4.7 Article

MRN Complex and Cancer Risk: Old Bottles, New Wine

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 20, 页码 5465-5471

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1509

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQS) Doctoral Scholarship
  2. IRCM Foundation-TD scholarship
  3. FRQS
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [FDN-148390]
  5. La Caixa Foundation [LCF/BQ/PI19/11690009, 100010434]
  6. Cancer Research Society [OG-24377]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The MRN complex plays a crucial role in maintaining genomic stability and protecting against disorders, with potential implications in breast cancer risk. Recent studies suggest that MRN genes may have new roles in clonal hematopoiesis, predisposing to hematologic malignancies and cardiovascular events.
The MRN complex, composed of MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN, mediates vital molecular functions to maintain genomic stability and hence protect against related disorders. Germline mutations in the MRN genes predispose to three different syndromes: ataxiatelangiectasia-like disorder (MRE11A deficiency), Nijmegen breakage syndrome (NBS; NBN deficiency), and NBS-like disorder (RAD50 deficiency). The potential cancer component of these syndromes in addition to the close physical and functional proximity of the MRN complex to BRCA1 has promoted the MRN genes as candidate risk genes for developing breast cancer. This notion has been challenged by independent large-scale population-based studies. Despite having their two-decade old candidacy as breast cancer genes close to being refuted, it has recently been reported that the MRN genes rise to have potential new roles in clonal hematopoiesis. In this article, we discuss the history and current status of MRN genes' clinical utility in breast cancer and then focus on their recently uncovered and less understood roles in clonal hematopoiesis that likely predispose to health-related disorders such as hematologic malignancies and/or cardiovascular morbid events.

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

4.7
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