Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population‐based study

Antoniou, Antonis C., Pharoah, Paul D.P., McMullan, Greg, Day, Nickolas E., Ponder, Bruce A.J., Easton, Douglas·2001·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

We used data from a population based series of breast cancer patients to investigate the genetic models that can best explain familial breast cancer not due to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The data set consisted of 1,484 women diagnosed with breast cancer under age 55 registered in the East Anglia Cancer registry between 1991–1996. Blood samples taken from the patients were analysed for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The genetic models were constructed using information on breast and ovarian cancer history in first‐degree relatives and on the mutation status of the index patients. We estimated the simultaneous effects of BRCA1, BRCA2, a third hypothetical gene BRCA3, and a polygenic effect. The models were assessed by likelihood comparisons and by comparison of the observed numbers of mutations and affected relatives with the predicted numbers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 could not explain all the familial clustering of breast cancer. The best‐fitting single gene model for BRCA3 was a recessive model with a disease allele frequency 24% and penetrance 42% by age 70. However, a polygenic model gave a similarly good fit. The estimated population frequencies for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were similar under both recessive and polygenic models, 0.024 and 0.041%, respectively. A dominant model for BRCA3 gave a somewhat worse fit, although the difference was not significant. The mixed recessive model was identical to the recessive model and the mixed dominant very similar to the polygenic model. The BRCA3 genetic models were robust to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance assumptions. The overall fit of all models was improved when the known effects of parity on breast and ovarian cancer risks were included in the model—in this case a polygenic model fits best. These findings suggest that a number of common, low‐penetrance genes with additive effects may account for the residual non‐BRCA1/2 familial aggregation of breast cancer, but Mendelian inheritance of an autosomal recessive allele cannot be ruled out. Genet. Epidemiol. 21:1–18, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.1014

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D. P., McMullan, G., Day, N. E., Ponder, B. A. J., & Easton, D.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-07
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2015565457
Cited by
289
References
38
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population‐based study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gepi.1014
The paper
Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D. P., McMullan, G., Day, N. E., Ponder, B. A. J., & Easton, D. (2001). Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population‐based study. Genetic Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.1014

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.