Bronze age Iinhumations in ceramic urn in the middle and upper Tagus basin: A comparative point of view

Se aborda el tema de los enterramientos prehistóricos en urnas en el valle interior del río Tajo. Los caracterizamos a partir de los enterramientos conocidos hasta el momento en la zona y tres más inéditos procedentes del yacimiento de Las Mayores (Toledo), de los que hemos obtenidos recientes datos arqueométricos. Con la información resultante reflexionamos sobre su relación con otros ámbitos peninsulares, especialmente el argárico, donde tienen amplia representación, y sobre su identificación dentro de la secuencia zonal, siendo característicos de la Edad del Bronce pero ajenos a las comunidades Protocogotas. Los enterramientos en pithoi tienen escaso arraigo en el interior peninsular, mostrando, aun así, una enorme variabilidad que impide ver en ellos consideraciones sociales más allá de los valores comprensibles dentro del reducido ámbito familiar, que es el dominante en los enterramientos de la Edad del Bronce en la zonaPrehistoric urn burials in the inland Tagus valley are characterised through the known examples in the area and three new ones at the site of Las Mayores (Toledo), for which archaeometric data have recently been obtained. The information obtained allows a reflection, first on their relationship with other parts of Iberia, especially the Argaric world, where such burials are well known. In second place, their identification within the regional sequence is assessed, as they are characteristic of the Bronze Age but foreign to ProtoCogotas communities. Pithoi burials did not enjoy a tradition in inland Iberia and their great variability does not allow social considerations at the community level. This practice is only comprehensible within the small family circles of the segmentary societies that characterised the Bronze Age in the are

No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer

Objective. Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3' UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods. Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results. We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 034, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions. rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci

<p>Estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors represent 20-30% of all breast cancers, with a higher proportion occurring in younger women and women of African ancestry. The etiology and clinical behavior of ER-negative tumors are different from those of tumors expressing ER (ER positive), including differences in genetic predisposition. To identify susceptibility loci specific to ER-negative disease, we combined in a metaanalysis 3 genome-wide association studies of 4,193 ER-negative breast cancer cases and 35,194 controls with a series of 40 follow-up studies (6,514 cases and 41,455 controls), genotyped using a custom Illumina array, iCOGS, developed by the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS). SNPs at four loci, 1q32.1 (MDM4, P= 2.1 x 10(-12) and LGR6, P = 1.4 x 10(-8)), 2p24.1 (P = 4.6 x 10(-8)) and 16q12.2 (FTO, P = 4.0 x 10(-8)), were associated with ER-negative but not ER-positive breast cancer (P> 0.05). These findings provide further evidence for distinct etiological pathways associated with invasive ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancers.</p>

Chernobyl Accident : Assessing the Data

Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P < 5 × 10(-8) with ten variants at nine new loci. At P < 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer