Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 18;14(1):51.
doi: 10.1186/s13073-022-01052-8.

Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes

Leila Dorling  1 Sara Carvalho  1 Jamie Allen  1 Michael T Parsons  2 Cristina Fortuno  2 Anna González-Neira  3 Stephan M Heijl  4 Muriel A Adank  5 Thomas U Ahearn  6 Irene L Andrulis  7   8 Päivi Auvinen  9   10   11 Heiko Becher  12 Matthias W Beckmann  13 Sabine Behrens  14 Marina Bermisheva  15 Natalia V Bogdanova  16   17   18 Stig E Bojesen  19   20   21 Manjeet K Bolla  1 Michael Bremer  16 Ignacio Briceno  22 Nicola J Camp  23 Archie Campbell  24   25 Jose E Castelao  26 Jenny Chang-Claude  14   27 Stephen J Chanock  6 Georgia Chenevix-Trench  2 NBCS CollaboratorsJ Margriet Collée  28 Kamila Czene  29 Joe Dennis  1 Thilo Dörk  17 Mikael Eriksson  29 D Gareth Evans  30   31   32   33 Peter A Fasching  13   34 Jonine Figueroa  6   25   35 Henrik Flyger  36 Marike Gabrielson  29 Manuela Gago-Dominguez  37   38 Montserrat García-Closas  6 Graham G Giles  39   40   41 Gord Glendon  7 Pascal Guénel  42 Melanie Gündert  43   44   45 Andreas Hadjisavvas  46   47 Eric Hahnen  48   49 Per Hall  29   50 Ute Hamann  51 Elaine F Harkness  32   33   52 Mikael Hartman  53   54   55 Frans B L Hogervorst  5 Antoinette Hollestelle  56 Reiner Hoppe  57   58 Anthony Howell  33   59 kConFab InvestigatorsSGBCC InvestigatorsAnna Jakubowska  60   61 Audrey Jung  14 Elza Khusnutdinova  15   62 Sung-Won Kim  63 Yon-Dschun Ko  64 Vessela N Kristensen  65   66 Inge M M Lakeman  67   68 Jingmei Li  54   69 Annika Lindblom  70   71 Maria A Loizidou  46   47 Artitaya Lophatananon  72 Jan Lubiński  60 Craig Luccarini  73 Michael J Madsen  23 Arto Mannermaa  9   74   75 Mehdi Manoochehri  51 Sara Margolin  50   76 Dimitrios Mavroudis  77 Roger L Milne  39   40   41 Nur Aishah Mohd Taib  78   79 Kenneth Muir  72 Heli Nevanlinna  80 William G Newman  30   31   33 Jan C Oosterwijk  81 Sue K Park  82   83   84 Paolo Peterlongo  85 Paolo Radice  86 Emmanouil Saloustros  87 Elinor J Sawyer  88 Rita K Schmutzler  48   49   89 Mitul Shah  73 Xueling Sim  53 Melissa C Southey  39   41   90 Harald Surowy  43   44 Maija Suvanto  80 Ian Tomlinson  91   92 Diana Torres  51   93 Thérèse Truong  42 Christi J van Asperen  68 Regina Waltes  17 Qin Wang  1 Xiaohong R Yang  6 Paul D P Pharoah  1   73 Marjanka K Schmidt  94   95 Javier Benitez  3   96 Bas Vroling  4   97 Alison M Dunning  73 Soo Hwang Teo  78   98 Anders Kvist  99 Miguel de la Hoya  100 Peter Devilee  67   101 Amanda B Spurdle  2 Maaike P G Vreeswijk  67 Douglas F Easton  102   103
Affiliations

Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes

Leila Dorling et al. Genome Med. .

Abstract

Background: Protein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain.

Methods: We analyzed data on 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls from studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium BRIDGES project. We sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1425), CHEK2 (325), and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated.

Results: The most predictive in silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2%, and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47-2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set.

