Grafting: Making Space for International and Comparative Education in a Pre-service Teacher Social Foundations Class

This article contributes to a growing appreciation and understanding of both the ways to include exposure to Comparative and International Education (CIE) in undergraduate teacher education as well as to how students take up and respond creatively to opportunities for comparative exploration. In order to make space for comparative education in the already oversubscribed pre-service teacher’s program of study, we (1) explore a strategy to use a required undergraduate social foundations’ class for pre-service teachers at a large public university as a platform for comparative education, and (2) share the lessons learned from creating space for students to express their international and comparative curiosities. We open the article by introducing the “grafting” strategy to make space for the comparative; we then turn to the ways we employed a pedagogical tool we call “drawing out” to allow students to make comparative connections by responding to our deliberate, comparative prompts. We found that by embracing the grafting approach we created opportunities for students to make their own conclusions about the value of comparative considerations and to express their organic interest in the international to better understand domestic developments and options

Sickle Cell Disease Subjects Have a Distinct Abnormal Autonomic Phenotype Characterized by Peripheral Vasoconstriction With Blunted Cardiac Response to Head-Up Tilt

In sickle cell disease (SCD), prolonged capillary transit times, resulting from reduced peripheral blood flow, increase the likelihood of rigid red cells entrapment in the microvasculature, predisposing to vaso-occlusive crisis. Since changes in peripheral flow are mediated by the autonomic nervous system (ANS), we tested the hypothesis that the cardiac and peripheral vascular responses to head-up tilt (HUT) are abnormal in SCD. Heart rate, respiration, non-invasive continuous blood pressure and finger photoplethysmogram (PPG) were monitored before, during, and after HUT in SCD, anemic controls and healthy subjects. Percent increase in heart rate from baseline was used to quantify cardiac ANS response, while percent decrease in PPG amplitude represented degree of peripheral vasoconstriction. After employing cluster analysis to determine threshold levels, the HUT responses were classified into four phenotypes: (CP) increased heart rate and peripheral vasoconstriction; (C) increased heart rate only; (P) peripheral vasoconstriction only; and (ST) subthreshold cardiac and peripheral vascular responses. Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was used to relate these phenotypic responses to various parameters representing blood properties and baseline cardiovascular activity. The most common phenotypic response, CP, was found in 82% of non-SCD subjects, including those with chronic anemia. In contrast, 70% of SCD subjects responded abnormally to HUT: C-phenotype = 22%, P-phenotype = 37%, or ST-phenotype = 11%. MLR revealed that the HUT phenotypes were significantly associated with baseline cardiac parasympathetic activity, baseline peripheral vascular variability, hemoglobin level and SCD diagnosis. Low parasympathetic activity at baseline dramatically increased the probability of belonging to the P-phenotype in SCD subjects, even after adjusting for hemoglobin level, suggesting a characteristic autonomic dysfunction that is independent of anemia. Further analysis using a mathematical model of heart rate variability revealed that the low parasympathetic activity in P-phenotype SCD subjects was due to impaired respiratory-cardiac coupling rather than reduced cardiac baroreflex sensitivity. By having strong peripheral vasoconstriction without compensatory cardiac responses, P-phenotype subjects may be at increased risk for vaso-occlusive crisis. The classification of autonomic phenotypes based on HUT response may have potential use for guiding therapeutic interventions to alleviate the risk of adverse outcomes in SCD

Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Funder: CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no.16933) to L. Ottini. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo. Jacopo Azzollini is supported by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’). DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). GC-HBOC: German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). GEMO: Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). GEORGETOWN: the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON: the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and OTKA K-112228. ICO: The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. MAYO: NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201),and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). MODSQUAD: MH CZ - DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS - NPS I - LO1413 to LF and by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SEABASS: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032, P20CA233307, American Cancer Society (MRSG-13-063-01-TBG, CRP-10-119-01-CCE), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation (SAC110026), and Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance. Mr. Qian was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Cuckein Student Research Fellowship. UCLA: Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124.Abstract: Background: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. Methods: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. Results: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). Conclusion: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.Peer reviewe

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Purpose We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks forBRCA1andBRCA2pathogenic variant carriers. Methods Retrospective cohort data on 18,935BRCA1and 12,339BRCA2female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. Results The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk forBRCA1carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33],P = 3x10(-72)). ForBRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36],P = 7x10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk forBRCA1(HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40],P = 3x10(-22)) andBRCA2(HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60],P = 4x10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks forBRCA1/2carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.Peer reviewe

Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29,700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

The prevalence and spectrum of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been reported in single populations, with the majority of reports focused on White in Europe and North America. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) has assembled data on 18,435 families with BRCA1 mutations and 11,351 families with BRCA2 mutations ascertained from 69 centers in 49 countries on six continents. This study comprehensively describes the characteristics of the 1,650 unique BRCA1 and 1,731 unique BRCA2 deleterious (disease-associated) mutations identified in the CIMBA database. We observed substantial variation in mutation type and frequency by geographical region and race/ethnicity. In addition to known founder mutations, mutations of relatively high frequency were identified in specific racial/ethnic or geographic groups that may reflect founder mutations and which could be used in targeted (panel) first pass genotyping for specific populations. Knowledge of the population-specific mutational spectrum in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could inform efficient strategies for genetic testing and may justify a more broad-based oncogenetic testing in some populations

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND : Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. METHODS : We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. RESULTS : Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). CONCUSION : Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.https://www.nature.com/bjc2020-06-19hj2020Genetic

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts