Zusammenfassung
Die Anwendung von NGS-basierten Verfahren in der molekulargenetischen Diagnostik wird in den nächsten Jahren zur Identifikation einer Vielzahl von Varianten mit unklarer Signifikanz (VUS) führen, deren Relevanz für den untersuchten Phänotyp bestimmt werden muss. In der Diagnostik erblicher Tumorprädispositionserkrankungen wird die VUS-Klassifizierung insbesondere in non-BRCA1/2-Genen in den nächsten Jahren einen hohen Stellenwert einnehmen, eine Herausforderung, die jedoch insbesondere durch internationale wissenschaftliche Kooperationen bewältigt werden kann. Das Deutsche Konsortium Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs (GC-HBOC) verwendet zur Klassifikation dieser Varianten das international etablierte IARC 5-Klassen-System und kooperiert zur Bewertung seltener Varianten sowie Varianten in bislang weniger gut untersuchten Genen mit zahlreichen internationalen Konsortien und Forschungsgruppen. Vorhersageprogramme können im Kontext von Forschungsprojekten ein nützliches Werkzeug bei der Bewertung beispielsweise der großen Zahl von Varianten in NGS-basierten Untersuchungen sein. Im Rahmen der molekulargenetischen Diagnostik sollte die Klassifizierung der identifizierten Varianten jedoch nicht ausschließlich aufgrund der Vorhersageprogramme erfolgen.
Abstract
In the coming years, procedures based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) in genetic routine diagnostics will lead to a tremendous increase in the number of identified variants of unknown significance (VUS) whose relevance for the analysed phenotype has to be determined. Classification of VUS, especially in non-BRCA1/2 genes, will become one of the key challenges in diagnostics of hereditary tumor predisposition disorders. These can be overcome by international scientific cooperation. Therefore, the German consortium of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (GC-HBOC) applies the internationally accepted IARC 5-class system and cooperates with numerous international consortia and working groups for the classification of infrequent variants and variants in new risk genes. Prediction programs can be valuable tools for classification of variants especially in the context of NGS-based research projects dealing with large amounts of data. In a diagnostic setting, the classification of variants should not be solely based on in-silico prediction tools.
Literatur
Romero A, Garcia-Garcia F, Lopez-Perolio I, Ruiz de Garibay G, Garcia-Saenz JA, Garre P, Ayllon P, Benito E, Dopazo J, Diaz-Rubio E et al (2015) BRCA1 alternative splicing landscape in breast tissue samples. BMC Cancer 15:219
Yang R, Chen B, Hemminki K, Wappenschmidt B, Engel C, Sutter C, Ditsch N, Weber BH, Niederacher D, Arnold N et al (2009) Polymorphisms in BRCA2 resulting in aberrant codon-usage and their analysis on familial breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118(2):407–413
Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D, Foulkes WD, Genuardi M, Greenblatt MS, Hogervorst FB, Hoogerbrugge N, Spurdle AB, Tavtigian SV et al (2008) Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 29(11):1282–1291
Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Monteiro AN, Tavtigian SV, Couch FJ, Breast Cancer Information Core Steering C (2004) Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 75(4):535–544
Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Pruss D, Frye C, Wenstrup RJ, Allen-Brady K, Tavtigian SV, Monteiro AN, Iversen ES, Couch FJ et al (2007) A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. Am J Hum Genet 81(5):873–883
Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Byrnes GB, Spurdle AB, Iversen ES, Greenblatt MS, Group IUGVW (2008) Genetic evidence and integration of various data sources for classifying uncertain variants into a single model. Human Mutat 29(11):1265–1272
Spurdle AB (2010) Clinical relevance of rare germline sequence variants in cancer genes: evolution and application of classification models. Curr Opin Genet Dev 20(3):315–323
Domchek SM, Tang J, Stopfer J, Lilli DR, Hamel N, Tischkowitz M, Monteiro AN, Messick TE, Powers J, Yonker A et al (2013) Biallelic deleterious BRCA1 mutations in a woman with early-onset ovarian cancer. Cancer Discov 3(4):399–405
Sawyer SL, Tian L, Kahkonen M, Schwartzentruber J, Kircher M, University of Washington Centre for Mendelian G, Consortium FC, Majewski J, Dyment DA, Innes AM et al (2015) Biallelic mutations in BRCA1 cause a new fanconi anemia subtype. Cancer Discov 5(2):135–142
Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Jakubowska A, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Masojc B, Deebniak T, Gorski B, Blecharz P et al (2011) Risk of breast cancer in women with a CHEK2 mutation with and without a family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(28):3747–3752
Antoniou AC, Casadei S, Heikkinen T, Barrowdale D, Pylkas K, Roberts J, Lee A, Subramanian D, De Leeneer K, Fostira F et al (2014) Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med 371(6):497–506
Keimling M, Deniz M, Varga D, Stahl A, Schrezenmeier H, Kreienberg R, Hoffmann I, Konig J, Wiesmuller L (2012) The power of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair testing to predict breast cancer susceptibility. FASEB J 26(5):2094–2104
Keimling M, Volcic M, Csernok A, Wieland B, Dork T, Wiesmuller L (2011) Functional characterization connects individual patient mutations in ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) with dysfunction of specific DNA double-strand break-repair signaling pathways. FASEB J 25(11):3849–3860
Millot GA, Carvalho MA, Caputo SM, Vreeswijk MP, Brown MA, Webb M, Rouleau E, Neuhausen SL, Hansen T, Galli A et al (2012) A guide for functional analysis of BRCA1 variants of uncertain significance. Hum Mutat 33(11):1526–1537
Spurdle AB, Healey S, Devereau A, Hogervorst FB, Monteiro AN, Nathanson KL, Radice P, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Tavtigian S, Wappenschmidt B et al (2012) ENIGMA–evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Hum Mutat 33(1):2–7
Adzhubei IA, Schmidt S, Peshkin L, Ramensky VE, Gerasimova A, Bork P, Kondrashov AS, Sunyaev SR (2010) A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods 7(4):248–249
Ng PC, Henikoff S (2003) SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res 31(13):3812–3814
Schwarz JM, Cooper DN, Schuelke M, Seelow D (2014) MutationTaster2: mutation prediction for the deep-sequencing age. Nature Methods 11(4):361–362
Schwarz JM, Rodelsperger C, Schuelke M, Seelow D (2010) MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations. Nature Methods 7(8):575–576
Tavtigian SV, Deffenbaugh AM, Yin L, Judkins T, Scholl T, Samollow PB, de Silva D, Zharkikh A, Thomas A (2006) Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral. J Med Genet 43(4):295–305
Thusberg J, Olatubosun A, Vihinen M (2011) Performance of mutation pathogenicity prediction methods on missense variants. Hum Mutat 32(4):358–368
Baker M (2012) Functional genomics: the changes that count. Nature 482(7384):257, 259–262
Yeo G, Burge CB (2004) Maximum entropy modeling of short sequence motifs with applications to RNA splicing signals. J Comput Biol 11(2–3):377–394
Desmet FO, Hamroun D, Lalande M, Collod-Beroud G, Claustres M, Beroud C (2009) Human splicing finder: an online bioinformatics tool to predict splicing signals. Nucleic Acids Res 37(9):e67
Wappenschmidt B, Becker AA, Hauke J, Weber U, Engert S, Kohler J, Kast K, Arnold N, Rhiem K, Hahnen E et al (2012) Analysis of 30 putative BRCA1 splicing mutations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families identifies exonic splice site mutations that escape in silico prediction. PloS One 7(12):e50800
Whiley PJ, de la Hoya M, Thomassen M, Becker A, Brandao R, Pedersen IS, Montagna M, Menendez M, Quiles F, Gutierrez-Enriquez S et al (2014) Comparison of mRNA splicing assay protocols across multiple laboratories: recommendations for best practice in standardized clinical testing. Clin Chem 60(2):341–352
de Garibay GR, Acedo A, Garcia-Casado Z, Gutierrez-Enriquez S, Tosar A, Romero A, Garre P, Llort G, Thomassen M, Diez O et al (2014) Capillary electrophoresis analysis of conventional splicing assays: IARC analytical and clinical classification of 31 BRCA2 genetic variants. Hum Mutat 35(1):53–57
Spurdle AB, Couch FJ, Hogervorst FB, Radice P, Sinilnikova OM (2008) Prediction and assessment of splicing alterations: implications for clinical testing. Hum Mutat 29(11):1304–1313
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
PD Dr. Eric Hahnen weist auf folgende Beziehung hin: Er erhielt Honorare für die Teilnahme an Scientific Advisory Board Treffen der Firma AstraZeneca. Jan Hauke, Christoph Engel, Barbara Wappenschmidt und Clemens R. Müller geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflik besteht.
Alle im vorliegenden Manuskript beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen beteiligten Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hauke, J., Engel, C., Wappenschmidt, B. et al. Klassifizierung von „variants of unknown significance“ (VUS) beim familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebs. medgen 27, 211–216 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11825-015-0049-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11825-015-0049-z