Search

Outcome of TGFβ1 signaling is context dependent and differs between individuals due to germ-line genetic variation. To explore innate genetic variants that determine differential outcome of reduced TGFβ1 signaling, we dissected the modifier locus Tgfbm3, on mouse chromosome 12. On a NIH/OlaHsd genetic background, the Tgfbm3b(C57) haplotype suppresses prenatal lethality of Tgfb1(-/-) embryos and enhances nuclear accumulation of mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 2 (Smad2) in embryonic cells. Amino acid polymorphisms within a disintegrin and metalloprotease 17 (Adam17) can account, at least in part, for this Tgfbm3b effect. ADAM17 is known to down-regulate Smad2 signaling by shedding the extracellular domain of TGFβRI, and we show that the C57 variant is hypomorphic for down-regulation of Smad2/3-driven transcription. Genetic variation at Tgfbm3 or pharmacological inhibition of ADAM17, modulates postnatal circulating endothelial progenitor cell (CEPC) numbers via effects on TGFβRI activity. Because CEPC numbers correlate with angiogenic potential, this suggests that variant Adam17 is an innate modifier of adult angiogenesis, acting through TGFβR1. To determine whether human ADAM17 is also polymorphic and interacts with TGFβ signaling in human vascular disease, we investigated hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), which is caused by mutations in TGFβ/bone morphogenetic protein receptor genes, ENG, encoding endoglin (HHT1), or ACVRL1 encoding ALK1 (HHT2), and considered a disease of excessive abnormal angiogenesis. HHT manifests highly variable incidence and severity of clinical features, ranging from small mucocutaneous telangiectases to life-threatening visceral and cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). We show that ADAM17 SNPs associate with the presence of pulmonary AVM in HHT1 but not HHT2, indicating genetic variation in ADAM17 can potentiate a TGFβ-regulated vascular disease.

Introduction: Recognising a tumour predisposition syndrome (TPS) in patients with childhood cancer is of significant clinical relevance, as it affects treatment, prognosis and facilitates genetic counselling. Previous studies revealed that only half of the known TPSs are recognised during standard paediatric cancer care. In current medical practice it is impossible to refer every patient with childhood cancer to a clinical geneticist, due to limited capacity for routine genetic consultation. Therefore, we have developed a screening instrument to identify patients with childhood cancer with a high probability of having a TPS. The aim of this study is to validate the clinical screening instrument for TPS in patients with childhood cancer., Methods and Analysis: This study is a prospective nationwide cohort study including all newly diagnosed patients with childhood cancer in the Netherlands. The screening instrument consists of a checklist, two- and three-dimensional photographic series of the patient. 2 independent clinical geneticists will assess the content of the screening instrument. If a TPS is suspected based on the instrument data and thus further evaluation is indicated, the patient will be invited for full genetic consultation. A negative control group consists of 20% of the patients in whom a TPS is not suspected based on the instrument; they will be randomly invited for full genetic consultation. Primary outcome measurement will be sensitivity of the instrument., Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre stated that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study and that official approval of this study by the Committee was not required. The results will be offered for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at International Conferences on Oncology and Clinical Genetics. The clinical data gathered in this study will be available for all participating centres., Trial Registration Number: NTR5605., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Many suspected Lynch Syndrome (sLS) patients who lack mismatch repair (MMR) germline gene variants and MLH1 or MSH2 hypermethylation are currently explained by somatic MMR gene variants or, occasionally, by germline POLE variants. To further investigate unexplained sLS patients, we analyzed leukocyte and tumor DNA of 62 sLS patients using gene panel sequencing including the POLE, POLD1 and MMR genes. Forty tumors showed either one, two or more somatic MMR variants predicted to affect function. Nine sLS tumors showed a likely ultramutated phenotype and were found to carry germline (n=2) or somatic variants (n=7) in the POLE/POLD1 exonuclease domain (EDM). Six of these POLE/POLD1-EDM mutated tumors also carried somatic MMR variants. Our findings suggest that faulty proofreading may result in loss of MMR and thereby in microsatellite instability.