Tarpey et al. carry out a large-scale systematic sequencing of the majority of X-chromosome coding exons from 208 families with multiple individuals with mental retardation and a pattern of transmission compatible with X linkage in order to identify XLMR-causative mutations. They find several mutations that appear to be causative in loci already known to be involved in XLMR, as well as new data about those loci, and make inferences about the role of the different classes of variants in these diseases. Large-scale systematic resequencing has been proposed as the key future strategy for the discovery of rare, disease-causing sequence variants across the spectrum of human complex disease. We have sequenced the coding exons of the X chromosome in 208 families with X-linked mental retardation (XLMR), the largest direct screen for constitutional disease-causing mutations thus far reported. The screen has discovered nine genes implicated in XLMR, including SYP, ZNF711 and CASK reported here, confirming the power of this strategy. The study has, however, also highlighted issues confronting whole-genome sequencing screens, including the observation that loss of function of 1% or more of X-chromosome genes is compatible with apparently normal existence.

Women who have inherited mutations in BRCA1 (17q21, chromosome 17: base pairs 43,044,294 to 43,125,482) or BRCA2 (13q12.3, chromosome 13: base pairs 32,315,479 to 32,399,671) have an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers.^1,2 Little is known about how cancer risks differ by BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation type. An “ovarian cancer cluster region” (OCCR) has been reported in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 using small sample sets. For BRCA1, initially mutations after exon 11 were associated with a 20% lower ovarian cancer risk than mutations in exons 1 through 11.³ Following that observation, Thompson et al⁴ reported an increased risk of ovarian vs breast cancer specifically was associated with mutations in the central portion of exon 11. This association was attributed to both a decrease in breast cancer risk and an increase in ovarian cancer risk in this region. Mutations in exon 11 of BRCA2 also have been associated with higher ovarian vs breast cancer risk than in other regions of the gene.⁵ It was hypothesized that this risk variation might be explained by the failure of BRCA1/2 exon 11 truncating mutations to trigger nonsense-mediated messenger RNA (mRNA) decay (NMD) because of their extremely large size, contrary to truncating mutations in smaller exons. However, this postulate was not supported by the measures of the relative amounts of mRNA transcript encoded by BRCA1/2 alleles.^6,7 Murine models of different mutations in BRCA1/2 also suggest that genotype-phenotype correlations exist.^8,9 Quiz Ref ID To our knowledge, no study has reported whether BRCA1/2 mutation type is associated with differences in breast and ovarian cancer risk. Thus, we evaluated whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation type or location is associated with variation in breast and ovarian cancer risk.

Roger Milne and colleagues conduct a genome-wide association study for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer combined with BRCA1 mutation carriers in a large cohort. They identify ten new risk variants and find high genetic correlation between breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers and risk of ER-negative breast cancer in the general population. Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease1. We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P < 5 × 10−8 with ten variants at nine new loci. At P < 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer.

To identify genetic causes of intellectual disability (ID), we screened a cohort of 986 individuals with moderate to severe ID for variants in 565 known or candidate ID-associated genes using targeted next-generation sequencing. Likely pathogenic rare variants were found in ∼11% of the cases (113 variants in 107/986 individuals: ∼8% of the individuals had a likely pathogenic loss-of-function [LoF] variant, whereas ∼3% had a known pathogenic missense variant). Variants in SETD5, ATRX, CUL4B, MECP2, and ARID1B were the most common causes of ID. This study assessed the value of sequencing a cohort of probands to provide a molecular diagnosis of ID, without the availability of DNA from both parents for de novo sequence analysis. This modeling is clinically relevant as 28% of all UK families with dependent children are single parent households. In conclusion, to diagnose patients with ID in the absence of parental DNA, we recommend investigation of all LoF variants in known genes that cause ID and assessment of a limited list of proven pathogenic missense variants in these genes. This will provide 11% additional diagnostic yield beyond the 10%–15% yield from array CGH alone.

The known breast cancer susceptibility polymorphisms in FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, and 2q35 confer increased risks of breast cancer for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We evaluated the associations of 3 additional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs4973768 in SLC4A7/NEK10, rs6504950 in STXBP4/COX11, and rs10941679 at 5p12, and reanalyzed the previous associations using additional carriers in a sample of 12,525 BRCA1 and 7,409 BRCA2 carriers. Additionally, we investigated potential interactions between SNPs and assessed the implications for risk prediction. The minor alleles of rs4973768 and rs10941679 were associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2 carriers (per-allele HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03–1.18, P = 0.006 and HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01–1.19, P = 0.03, respectively). Neither SNP was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers, and rs6504950 was not associated with breast cancer for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. Of the 9 polymorphisms investigated, 7 were associated with breast cancer for BRCA2 carriers (FGFR2, TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, 2q35, SLC4A7, 5p12, P = 7 × 10⁻¹¹ − 0.03), but only TOX3 and 2q35 were associated with the risk for BRCA1 carriers (P = 0.0049, 0.03, respectively). All risk-associated polymorphisms appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk for mutation carriers. Based on the joint genotype distribution of the 7 risk-associated SNPs in BRCA2 mutation carriers, the 5% of BRCA2 carriers at highest risk (i.e., between 95th and 100th percentiles) were predicted to have a probability between 80% and 96% of developing breast cancer by age 80, compared with 42% to 50% for the 5% of carriers at lowest risk. Our findings indicated that these risk differences might be sufficient to influence the clinical management of mutation carriers. Cancer Res; 70(23); 9742–54. ©2010 AACR.

Purpose: It is not clear that the published estimates of the breast and ovarian cancer penetrances of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be used in genetic counseling in countries such as Spain, where the incidence of breast cancer in the general population is considerably lower, the prevalence of BRCA2 mutations seems to be higher, and a distinct spectrum of recurrent mutations exists for both genes. We aimed to estimate these penetrances for women attending genetic counseling units in Spain. Experimental Design: We collected phenotype and genotype data on 155 BRCA1 and 164 BRCA2 mutation carrier families from 12 centers across the country. Average age-specific cumulative risks of breast cancer and ovarian cancer were estimated using a modified segregation analysis method. Results: The estimated average cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years was estimated to be 52% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 26-69%] for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 47% (95% CI, 29-60%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The corresponding estimates for ovarian cancer were 22% (95% CI, 0-40%) and 18% (95% CI, 0-35%), respectively. There was some evidence (two-sided P = 0.09) that 330A>G (R71G) in BRCA1 may have lower breast cancer penetrance. Conclusions: These results are consistent with those from a recent meta-analysis of practically all previous penetrance studies, suggesting that women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations attending genetic counseling services in Spain have similar risks of breast and ovarian cancer to those published for other Caucasian populations. Carriers should be fully informed of their mutation- and age-specific risks to make appropriate decisions regarding prophylactic interventions such as oophorectomy.