Missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) altering the phosphorylation patterns of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are responsible for a large proportion of breast-ovarian cancer families. Protein-truncating mutations have been effectively used in the clinical management of familial breast cancer due to their deleterious impact on protein function. However, the majority of missense variants identified throughout the genes continue to pose an obstacle for predictive informative testing due to low frequency and lack of information on how they affect BRCA1/2 function. Phosphorylation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 play an important role in their function as regulators of DNA repair, transcription and cell cycle in response to DNA damage but whether missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are able to disrupt this important process is not known. Here we employed a novel approach using NetworKIN which predicts in vivo kinase-substrate relationship, and evolutionary conservation algorithms SIFT, PolyPhen and Align-GVGD. We evaluated whether 191 BRCA1 and 43 BRCA2 VUS from the Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC) database can functionally alter the consensus phosphorylation motifs and abolish kinase recognition and binding to sites known to be phosphorylated in vivo. Our results show that 13.09% (25/191) BRCA1 and 13.95% (6/43) BRCA2 VUS altered the phosphorylation of BRCA1 and BRCA2. We highlight six BRCA1 (K309T, S632N, S1143F, Q1144H, Q1281P, S1542C) and three BRCA2 (S196I, T207A, P3292L) VUS as potentially clinically significant. These occurred rarely (n<2 in BIC), mutated evolutionarily conserved residues and abolished kinase binding to motifs established in the literature involved in DNA repair, cell cycle regulation, transcription or response to DNA damage. Additionally in vivo phosphorylation sites identified via through-put methods are also affected by VUS and are attractive targets for studying their biological and functional significance. We propose that rare VUS affecting phosphorylation may be a novel and important mechanism for which BRCA1 and BRCA2 functions are disrupted in breast cancer.

Long-range PCR and next-generation sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast cancer.

Individuals and families carrying mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) have a markedly elevated risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers. The first-generation of BRCA1/2 mutation analysis targeted only the coding exons and has implicated protein-truncating mutations (indel, nonsense) in BRCA1/2 inactivation. Recently, heritable breast cancers have also been attributed to other exonic mutations (missense, silent) and mutations in introns and untranslated regions. However, analysis of these alterations has been prohibitively laborious and cost intensive, and the proportion of cases carrying mutations in unscreened regions of BRCA1/2 and other predisposition genes is unknown. We have developed and validated a next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach for BRCA1/2 mutation analysis by applying long-range PCR and deep sequencing. Genomic DNA from familial breast cancer patients (N = 12) were screened and NGS successfully identified all 19 distinct (51 total) BRCA1 and 35 distinct (63 total) BRCA2 sequence alterations detectable by the Sanger sequencing, with no false-negative or positive results. In addition, we report the robust detection of variants from introns and untranslated regions. These results illustrate that NGS can provide comprehensive genetic information more quickly, accurately, and at a lower cost than conventional approaches, and we propose NGS to be a more effective method for BRCA1/2 mutational analysis. Advances in NGS will play an important role in enabling molecular diagnostics and personalized treatment of breast and ovarian cancers.

Identification of germline alterations of the mad homology 2 domain of SMAD3 and SMAD4 from the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry (CFR).

INTRODUCTION: A common feature of neoplastic cells is that mutations in SMADs can contribute to the loss of sensitivity to the anti-tumor effects of transforming growth factor-ß (TGF-ß). However, germline mutation analysis of SMAD3 and SMAD4, the principle substrates of the TGF-ß signaling pathway, has not yet been conducted in breast cancer. Thus, it is currently unknown whether germline SMAD3 and SMAD4 mutations are involved in breast cancer predisposition. METHODS: We performed mutation analysis of the highly conserved mad-homology 2 (MH2) domains for both genes in genomic DNA from 408 non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer cases and 710 population controls recruited by the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry (CFR) using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) and direct DNA sequencing. The results were interpreted in several ways. First, we adapted nucleotide diversity analysis to quantitatively assess whether the frequency of alterations differ between the two genes. Next, in silico tools were used to predict variants' effect on domain function and mRNA splicing. Finally, 37 cases or controls harboring alterations were tested for aberrant splicing using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time PCR statistical comparison of germline expressions by non-parametric Mann-Whitney test of independent samples. RESULTS: We identified 27 variants including 2 novel SMAD4 coding variants c.1350G > A (p.Gln450Gln), and c.1701A > G (p.Ile525Val). There were no inactivating mutations even though c.1350G > A was predicted to affect exonic splicing enhancers. However, several additional findings were of note: 1) nucleotide diversity estimate for SMAD3 but not SMAD4 indicated that coding variants of the MH2 domain were more infrequent than expected; 2) in breast cancer cases SMAD3 was significantly over-expressed relative to controls (P < 0.05) while the case harboring SMAD4 c.1350G > A was associated with elevated germline expression (> 5-fold); 3) separate analysis using tissue expression data showed statistically significant over-expression of SMAD3 and SMAD4 in breast carcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that inactivating germline alterations in SMAD3 and SMAD4 are rare, suggesting a limited role in driving tumorigenesis. Nevertheless, aberrant germline expressions of SMAD3 and SMAD4 may be more common in breast cancer than previously suspected and offer novel insight into their roles in predisposition and/or progression of breast cancer.