4.6 Article

BARD1 is a Low/Moderate Breast Cancer Risk Gene: Evidence Based on an Association Study of the Central European p.Q564X Recurrent Mutation

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11060740

Keywords

breast cancer; BARD1; genotyping; p.Q564X; p.R658C; p.R659R; breast cancer risk

Categories

Funding

  1. Polish National Science Centre (NCN) [2015/17/B/NZ2/01182, 2016/22/A/NZ2/00184]
  2. German Research Foundation [Do 761/10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In addition to several well-established breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes, the contribution of other candidate genes to BC risk remains mostly undefined. BARD1 is a potentially predisposing BC gene, however, the rarity of its mutations and an insufficient family/study size have hampered corroboration and estimation of the associated cancer risks. To clarify the role of BARD1 mutations in BC predisposition, a comprehensive case-control association study of a recurring nonsense mutation c.1690C>T (p.Q564X) was performed, comprising similar to 14,000 unselected BC patients and similar to 5900 controls from Polish and Belarusian populations. For comparisons, two BARD1 variants of unknown significance were also genotyped. We detected the highest number of BARD1 variants in BC cases in any individual BARD1-specific study, including 38 p.Q564X mutations. The p.Q564X was associated with a moderately increased risk of BC (OR = 2.30, p = 0.04). The estimated risk was even higher for triple-negative BC and bilateral BC. As expected, the two tested variants of unknown significance did not show significant associations with BC risk. Our study provides substantial evidence for the association of a deleterious BARD1 mutation with BC as a low/moderate risk allele. The p.Q564X was shown to be a Central European recurrent mutation with potential relevance for future genetic testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available