Advertisement

Familial Cancer

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Discovery of mutations in homologous recombination genes in African-American women with breast cancer

  • Yuan Chun Ding
  • Aaron W. Adamson
  • Linda Steele
  • Adam M. Bailis
  • Esther M. John
  • Gail Tomlinson
  • Susan L. Neuhausen
Original Article
  • 328 Downloads

Abstract

African-American women are more likely to develop aggressive breast cancer at younger ages and experience poorer cancer prognoses than non-Hispanic Caucasians. Deficiency in repair of DNA by homologous recombination (HR) is associated with cancer development, suggesting that mutations in genes that affect this process may cause breast cancer. Inherited pathogenic mutations have been identified in genes involved in repairing DNA damage, but few studies have focused on African-Americans. We screened for germline mutations in seven HR repair pathway genes in DNA of 181 African-American women with breast cancer, evaluated the potential effects of identified missense variants using in silico prediction software, and functionally characterized a set of missense variants by yeast two-hybrid assays. We identified five likely-damaging variants, including two PALB2 truncating variants (Q151X and W1038X) and three novel missense variants (RAD51C C135R, and XRCC3 L297P and V337E) that abolish protein–protein interactions in yeast two-hybrid assays. Our results add to evidence that HR gene mutations account for a proportion of the genetic risk for developing breast cancer in African-Americans. Identifying additional mutations that diminish HR may provide a tool for better assessing breast cancer risk and improving approaches for targeted treatment.

