Cited by 87Evolution and Genetic DynamicsBRCA gene mutations in cancerDNA Repair Mechanisms

Rapid evolution of BRCA1 and BRCA2in humans and other primates

Open access
Lou, Dianne I, McBee, Ross M, Le, Uyen Q, Stone, Anne C, Wilkerson, Gregory K, Demogines, Ann M, Sawyer, Sara L·2014·BMC Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The maintenance of chromosomal integrity is an essential task of every living organism and cellular repair mechanisms exist to guard against insults to DNA. Given the importance of this process, it is expected that DNA repair proteins would be evolutionarily conserved, exhibiting very minimal sequence change over time. However, BRCA1, an essential gene involved in DNA repair, has been reported to be evolving rapidly despite the fact that many protein-altering mutations within this gene convey a significantly elevated risk for breast and ovarian cancers. RESULTS: To obtain a deeper understanding of the evolutionary trajectory of BRCA1, we analyzed complete BRCA1 gene sequences from 23 primate species. We show that specific amino acid sites have experienced repeated selection for amino acid replacement over primate evolution. This selection has been focused specifically on humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). After examining BRCA1 polymorphisms in 7 bonobo, 44 chimpanzee, and 44 rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) individuals, we find considerable variation within each of these species and evidence for recent selection in chimpanzee populations. Finally, we also sequenced and analyzed BRCA2 from 24 primate species and find that this gene has also evolved under positive selection. CONCLUSIONS: While mutations leading to truncated forms of BRCA1 are clearly linked to cancer phenotypes in humans, there is also an underlying selective pressure in favor of amino acid-altering substitutions in this gene. A hypothesis where viruses are the drivers of this natural selection is discussed.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2148-14-155

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Genes involved in cancer and apoptosis, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, are common targets of positive selection.

    “Previous works reported that genes involved in cancer and apoptosis, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, are common targets of positive selection66, 67.”

    From Distinct selective forces and Neanderthal introgression shaped genetic diversity at genes involved in neurodevelopmental disorders (2017) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) report recurrent positive selection in BRCA1 and BRCA2 during simian primate evolution. But the Discussion (page unavailable) describes their selection as surprising and says nearly all known recurrently selected primate genes fall into other categories. It does not support the claim that cancer- and apoptosis-related genes are common targets of positive selection. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lou, D. I., McBee, R. M., Le, U. Q., Stone, A. C., Wilkerson, G. K., Demogines, A. M., & Sawyer, S. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sawyer, Sara L
Venue
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Published
2014-07-11
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
155-155
ISSN
1471-2148 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060886652
Cited by
74
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  • National Institutes of Health (U42OD011197)
  • National Cancer Institute (F30CA171715)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM093086)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
Keywords
BRCA1, BRCA2, positive selection, primate evolution, DNA repair, amino acid substitutions, chimpanzees, bonobos, rhesus monkeys, cancer susceptibility, sequence variation
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Breast Neoplasms, DNA Repair, Exons, Female, Humans, Models, Molecular, Molecular Sequence Data, Mutation, Ovarian Neoplasms, Polymorphism, Genetic, Primates, Selection, Genetic, Sequence Alignment, Evolution, Molecular, BRCA1 Protein, Genes, BRCA1, Genes, BRCA2, BRCA2 Protein

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