Cited by 25BRCA gene mutations in cancerGenomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Multifactorial Likelihood Assessment of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Missense Variants Confirms That BRCA1:c.122A>G(p.His41Arg) Is a Pathogenic Mutation

Open access
Whiley, Phillip J., Parsons, Michael T., Leary, Jennifer, Tucker, Kathy, Warwick, Linda, Dopita, Belinda, Thorne, Heather, Lakhani, Sunil R. +3 more·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Rare exonic, non-truncating variants in known cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 are problematic for genetic counseling and clinical management of relevant families. This study used multifactorial likelihood analysis and/or bioinformatically-directed mRNA assays to assess pathogenicity of 19 BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants identified following patient referral to clinical genetic services. Two variants were considered to be pathogenic (Class 5). BRCA1:c.4484G> C(p.Arg1495Thr) was shown to result in aberrant mRNA transcripts predicted to encode truncated proteins. The BRCA1:c.122A>G(p.His41Arg) RING-domain variant was found from multifactorial likelihood analysis to have a posterior probability of pathogenicity of 0.995, a result consistent with existing protein functional assay data indicating lost BARD1 binding and ubiquitin ligase activity. Of the remaining variants, seven were determined to be not clinically significant (Class 1), nine were likely not pathogenic (Class 2), and one was uncertain (Class 3).These results have implications for genetic counseling and medical management of families carrying these specific variants. They also provide additional multifactorial likelihood variant classifications as reference to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of bioinformatic prediction tools and/or functional assay data in future studies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0086836

Cites

48 of 48 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [23]Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Monteiro AN, Tavtigian SV, et al (2004) Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 75: 535– 544. 15290653 PMC1182042
  2. [25]Domchek SM, Tang JB, Stopfer J, Lilli DR, Hamel N, et al.. (2012) Biallelic Deleterious BRCA1 Mutations in a Woman with Early-Onset Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Discov. PMC3625496 23269703

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whiley, P. J., Parsons, M. T., Leary, J., Tucker, K., Warwick, L., Dopita, B., Thorne, H., Lakhani, S. R., Goldgar, D. E., Brown, M. A., & Spurdle, A. B.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (AU)
  • Canberra Hospital (AU)
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Spurdle, Amanda B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-01-28
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e86836
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029088534
Cited by
25
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Breast Cancer Foundation (CA116201)
  • Cancer Australia (628333)
  • National Institutes of Health (CA11620 1, CA116167)
  • Medical Research Council (CA116201)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Cancer Institute (CA116167, R01CA116167, CA116167Z, CA-116201, U01CA116167, P50CA116201)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
BRCA1, BRCA2, missense mutations, pathogenicity assessment, RING domain, truncated protein, ubiquitin ligase activity, variant interpretation, genetic counseling, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
MeSH terms
Exons, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Sequence Deletion, Alternative Splicing, Computational Biology, BRCA1 Protein, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Mutation, Missense, Multifactorial Inheritance, 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