Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes
Leila DorlingiD, Sara Carvalho, Jamie AlleniD, Michael T. ParsonsiD, Cristina FortuñoiD, Anna González‐NeiraiD, Stephan HeijliD, Muriel A. AdankiD, Thomas U. AhearniD, Irene L. AndrulisiD, Päivi AuvineniD, Heiko BecheriD, Matthias W. BeckmanniD, Sabine BehrensiD, Marina BermishevaiD, Natalia Viktorovna BogdanovaiD, Stig E. BojeseniD, Manjeet K. BollaiD, Michael Bremer, Ignacio BriceñoiD, Nicola J. CampiD, Archie I CampbelliD, Jose Esteban CastelaoiD, Jenny C. Chang-ClaudeiD, Stephen Jacob ChanockiD, , Javier J. BeniteziD
Abstract
BACKGROUNDProtein 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. METHODSCombining 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls, we sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1,146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1,425), 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. RESULTSThe 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. CONCLUSIONSThese 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.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 55
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Field percentile
- top 2%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Exome sequencing identifies novel susceptibility genes and defines the contribution of coding variants to breast cancer risk.
Naomi Wilcox, Martine Dumont, … Jacques Simard·medRxiv·Jun 17, 2022
- Association of Gene Variant Type and Location with Breast Cancer Risk in the General Population
Mwangala P. Akamandisa, Nicholas James Boddicker, … Katherine L. Nathanson·Annals of OncologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 25, 2025
- Identification and Characterization of Rare Pathogenic Genetic Variants Associated with Breast Cancer Susceptibility in 1000 Genome and gnomAD Population
Kanishk Yadav, Abhishek Prasad·medRxiv·Aug 30, 2025
- Estimating clinical risk in gene regions from population sequencing cohort data
James D. Fife, Christopher A. Cassa·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·May 25, 2023
- Meta-Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk for Individuals with PALB2 Pathogenic Variants
Thanthirige Lakshika M. Ruberu, Danielle Braun, … Swati Biswas·Genetic EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 23, 2024
- Prediction of the functional impact of missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 with BRCA-ML
Steven N. Hart, Eric C. Polley, … Fergus J. Couch·npj Breast CancerPeer-reviewed·Apr 29, 2020