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

Application of a functional model for the modernization of devices designed to eliminate emergency oil spills

The article describes the stages of creation and composition of the functional model, which can be used for the design of oil spill response devices. The principle of operation of the functional model given in the article and it's graphical scheme are show

Identification of a DMBT1 polymorphism associated with increased breast cancer risk and decreased promoter activity

According to present estimations, the unfavorable combination of alleles with low penetrance but high prevalence in the population might account for the major part of hereditary breast cancer risk. Deleted in Malignant Brain Tumors 1 (DMBT1) has been proposed as a tumor suppressor for breast cancer and other cancer types. Genomewide mapping in mice further identified Dmbt1 as a potential modulator of breast cancer risk. Here, we report the association of two frequent and linked single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with increased breast cancer risk in women above the age of 60 years: DMBT1 c.-93C>T, rs2981745, located in the DMBT1 promoter; and DMBT1 c.124A>C, p.Thr42Pro, rs11523871(odds ratio [OR]=1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.21-2.29, P=0.0017; and OR=1.66; 95% CI=1.21-2.28, P=0.0016, respectively), based on 1,195 BRCA1/2 mutation-negative German breast cancer families and 1,466 unrelated German controls. Promoter studies in breast cancer cells demonstrate that the risk-increasing DMBT1 -93T allele displays significantly decreased promoter activity compared to the DMBT1 -93C allele, resulting in a loss of promoter activity. The data suggest that DMBT1 polymorphisms in the 5'-region are associated with increased breast cancer risk. In accordance with previous results, these data link decreased DMBT1 levels to breast cancer risk

BACH1 Ser919Pro variant and breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND: BACH1 (BRCA1-associated C-terminal helicase 1; also known as BRCA1-interacting protein 1, BRIP1) is a helicase protein that interacts in vivo with BRCA1, the protein product of one of the major genes for hereditary predisposition to breast cancer. Previously, two BACH1 germ line missense mutations have been identified in early-onset breast cancer patients with and without family history of breast and ovarian cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether there are BACH1 genetic variants that contribute to breast cancer risk in Finland. METHODS: The BACH1 gene was screened for germ line alterations among probands from 43 Finnish BRCA1/2 negative breast cancer families. Recently, one of the observed common variants, Ser-allele of the Ser919Pro polymorphism, was suggested to associate with an increased breast cancer risk, and was here evaluated in an independent, large series of 888 unselected breast cancer patients and in 736 healthy controls. RESULTS: Six BACH1 germ line alterations were observed in the mutation analysis, but none of these were found to associate with the cancer phenotype. The Val193Ile variant that was seen in only one family was further screened in an independent series of 346 familial breast cancer cases and 183 healthy controls, but no additional carriers were observed. Individuals with the BACH1 Ser919-allele were not found to have an increased breast cancer risk when the Pro/Ser heterozygotes (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.70–1.16; p = 0.427) or Ser/Ser homozygotes (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76–1.35; p = 0.91) were compared to Pro/Pro homozygotes, and there was no association of the variant with any breast tumor characteristics, age at cancer diagnosis, family history of cancer, or survival. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the BACH1 Ser919 is not a breast cancer predisposition allele in the Finnish study population. Together with previous studies, our results also indicate that although some rare germ line variants in BACH1 may contribute to breast cancer development, the contribution of BACH1 germline alterations to familial breast cancer seems marginal

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