A recent analysis using family history weighting and co-observation classification modeling indicated that BRCA1 c.594-2A > C (IVS9-2A > C), previously described to cause exon 10 skipping (a truncating alteration), displays characteristics inconsistent with those of a high risk pathogenic BRCA1 variant. We used large-scale genetic and clinical resources from the ENIGMA, CIMBA and BCAC consortia to assess pathogenicity of c.594-2A > C. The combined odds for causality considering case-control, segregation and breast tumor pathology information was 3.23 × 10 ⁻⁸ . Our data indicate that c.594-2A > C is always in cis with c.641A > G. The spliceogenic effect of c.[594-2A > C;641A > G] was characterized using RNA analysis of human samples and splicing minigenes. As expected, c.[594-2A > C; 641A > G] caused exon 10 skipping, albeit not due to c.594-2A > C impairing the acceptor site but rather by c.641A > G modifying exon 10 splicing regulatory element(s). Multiple blood-based RNA assays indicated that the variant allele did not produce detectable levels of full-length transcripts, with a per allele BRCA1 expression profile composed of ≈70–80% truncating transcripts, and ≈20–30% of in-frame Δ9,10 transcripts predicted to encode a BRCA1 protein with tumor suppression function. We confirm that BRCA1 c.[594-2A > C;641A > G] should not be considered a high-risk pathogenic variant. Importantly, results from our detailed mRNA analysis suggest that BRCA-associated cancer risk is likely not markedly increased for individuals who carry a truncating variant in BRCA1 exons 9 or 10, or any other BRCA1 allele that permits 20–30% of tumor suppressor function. More generally, our findings highlight the importance of assessing naturally occurring alternative splicing for clinical evaluation of variants in disease-causing genes.

Breast cancer risks conferred by many germline missense variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, often referred to as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), have not been established. In this study, associations between 19 BRCA1 and 33 BRCA2 missense substitution variants and breast cancer risk were investigated through a breast cancer case–control study using genotyping data from 38 studies of predominantly European ancestry (41,890 cases and 41,607 controls) and nine studies of Asian ancestry (6,269 cases and 6,624 controls). The BRCA2 c.9104A>C, p.Tyr3035Ser (OR = 2.52; P = 0.04), and BRCA1 c.5096G>A, p.Arg1699Gln (OR = 4.29; P = 0.009) variant were associated with moderately increased risks of breast cancer among Europeans, whereas BRCA2 c.7522G>A, p.Gly2508Ser (OR = 2.68; P = 0.004), and c.8187G>T, p.Lys2729Asn (OR = 1.4; P = 0.004) were associated with moderate and low risks of breast cancer among Asians. Functional characterization of the BRCA2 variants using four quantitative assays showed reduced BRCA2 activity for p.Tyr3035Ser compared with wild-type. Overall, our results show how BRCA2 missense variants that influence protein function can confer clinically relevant, moderately increased risks of breast cancer, with potential implications for risk management guidelines in women with these specific variants. Cancer Res; 77(11); 2789–99. ©2017 AACR.

Loss-of-function germline mutations in BRCA1 (MIM #113705) confer markedly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The full-length transcript codifies for a protein involved in DNA repair pathways and cell-cycle checkpoints. Several BRCA1 splicing isoforms have been described in public domain databases, but the physiological role (if any) of BRCA1 alternative splicing remains to be established. An accurate description of ‘naturally occurring’ alternative splicing at this locus is a prerequisite to understand its biological significance. However, a systematic analysis of alternative splicing at the BRCA1 locus is yet to be conducted. Here, the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germ-Line Mutant Alleles consortium combines RT-PCR, exon scanning, cloning, sequencing and relative semi-quantification to describe naturally occurring BRCA1 alternative splicing with unprecedented resolution. The study has been conducted in blood-related RNA sources, commonly used for clinical splicing assays, as well as in one healthy breast tissue. We have characterized a total of 63 BRCA1 alternative splicing events, including 35 novel findings. A minimum of 10 splicing events (Δ1Aq, Δ5, Δ5q, Δ8p, Δ9, Δ(9,10), Δ9_11, Δ11q, Δ13p and Δ14p) represent a substantial fraction of the full-length expression level (ranging from 5 to 100%). Remarkably, our data indicate that BRCA1 alternative splicing is similar in blood and breast, a finding supporting the clinical relevance of blood-based in vitro splicing assays. Overall, our data suggest an alternative splicing model in which most non-mutually exclusive alternative splicing events are randomly combined into individual mRNA molecules to produce hundreds of different BRCA1 isoforms.

Findings of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) studies of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and breast cancer vary, making it difficult to determine whether either, both, or neither virus is causally associated with breast cancer. We investigated CMV and EBV in paired samples of breast cancer and normal breast tissue from 70 women using quantitative PCR. A serum sample from each woman was tested for CMV and EBV IgG. To place our results in context, we reviewed the existing literature and performed a meta-analysis of our results together with previous PCR studies of EBV, CMV, and breast cancer. Of the serology samples, 67 of 70 (96%) were EBV IgG positive and 49 of 70 (70%) were CMV IgG positive. QPCR detected EBV in 24 (34%) of the tumour and 9 (13%) of the paired normal specimens and CMV in 0 (0%) of the tumour and 2 (3%) of the paired normal specimens. Our findings, together with earlier results summarised in the meta-analysis, suggest several possibilities: variable findings may be due to limitations of molecular analyses; ‘hit and run’ oncogenesis may lead to inconsistent results; one or both viruses has a role at a later stage in breast cancer development; infection with multiple viruses increases breast cancer risk; or neither virus has a role. Future studies should focus on ways to investigate these possibilities, and should include comparisons of breast cancer tissue samples with appropriate normal tissue samples.