimicrotubule-based chemotherapy. The ability of BRCA1 to differentially modulate response to these agents involves loss of BRCA1 mediated DNA repair and mitotic checkpoint control, respectively.

Conclusions: Standard ?rst line treatment of EOC consists of a combination of platinum and taxane chemotherapy, however clinically useful biomarkers for predicting response to these agents have yet to be established. BRCA1 may prove useful as a biomarker in EOC for assigning chemotherapy treatments based on the presence or absence of BRCA1 function.

Cell cycle-dependent colocalization of BARD1 and BRCA1 proteins in discrete nuclear domains

Germ-line mutations of the BRCA1 gene predispose women to early-onset breast and ovarian cancer by compromising the gene’s presumptive function as a tumor suppressor. Although the biochemical properties of BRCA1 polypeptides are not understood, their expression pattern and subcellular localization suggest a role in cell-cycle regulation. When resting cells are induced to proliferate, the steady-state levels of BRCA1 increase in late G1 and reach a maximum during S phase. Moreover, in S phase cells, BRCA1 polypeptides are hyperphosphorylated and accumulate into discrete subnuclear foci termed “BRCA1 nuclear dots.” BRCA1 associates in vivo with a structurally related protein termed BARD1. Here we show that the steady-state levels of BARD1, unlike those of BRCA1, remain relatively constant during cell cycle progression. However, immunostaining revealed that BARD1 resides within BRCA1 nuclear dots during S phase of the cell cycle, but not during the G1 phase. Nevertheless, BARD1 polypeptides are found exclusively in the nuclear fractions of both G1- and S-phase cells. Therefore, progression to S phase is accompanied by the aggregation of nuclear BARD1 polypeptides into BRCA1 nuclear dots. This cell cycle-dependent colocalization of BARD1 and BRCA1 indicates a role for BARD1 in BRCA1-mediated tumor suppression.

BRCA1 is a cell cycle-regulated nuclear phosphoprotein

We have characterized the BRCA1 gene product by using four polyclonal antibodies raised against peptides from four different regions of the protein. The antibodies specifically recognize an ≈220-kDa BRCA1 protein that is predominantly expressed in the nucleus of both normal and neoplastic breast cancer cells. It is a serine phosphoprotein that undergoes hyperphosphorylation during late G1 and S phases of the cell cycle and is transiently dephosphorylated early after M phase. We propose that BRCA1 is a phosphoprotein that alters in a qualitative and quantitative manner during cell cycle progression.

Physical mapping, cloning, and identification of genes within a 500-kb region containing BRCA1.

BRCA1 is a breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility gene on human chromosome 17q21. We describe a complete and detailed physical map of a 500-kb region of genomic DNA containing the BRCA1 gene and the partial cloning in phage P1 artificial chromosomes. Approximately 70 exons were isolated from this region, 11 of which were components of the BRCA1 gene. Analysis of the other exons revealed a rho-related G protein and the interferon-induced leucine-zipper protein IFP-35.

Morphology of breast cancer as a means of triage of patients for BRCA1 genetic testing

Background: Women who have germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene are at substantially increased lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer but are otherwise normal. Currently. early age of onset of cancer and a strong family history are relied upon as the chief clues as to who should be offered genetic testing. Certain morphologic and immunohistochemical features are overrepresented in BRCA1-associated breast cancers but these differences have not been incorporated into the current selection criteria for genetic testing. Design: Each of the 4 pathologists studied 30 known cases of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast cancer from kConFab families. After reviewing the literature, we agreed on a semiquantitative scoring system for estimating the chances of presence of an underlying BRCA1 mutation, based on the number of the reported prototypic features present. After a time lag of 12 months, we each examined a series of 62 deidentified cases of breast cancer, inclusive of cases of BRCA1-associated breast cancer and controls. The controls included cases of BRCA2-associated breast cancer and sporadic cases. Results: Our predictions had a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 86%, positive predictive value of 61%, and negative predictive value of 98%. For comparison the sensitivity of currently used selection criteria are in the range of 25% to 30%. Conclusion: The inclusion of morphologic and immunohistochemical features of breast cancers in algorithms to predict the likelihood of presence of germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene improves the accuracy of the selection process.

Hypersensitivity of BRCA1 Heterozygote Lymphoblastoid cells to Gamma radiation and PARP inhibitors

PARP inhibitors can be used to induce synthetic lethality in cells with bi-allelic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. However the effect of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation on cells with mono-allelic mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 is unknown. We have examined the cell survival response of lymphoblastoid cells derived from normal individuals and those derived from carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, following exposure to ionising radiation and the PARP inhibitor Olaparib. Two lymphoblastoid cell lines from normal individuals and three with mono-allelic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were exposed to increasing doses of gamma radiation either alone or in combination with 5 μM Olaparib. Cell survival was measured using the MTT assay. Exposure to increasing doses of gamma radiation caused a reduction in cell survival of all cell types. The combined exposure to gamma radiation and 5 μM Olaparib did not enhance cell kill in normal or BRCA2 heterozygote lymphoblastoid cells but significantly enhanced cell kill in cells derived from BRCA1 carriers (P = 0.02). The treatment of cancer patients carrying mutations in the BRCA1 gene with radiotherapy and the PARP inhibitor Olaparib may significantly enhance radiation induced normal tissue toxicity in these patients.

BRCA1 and c-Myc Associate to Transcriptionally Repress Psoriasin, a DNA Damage-Inducible Gene

Evidence is accumulating to suggest that some of the diverse functions associated with BRCA1 may relate to its ability to transcriptionally regulate key downstream target genes. Here, we identify S100A7 (psoriasin), S100A8, and S100A9, members of the S100A family of calcium-binding proteins, as novel BRCA1-repressed targets. We show that functional BRCA1 is required for repression of these family members and that a BRCA1 disease–associated mutation abrogates BRCA1-mediated repression of psoriasin. Furthermore, we show that BRCA1 and c-Myc form a complex on the psoriasin promoter and that BRCA1-mediated repression of psoriasin is dependent on functional c-Myc. Finally, we show that psoriasin expression is induced by the topoisomerase IIA poison, etoposide, in the absence of functional BRCA1 and increased psoriasin expression enhances cellular sensitivity to this chemotherapeutic agent. Therefore, we identified a novel transcriptional mechanism that is likely to contribute to BRCA1-mediated resistance to etoposide.