4.5 Article

Constitutive promoter methylation of BRCA1 and RAD51C in patients with familial ovarian cancer and early-onset sporadic breast cancer

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 21, 期 21, 页码 4669-4679

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/dds308

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wurzburg University Institute of Human Genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic defects in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes, most importantly BRCA1 and BRCA2, account for approximate to 40 of hereditary BC and ovarian cancer (OC). Little is known about the contribution of constitutive (soma-wide) epimutations to the remaining cases. We developed bisulfite pyrosequencing assays to screen 600 affected BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation-negative patients from the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for constitutive hypermethylation of ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, PTEN and TP53 in blood cells. In a second step, patients with epsilon 6 promoter methylation were analyzed by bisulfite plasmid sequencing to demonstrate the presence of hypermethylated alleles (epimutations), indicative of epigenetic gene silencing. Altogether we identified nine (1.4) patients with constitutive BRCA1 and three (0.5) with RAD51C hypermethylation. Epimutations were found in both sporadic cases, in particular in 2 (5.5) of 37 patients with early-onset BC, and familial cases, in particular 4 (10) of 39 patients with OC. Hypermethylation was always confined to one of the two parental alleles in a subset (1240) of the analyzed cells. Because epimutations occurred in cell types from different embryonal layers, they most likely originated in single cells during early somatic development. We propose that analogous to germline genetic mutations constitutive epimutations may serve as the first hit of tumor development. Because the role of constitutive epimutations in cancer development is likely to be largely underestimated, future strategies for effective testing of susceptibility to BC and OC should include an epimutation screen.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据