Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age

This paper explores the evolving practices of science journalism and public debate in the digital age. The vehicle for this study is the release of digitally stored email correspondence, data and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the weeks immediately prior to the United Nations Copenhagen Summit (COP-15) in December 2009. Described using the journalistic shorthand of ‘climategate’, and initially promoted through socio-technical networks of bloggers, this episode became a global news story and the subject of several formal reviews. ‘Climategate’ illustrates that media literate critics of anthropogenic explanations of climate change used digital tools to support their cause, making visible selected, newsworthy aspects of scientific information and the practices of scientists. In conclusion, I argue that ‘climategate’ may have profound implications for the production and distribution of science news, and how climate science is represented and debated in the digitally-mediated public sphere

Identification of a Danish breast/ovarian cancer family double heterozygote for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

Mutations in the two breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Patients with mutations in both genes are rarely reported and often involve Ashkenazi founder mutations. Here we report the first identification of a Danish breast and ovarian cancer family heterozygote for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The BRCA1 nucleotide 5215G > A/c.5096G > A mutation results in the missense mutation Arg1699Gln, while the BRCA2 nucleotide 859 + 4A > G/c.631 + 4A > G is novel. Exon trapping experiments and reverse transcriptase (RT)–PCR analysis revealed that the BRCA2 mutation results in skipping of exon 7, thereby introducing a frameshift and a premature stop codon. We therefore classify the mutation as disease causing. Since the BRCA1 Arg1699Gln mutation is also suggested to be disease-causing, we consider this family double heterozygote for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

A weakly stable algorithm for general Toeplitz systems

We show that a fast algorithm for the QR factorization of a Toeplitz or Hankel matrix A is weakly stable in the sense that R^T.R is close to A^T.A. Thus, when the algorithm is used to solve the semi-normal equations R^T.Rx = A^Tb, we obtain a weakly stable method for the solution of a nonsingular Toeplitz or Hankel linear system Ax = b. The algorithm also applies to the solution of the full-rank Toeplitz or Hankel least squares problem.Comment: 17 pages. An old Technical Report with postscript added. For further details, see http://wwwmaths.anu.edu.au/~brent/pub/pub143.htm

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon K3326X and the risk of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers

Background: The K3326X variant in BRCA2 (BRCA2*c.9976A>T; p.Lys3326*; rs11571833) has been found to be associated with small increased risks of breast cancer. However, it is not clear to what extent linkage disequilibrium with fully pathogenic mutations might account for this association. There is scant information about the effect of K3326X in other hormone-related cancers. Methods: Using weighted logistic regression, we analyzed data from the large iCOGS study including 76 637 cancer case patients and 83 796 control patients to estimate odds ratios (ORw) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for K3326X variant carriers in relation to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer risks, with weights defined as probability of not having a pathogenic BRCA2 variant. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, we also examined the associations of K3326X with breast and ovarian cancer risks among 7183 BRCA1 variant carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The K3326X variant was associated with breast (ORw = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.40, P = 5.9x10- 6) and invasive ovarian cancer (ORw = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P = 3.8x10-3). These associations were stronger for serous ovarian cancer and for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer (ORw = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.70, P = 3.4x10-5 and ORw = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.76, P = 4.1x10-5, respectively). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was a statistically significant inverse association of the K3326X variant with risk of ovarian cancer (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.84, P = .013) but no association with breast cancer. No association with prostate cancer was observed. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that the K3326X variant is associated with risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers independent of other pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanism of action responsible for these associations

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

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

Inheritance of deleterious mutations at both BRCA1 and BRCA2 in an international sample of 32,295 women

Background: Most $\textit{BRCA1}$ or $\textit{BRCA2}$ mutation carriers have inherited a single (heterozygous) mutation. Transheterozygotes (TH) who have inherited deleterious mutations in both $\textit{BRCA1}$ and $\textit{BRCA2}$ are rare, and the consequences of transheterozygosity are poorly understood. Methods: From 32,295 female $\textit{BRCA1/2}$ mutation carriers, we identified 93 TH (0.3 %). "Cases" were defined as TH, and "controls" were single mutations at $\textit{BRCA1}$ (SH1) or $\textit{BRCA2}$ (SH2). Matched SH1 "controls" carried a BRCA1 mutation found in the TH "case". Matched SH2 "controls" carried a BRCA2 mutation found in the TH "case". After matching the TH carriers with SH1 or SH2, 91 TH were matched to 9316 SH1, and 89 TH were matched to 3370 SH2. Results: The majority of TH (45.2 %) involved the three common Jewish mutations. TH were more likely than SH1 and SH2 women to have been ever diagnosed with breast cancer (BC; $p$ = 0.002). TH were more likely to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OC) than SH2 ($p$ = 0.017), but not SH1. Age at BC diagnosis was the same in TH vs. SH1 ($p$ = 0.231), but was on average 4.5 years younger in TH than in SH2 ($p$ < 0.001). BC in TH was more likely to be estrogen receptor (ER) positive ($p$ = 0.010) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive ($p$ = 0.013) than in SH1, but less likely to be ER positive ($p$ < 0.001) or PR positive ($p$ = 0.012) than SH2. Among 15 tumors from TH patients, there was no clear pattern of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) for $\textit{BRCA1}$ or $\textit{BRCA2}$ in either BC or OC. Conclusions: Our observations suggest that clinical TH phenotypes resemble SH1. However, TH breast tumor marker characteristics are phenotypically intermediate to SH1 and SH2.ACA and the CIMBA data management are funded by Cancer Research UK (C12292/A20861 and C12292/A11174). TRR was supported by R01-CA083855, R01-CA102776, and P50-CA083638. KLN, TMF, and SMD are supported by the Basser Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania. BP is supported by R01-CA112520. Cancer Research UK provided financial support for this work. ACA is a Senior Cancer Research UK Cancer Research Fellow. DFE is Cancer Research UK Principal Research Fellow. Tumor analysis was funded by STOP CANCER (to SJR). Study-specific acknowledgements are as provided in the manuscript