Conclusions: These results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Genetic epidemiology; Missense variants; Risk prediction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BV and SMH are employees and shareholders of Bio-Prodict, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Odds ratios and alpha estimates for each of five genes in population training samples. A ATM. Odds ratios for breast cancer risk from logistic regression models. Alpha is the estimated proportion of risk associated variants from mixture models, based on variants in control samples. ATM risk categories: variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in the fifth quintile (FAT/PIK + CADD5); variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in any of the first four quintiles (FAT/PIK + CADD1-4); variants lying outside the FAT and PI3K/PI4K protein domains (Outside FAT/PIK). B BRCA1. Odds ratios for breast cancer risk from logistic regression models. Alpha is the estimated proportion of risk associated variants from mixture models, based on variants in control samples. BRCA1 risk categories: variants lying within the RING or BRCT domains with a high Helix score (RING/BRCT + Helix-high); variants lying with the RING or BRCT domains with a low Helix score (RING/BRCT + Helix-low); variants lying outside the RING and BRCT domains (Outside RING/BRCT). C BRCA2. Odds ratios for breast cancer risk from logistic regression models. Alpha is the estimated proportion of risk associated variants from mixture models, based on variants in control samples. BRCA2 risk categories: variants with a high Helix score (Helix-high); variants with a low Helix score (Helix-low). D CHEK2. Odds ratios for breast cancer risk from logistic regression models. Alpha is the estimated proportion of risk associated variants from mixture models, based on variants in control samples. CHEK2 risk categories: variants with a high Helix score (Helix-high); variants with a low Helix score (Helix-low). E PALB2. Odds ratios for breast cancer risk from logistic regression models. Alpha is the estimated proportion of risk associated variants from mixture models, based on variants in control samples. PALB2 risk categories: carriers of any missense variant (Carriers)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Case and control carriers across all samples for each observed missense variant by gene. A ATM. ATM risk categories: variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in fifth quintile (FAT/PIK + CADD5); variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in any of first four quintiles (FAT/PIK + CADD1-4); variants lying outside the FAT and PI3K/PI4K protein domains (Outside FAT/PIK). B BRCA1. BRCA1 risk categories: variants lying within the RING or BRCT domains with a high Helix score (RING/BRCT + Helix-high); variants lying with the RING or BRCT domains with a low Helix score (RING/BRCT + Helix-low); variants lying outside the RING and BRCT domains (Outside RING/BRCT). C BRCA2. BRCA2 risk categories: variants with a high Helix score (Helix-high); variants with a low Helix score (Helix-low). D CHEK2. CHEK2 risk categories: variants with a high Helix score (Helix-high); variants with a low Helix score (Helix-low). E PALB2. PALB2 risk categories: carriers of any missense variant (Carriers)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Breast cancer risk estimates from composite gene model in validation samples. Black marks indicate corresponding ORs from training models. Risk categories: ATM FAT/PIK + CADD5: ATM variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in fifth quintile; ATM FAT/PIK + CADD1-4: ATM variants lying within the FAT or PI3K/PI4K protein domains with CADD score in any of first four quintiles; ATM outside FAT/PIK: variants lying outside the FAT and PI3K/PI4K protein domains; BRCA1 RING/BRCT + Helix-high: BRCA1 variants lying within the RING or BRCT domains with a high Helix score; BRCA1 RING/BRCT + Helix-low: BRCA1 variants lying with the RING or BRCT domains with a low Helix score; BRCA1 outside RING/BRCT: BRCA1 variants lying outside the RING and BRCT domains; BRCA2 Helix-high: BRCA2 variants with a high Helix score; BRCA2 Helix-low: BRCA2 variants with a low Helix score; CHEK2 Helix-high: CHEK2 variants with a high Helix score; CHEK2 Helix-low: CHEK2 variants with a low Helix score; PALB2 carriers: carriers of any missense variant in PALB2

References

    1. Easton DF, Pharoah PDP, Antoniou AC, Tischkowitz M, Tavtigian SV, Nathanson KL, et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2243–2257. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1501341. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Monteiro AN, Tavtigian SV, Couch FJ. Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;75(4):535–544. doi: 10.1086/424388. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Pruss D, Frye C, Wenstrup RJ, Allen-Brady K, et al. A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer–predisposition genes. Am J Human Gene. 2007;81(5):873–883. doi: 10.1086/521032. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tavtigian SV, Chenevix-Trench G. Growing recognition of the role for rare missense substitutions in breast cancer susceptibility. Biomark Med. 2014;8(4):589–603. doi: 10.2217/bmm.13.143. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tavtigian SV, Oefner PJ, Babikyan D, Hartmann A, Healey S, Le Calvez-Kelm F, et al. Rare, Evolutionarily unlikely missense substitutions in ATM confer increased risk of breast cancer. Am J Human Gene. 2009;85(4):427–446. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.08.018. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types