Keywords

Homologous recombination Germline mutations Breast cancer African-Americans Loss of protein function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank David Schild for the yeast two-hybrid plasmids containing human XRCC3, XRCC2, RAD51D, RAD51C, and RAD51B; Jeremy Stark for the plasmid containing human RAD51, Carl VanNess for performing sample preparation and sequencing reactions, and Leila Su for help with the structural modeling of RAD51. This work was funded by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship (SLN), R50CA211280 (AWA); and African-American breast cancer cases were collected under funding from the National Institutes of Health R01CA74415 (SLN). Research reported in this publication included work performed in the Bioinformatics Core supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number P30CA33572. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10689_2017_36_MOESM1_ESM.xls (36 kb)
Table 1S. PCR Primers and Conditions (XLS 36 KB)
10689_2017_36_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
Table 2S. 125 Variants (XLSX 28 KB)
10689_2017_36_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (18 kb)
Table 3S. Low Frequency Missense and Nonsense Variants (XLSX 18 KB)
10689_2017_36_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Table 4S. List of Y2H Variants and Activity (XLSX 12 KB)
10689_2017_36_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (333 kb)
Figure S1. Modeling Mutation Effect on RAD51 Protein Stability (PDF 333 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    DeSantis C et al (2014) Breast cancer statistics, 2013. Ca-a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 64(1):52–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society (2011–2012). Breast Cancer Facts and Figs. American Cancer Society, Inc, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohler BA et al (2015) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Nat Cancer Inst 107(7):djv048PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Telli ML et al (2016) Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) Score Predicts Response to Platinum-Containing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 22(15):3764–3773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prakash R et al., Homologous recombination and human health: the roles of BRCA1, BRCA2, and associated proteins. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol, 2015. 7(4)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Churpek JE et al (2015) Inherited predisposition to breast cancer among African-American women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149(1):31–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park JY, Zhang F, Andreassen PR (2014) PALB2: the hub of a network of tumor suppressors involved in DNA damage responses. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta 1846(1):263–275PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Somyajit K et al (2013) ATM- and ATR-mediated phosphorylation of XRCC3 regulates DNA double-strand break-induced checkpoint activation and repair. Mol Cell Biol 33(9):1830–1844CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Somyajit K, Subramanya S, Nagaraju G (2010) RAD51C: a novel cancer susceptibility gene is linked to Fanconi anemia and breast cancer. Carcinogenesis 31(12):2031–2038CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Somyajit K, Subramanya S, Nagaraju G (2012) Distinct roles of FANCO/RAD51C protein in DNA damage signaling and repair implications for Fanconi anemia and breast cancer susceptibility. J Biol Chem 287(5):3366–3380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagaraju G et al (2009) XRCC2 and XRCC3 regulate the balance between short- and long-tract gene conversions between sister chromatids. Mol Cell Biol 29(15):4283–4294CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagaraju G et al (2006) Differential regulation of short- and long-tract gene conversion between sister chromatids by Rad51C. Mol Cell Biol 26(21):8075–8086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Negrini S, Gorgoulis VG, Halazonetis TD (2010) Genomic instability—an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11(3):220–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ding YC et al (2011) Germline mutations in PALB2 in African-American breast cancer cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126(1):227–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng Y et al (2012) Novel germline PALB2 truncating mutations in African-American breast cancer patients. Cancer 118(5):1362–1370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Churpek JE et al (2013) Inherited mutations in breast cancer genes in African-American breast cancer patients revealed by targeted genomic capture and next-generation sequencing. J Clin Oncol, 31(18):CRA1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah A, Seedhouse C (2012) Frequency of TP53 mutations and its impact on drug sensitivity in acute myeloid leukemia? Indian J Clin Biochem 27(2):121–126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang K, Li MY, Hakonarson H (2010) ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq603 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ng PC, Henikoff S (2001) Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions. Genome Res 11(5):863–874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adzhubei IA et al (2010) A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods 7(4):248–249CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chun S, Fay JC (2009) Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes. Genome Res 19(9):1553–1561CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siepel A, Pollard KS, Haussler D (2006) New methods for detecting lineage-specific selection, in research in computational molecular biology, proceedings. Apostolico A et al (ed). Springer, Berlin, pp 190–205Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwarz JM et al (2010) MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations. Nat Methods 7(8):575–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper GM et al (2010) Single-nucleotide evolutionary constraint scores highlight disease-causing mutations. Nat Methods 7(4):250–251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aihara H et al (1999) The N-terminal domain of the human Rad51 protein binds DNA: structure and a DNA binding surface as revealed by NMR. J Mol Biol 290(2):495–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Powell M (1964) An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. Comput J 7(2):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen Z et al (1996) Specific interactions between the human RAD51 and RAD52 proteins. J Biol Chem 271(1):148–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dosanjh MK et al (1998) Isolation and characterization of RAD51C, a new human member of the RAD51 family of related genes. Nucleic Acids Res 26(5):1179–1184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Golub EI et al (1997) Interaction of human recombination proteins Rad51 and Rad54. Nucleic Acids Res 25(20):4106–4110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu N et al (1998) XRCC2 and XRCC3, new human Rad51-family members, promote chromosome stability and protect against DNA cross-links and other damages. Mol Cell 1(6):783–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schild D, Collins LY, Tsomondo DW, Chen DJ (2000) Evidence for simultaneous protein interactions in Human Rad51 paralogs. J Biol Chem 275:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park JY et al (2014) Breast cancer-associated missense mutants of the PALB2 WD40 domain, which directly binds RAD51C, RAD51 and BRCA2, disrupt DNA repair. Oncogene 33(40):4803–4812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park DJ et al (2012) Rare mutations in XRCC2 increase the risk of breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 90(4):734–739CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Le Calvez-Kelm F et al (2011) Rare, evolutionarily unlikely missense substitutions in CHEK2 contribute