Search

Background Genetic predisposition is the primary risk factor for familial breast cancer. For the majority of familial breast cancer, however, the genetic predispositions remain unknown. All newly identified predispositions occur rarely in disease population, and the unknown genetic predispositions are estimated to reach up to total thousands. Family unit is the basic structure of genetics. Because it is an autosomal dominant disease, individuals with a history of familial breast cancer must carry the same genetic predisposition across generations. Therefore, focusing on the cases in lineages of familial breast cancer, rather than pooled cases in disease population, is expected to provide high probability to identify the genetic predisposition for each family. Methods In this study, we tested genetic predispositions by analyzing the family-specific variants in familial breast cancer. Using exome sequencing, we analyzed three families and 22 probands with BRCAx (BRCA-negative) familial breast cancer. Results We observed the presence of family-specific, novel, deleterious germline variants in each family. Of the germline variants identified, many were shared between the disease-affected family members of the same family but not found in different families, which have their own specific variants. Certain variants are putative deleterious genetic predispositions damaging functionally important genes involved in DNA replication and damaging repair, tumor suppression, signal transduction, and phosphorylation. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that the predispositions for many BRCAx familial breast cancer families can lie in each disease family. The application of a family-focused approach has the potential to detect many new predispositions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background BRCA1 plays an essential role in maintaining genome stability. Inherited BRCA1 germline mutation (BRCA1+) is a determined genetic predisposition leading to high risk of breast cancer. While BRCA1+ induces breast cancer by causing genome instability, most of the knowledge is known about somatic genome instability in breast cancer cells but not germline genome instability. Methods Using the exome-sequencing method, we analyzed the genomes of blood cells in a typical BRCA1+ breast cancer family with an exon 13-duplicated founder mutation, including six breast cancer-affected and two breast cancer unaffected members. Results We identified 23 deleterious mutations in the breast cancer-affected family members, which are absent in the unaffected members. Multiple mutations damaged functionally important and breast cancer-related genes, including transcriptional factor BPTF and FOXP1, ubiquitin ligase CUL4B, phosphorylase kinase PHKG2, and nuclear receptor activator SRA1. Analysis of the mutations between the mothers and daughters shows that most mutations were germline mutation inherited from the ancestor(s) while only a few were somatic mutation generated de novo. Conclusion Our study indicates that BRCA1+ can cause genome instability with both germline and somatic mutations in non-breast cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent studies had found thousands of natural antisense transcripts originating from the same genomic loci of protein coding genes but from the opposite strand. It is unclear whether the majority of antisense transcripts are functional or merely transcriptional noise. Results: Using the Affymetrix Exon array with a modified cDNA synthesis protocol that enables genome-wide detection of antisense transcription, we conducted large-scale expression analysis of antisense transcripts in nine corresponding tissues from human, mouse and rat. We detected thousands of antisense transcripts, some of which show tissue-specific expression that could be subjected to further study for their potential function in the corresponding tissues/organs. The expression patterns of many antisense transcripts are conserved across species, suggesting selective pressure on these transcripts. When compared to protein-coding genes, antisense transcripts show a lesser degree of expression conservation. We also found a positive correlation between the sense and antisense expression across tissues. Conclusion: Our results suggest that natural antisense transcripts are subjected to selective pressure but to a lesser degree compared to sense transcripts in mammals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]