Somatic mutations in benign breast disease tissues and association with breast cancer risk.
Benign breast disease
Breast cancer risk
CD45 expression
Mutation burden
Somatic mutations
Journal
BMC medical genomics
ISSN: 1755-8794
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101319628
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 07 2021
14 07 2021
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
accepted:
06
07
2021
entrez:
15
7
2021
pubmed:
16
7
2021
medline:
20
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Benign breast disease (BBD) is a risk factor for breast cancer (BC); however, little is known about the genetic alterations present at the time of BBD diagnosis and how these relate to risk of incident BC. A subset of a long-term BBD cohort was selected to examine DNA variation across three BBD groups (42 future estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC, 36 future estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) BC, and 42 controls cancer-free for at least 16 years post-BBD). DNA extracted from archival formalin fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks was analyzed for presence of DNA alterations using a targeted panel of 93 BC-associated genes. To address artifacts frequently observed in FFPE tissues (e.g., C>T changes), we applied three filtering strategies based on alternative allele frequencies and nucleotide substitution context. Gene-level associations were performed using two types of burden tests and adjusted for clinical and technical covariates. After filtering, the variant frequency of SNPs in our sample was highly consistent with population allele frequencies reported in 1 KG/ExAC (0.986, p < 1e-16). The top ten genes found to be nominally associated with later cancer status by four of 12 association methods(p < 0.05) were MED12, MSH2, BRIP1, PMS1, GATA3, MUC16, FAM175A, EXT2, MLH1 and TGFB1, although these were not statistically significant in permutation testing. However, all 10 gene-level associations had OR < 1 with lower mutation burden in controls compared to cases, which was marginally statistically significant in permutation testing (p = 0.04). Comparing between the three case groups, BBD ER+ cases were closer to controls in mutation profile, while BBD ER- cases were distinct. Notably, the variant burden was significantly higher in controls than in either ER+ or ER- cases. CD45 expression was associated with mutational burden (p < 0.001). Somatic mutations were more frequent in benign breast tissue from women who did not develop cancer, opening questions of clonal diversity or immune-mediated restraint on future cancer development. CD45 expression was positively associated with mutational burden, most strongly in controls. Further studies in both normal and premalignant tissues are needed to better understand the role of somatic gene mutations and their contribution to future cancer development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Benign breast disease (BBD) is a risk factor for breast cancer (BC); however, little is known about the genetic alterations present at the time of BBD diagnosis and how these relate to risk of incident BC.
METHODS
A subset of a long-term BBD cohort was selected to examine DNA variation across three BBD groups (42 future estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC, 36 future estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) BC, and 42 controls cancer-free for at least 16 years post-BBD). DNA extracted from archival formalin fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks was analyzed for presence of DNA alterations using a targeted panel of 93 BC-associated genes. To address artifacts frequently observed in FFPE tissues (e.g., C>T changes), we applied three filtering strategies based on alternative allele frequencies and nucleotide substitution context. Gene-level associations were performed using two types of burden tests and adjusted for clinical and technical covariates.
RESULTS
After filtering, the variant frequency of SNPs in our sample was highly consistent with population allele frequencies reported in 1 KG/ExAC (0.986, p < 1e-16). The top ten genes found to be nominally associated with later cancer status by four of 12 association methods(p < 0.05) were MED12, MSH2, BRIP1, PMS1, GATA3, MUC16, FAM175A, EXT2, MLH1 and TGFB1, although these were not statistically significant in permutation testing. However, all 10 gene-level associations had OR < 1 with lower mutation burden in controls compared to cases, which was marginally statistically significant in permutation testing (p = 0.04). Comparing between the three case groups, BBD ER+ cases were closer to controls in mutation profile, while BBD ER- cases were distinct. Notably, the variant burden was significantly higher in controls than in either ER+ or ER- cases. CD45 expression was associated with mutational burden (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Somatic mutations were more frequent in benign breast tissue from women who did not develop cancer, opening questions of clonal diversity or immune-mediated restraint on future cancer development. CD45 expression was positively associated with mutational burden, most strongly in controls. Further studies in both normal and premalignant tissues are needed to better understand the role of somatic gene mutations and their contribution to future cancer development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34261476
doi: 10.1186/s12920-021-01032-8
pii: 10.1186/s12920-021-01032-8
pmc: PMC8278587
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
185Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA015083
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Cancer Institute (US)
ID : R01CA187112
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D941-D947
pubmed: 30371878
Oncogene. 2009 Aug;28 Suppl 1:S14-23
pubmed: 19680292
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan;167(1):9-29
pubmed: 28913734
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jun;118(12):1662-1664
pubmed: 29872146
Nat Genet. 2000 Dec;26(4):411-4
pubmed: 11101836
Genome Med. 2019 May 28;11(1):35
pubmed: 31138277
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Apr;144(3):539-49
pubmed: 24596048
Cell. 2019 Apr 18;177(3):608-621.e12
pubmed: 30955891
Cancer. 2018 Aug;124(16):3319-3328
pubmed: 29932456
Bioinformatics. 2014 Jul 1;30(13):1920-2
pubmed: 24618464
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 May;85(9):3044-8
pubmed: 3362861
Science. 2019 Jun 07;364(6444):
pubmed: 31171663
Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2016 Aug 17;10:109-46
pubmed: 27559297
J Cell Biochem. 2019 Jan;120(1):182-191
pubmed: 30230586
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jul 15;23(14):3945-3952
pubmed: 28126725
Genome Med. 2015 Jul 28;7:76
pubmed: 26315209
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):434-443
pubmed: 32461654
Oncogene. 2006 Sep 25;25(43):5898-905
pubmed: 16998504
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2020 Jun 12;6:24
pubmed: 32566745
BMC Genomics. 2019 Sep 2;20(1):689
pubmed: 31477010
Cancer. 1993 Feb 15;71(4):1258-65
pubmed: 8435803
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):229-37
pubmed: 16034008
Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Jul 24;6:166
pubmed: 31396514
N Engl J Med. 1985 Jan 17;312(3):146-51
pubmed: 3965932
Genome Med. 2018 Apr 25;10(1):33
pubmed: 29695279
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jan 3;18(1):5
pubmed: 28049435
Medicine (Baltimore). 1998 May;77(3):208-26
pubmed: 9653432
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33(4):304-11
pubmed: 25452441
Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7845):290-299
pubmed: 33568819
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Oct 15;21(20):3798-807
pubmed: 12953099