4.5 Article

Functional Redundancy of Exon 12 of BRCA2 Revealed by a Comprehensive Analysis of the c.6853A>G (p.I2285V) Variant

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 1543-1550

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.21101

关键词

BRCA2; unclassified variants; VUS; exon splicing enhancer; ESE; ES cells

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-08-1-0402]
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variants of unknown significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are common, and present significant challenges for genetic counseling. We observed that BRCA2: c.6853A>G (p.I2285V) (Breast Cancer Information Core [BIC] name: 7081A > G; http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/bic/) co-occurs in trans with the founder mutation c.5946delT (p.S1982RfsX22) (BIC name: 6174deIT), supporting the published classification of p.I2285V as a neutral variant. However, we also noted that when compared with wild,type BRCA2, p.I2285V resulted in increased exclusion of exon 12. Functional assay using allelic complementation in Brca2-null mouse embryonic stern cells revealed that p.I2285V, an allele with exon 12 deleted and wild-type BRCA2 were all phenotypically indistinguishable, as measured by sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, effect on irradiation-induced Rad51. foci formation, homologous recombination, and overall genontic integrity. An allele frequency study showed the p.I2285V variant was identified in 15 out of 722 (2.1%) Ashkenazi Jewish cases and 10 out of 475 (2.1%) ethnically,matched controls (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.44-2.21; P = 0.97). Thus the p.I2285V variant is not associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. Taken together, our clinical and functional studies strongly suggest that exon 12 is functionally redundant and therefore missense variants in this exon are likely to be neutral. Such comprehensive functional studies will be important adjuncts to genetic studies of variants. Hum Mutat 30:1543-1550, 2009. Published 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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