to breast cancer susceptibility: results from a breast cancer family registry case-control mutation-screening study. Breast Cancer Res 13(1):R6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tavtigian SV et al (2009) Rare, evolutionarily unlikely missense substitutions in ATM confer increased risk of breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 85(4):427–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Osorio A et al (2012) Predominance of pathogenic missense variants in the RAD51C gene occurring in breast and ovarian cancer families. Hum Mol Genet 21(13):2889–2898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shin DS et al (2003) Full-length archaeal Rad51 structure and mutants: mechanisms for RAD51 assembly and control by BRCA2. EMBO J 22(17):4566–4576CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ishida T et al (2007) Altered DNA binding by the human Rad51-R150Q mutant found in breast cancer patients. Biol Pharm Bull 30(8):1374–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen JH et al (2015) Tumor-associated mutations in a conserved structural motif alter physical and biochemical properties of human RAD51 recombinase. Nucleic Acids Res 43(2):1098–1111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miller KA et al (2002) RAD51C interacts with RAD51B and is central to a larger protein complex in vivo exclusive of RAD51. J Biol Chem 277(10):8406–8411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu N et al (2002) Involvement of Rad51C in two distinct protein complexes of Rad51 paralogs in human cells. Nucleic Acids Res 30(4):1009–1015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masson JY et al (2001) Identification and purification of two distinct complexes containing the five RAD51 paralogs. Genes Dev 15(24):3296–3307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pellegrini L et al (2002) Insights into DNA recombination from the structure of a RAD51-BRCA2 complex. Nature 420(6913):287–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Linke SP et al (2003) p53 interacts with hRAD51 and hRAD54, and directly modulates homologous recombination. Cancer Res 63(10):2596–2605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tanaka K et al (2000) A novel human rad54 homologue, Rad54B, associates with Rad51. J Biol Chem 275(34):26316–26321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Antoniou AC et al (2014) Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med 371(6):497–506CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Casadei S et al (2011) Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 71(6):2222–2229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Southey MC et al (2010) A PALB2 mutation associated with high risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 12(6):R109CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blanco A et al (2014) RAD51C germline mutations found in Spanish site-specific breast cancer and breast-ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147(1):133–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Clague J et al (2011) RAD51C germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer cases from high-risk families. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025632 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Michalska MM et al (2015) Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of RAD51-G172T and XRCC2-41657C/T homologous recombination repair genes and the risk of triple-negative breast cancer in polish women. Pathol Oncol Res 21(4):935–940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pelttari LM et al (2016) RAD51B in familial breast cancer. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153788 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pelttari LM et al (2015) RAD51, XRCC3, and XRCC2 mutation screening in Finnish breast cancer families. Springerplus. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-0880-3 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thompson ER et al (2012) Analysis of RAD51C germline mutations in high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families and ovarian cancer patients. Hum Mutat 33(1):95–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Meindl A et al (2010) Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 42(5):410–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Loveday C et al (2011) Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 43(9):879–882CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Golmard L et al (2013) Germline mutation in the RAD51B gene confers predisposition to breast cancer. BMC Cancer 13(1):484CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Somyajit K et al (2015) Mammalian RAD51 paralogs protect nascent DNA at stalled forks and mediate replication restart. Nucleic Acids Res 43(20):9835–9855PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Godin SK, Sullivan MR, Bernstein KA (2016) Novel insights into RAD51 activity and regulation during homologous recombination and DNA replication. Biochem Cell Biol 94(5):407–418CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Heyer WD, Ehmsen KT, Liu J (2010) Regulation of homologous recombination in eukaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 44:113–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ameziane N et al (2015) A novel Fanconi anaemia subtype associated with a dominant-negative mutation in RAD51. Nat Commun. 6Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kato M et al (2000) Identification of Rad51 alteration in patients with bilateral breast cancer. J Hum Genet 45(3):133–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Le Calvez-Kelm F et al (2012) RAD51 and breast cancer susceptibility: no evidence for rare variant association in the breast cancer family registry study. PLoS One 7(12):e52374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tennessen JA et al (2012) Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes. Science 337(6090):64–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    John EM et al (2007) Prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1 mutation carriers in 5 US racial/ethnic groups. JAMA 298(24):2869–2876CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gunn A, Stark JM (2012) I-SceI-based assays to examine distinct repair outcomes of mammalian chromosomal double strand breaks. Methods Mol Biol 920:379–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bak RO et al (2015) Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR/Cas genome editing in human primary cells. Hum Gene Ther 26(10):A11–A12Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Graffeo R et al (2016) Time to incorporate germline multigene panel testing into breast and ovarian cancer patient care. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160(3):393–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shiovitz S, Korde LA (2015) Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution. Ann Oncol 26(7):1291–1299PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Walsh CS (2015) Two decades beyond BRCA1/2: homologous recombination, hereditary cancer risk and a target for ovarian cancer therapy. Gynecol Oncol 137(2):343–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cobain EF, Milliron KJ, Merajver SD (2016) Updates on breast cancer genetics: Clinical implications of detecting syndromes of inherited increased susceptibility to breast cancer. Semin Oncol 43(5):528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Population SciencesBeckman Research Institute of City of HopeDuarteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular and Cellular BiologyBeckman Research Institute of City of HopeDuarteUSA
  3. 3.Cancer Prevention Institute of CaliforniaFremontUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Research & Policy (Epidemiology), and Stanford Cancer InstituteStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  5. 5.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  6. 6.Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology ResearchUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations