Open Access

CHEK2 contribution to hereditary breast cancer in non-BRCAfamilies

  • Alexis Desrichard2,
  • Yannick Bidet2,
  • Nancy Uhrhammer1 and
  • Yves-Jean Bignon1, 2Email author
Breast Cancer Research201113:R119

https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3062

Received: 7 March 2011

Accepted: 24 November 2011

Published: 24 November 2011

Abstract

Background

Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are responsible for only a part of hereditary breast cancer (HBC). The origins of "non-BRCA" HBC in families may be attributed in part to rare mutations in genes conferring moderate risk, such as CHEK2, which encodes for an upstream regulator of BRCA1. Previous studies have demonstrated an association between CHEK2 founder mutations and non-BRCA HBC. However, very few data on the entire coding sequence of this gene are available.

Methods

We investigated the contribution of CHEK2 mutations to non-BRCA HBC by direct sequencing of its whole coding sequence in 507 non-BRCA HBC cases and 513 controls.

Results

We observed 16 mutations in cases and 4 in controls, including 9 missense variants of uncertain consequence. Using both in silico tools and an in vitro kinase activity test, the majority of the variants were found likely to be deleterious for protein function. One variant present in both cases and controls was proposed to be neutral. Removing this variant from the pool of potentially deleterious variants gave a mutation frequency of 1.48% for cases and 0.29% for controls (P = 0.0040). The odds ratio of breast cancer in the presence of a deleterious CHEK2 mutation was 5.18.

Conclusions

Our work indicates that a variety of deleterious CHEK2 alleles make an appreciable contribution to breast cancer susceptibility, and their identification could help in the clinical management of patients carrying a CHEK2 mutation.

Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the main causes of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide, with 5% to 10% of cases being due to hereditary risk. However, mutations in the two major genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are found in only 15% to 20% of hereditary breast cancer (HBC) families [1]. Several studies have reported evidence that germline mutations in other susceptibility genes, such as ATM, PABL2, BRIP1 and CHEK2, might be the predisposing factor in some HBC families [25]. In addition, the lower penetrance of these mutations suggests that they might act in concert with other hereditary factors [610].

CHEK2 is the human homolog of Rad53 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and Cds1 (Schizosaccharomyces pombe). This family of kinases is characterized by several domains: a SQ/TQ cluster domain, a Forkhead-associated (FHA) domain and a Ser/Thr kinase domain [11]. In response to DNA double-strand breaks or replicative stress, CHEK2 is activated by the kinases ATM and ATR [12]. These proteins catalyze the phosphorylation of threonine 68 of CHEK2, causing its transient dimerization via the FHA domain. This leads to CHEK2 trans-autophosphorylation and its full activation [13]. Activated CHEK2 monomers phosphorylate, in turn, numerous downstream substrates, including the P53 tumor suppressor, CDC25 family proteins and serine 988 of BRCA1, activating cell-cycle checkpoints and increasing DNA repair efficiency [1417]. These interactions suggest that CHEK2 may also play a role in breast cancer [14].

Germline CHEK2 mutations are associated with breast cancer in different populations. For example, heterozygosity for the well-studied c.1100delC mutation, present in 1.4% of the Finnish population and in 0.2% of the Polish population, confers a relative risk for developing breast tumors of about 2 for women and 10 for men [18, 19] Likewise, the variant Ile157Thr, present in 5.3% of the Finnish population and in 4.8% of the Polish population, confers a relative risk of breast cancer of 1.5 [20, 21].

However, very few groups have studied the entire CHEK2 gene in HBC [2225]. It is essential to establish a causal link between sequence variants and CHEK2 function. Little is known about the impact of missense mutations on protein function, although substitutions in the FHA domain and the kinase domain have been shown to abolish activity [22, 26, 27]. In this study, we screened the whole CHEK2 coding sequence for mutations in non-BRCA HBC families and a control population without any family history of breast cancer. Point mutations were evaluated by in silico analyses and an in vitro kinase activity test.

Materials and methods

Subjects

We recruited 507 cases with HBC risk through the oncogenetic consultation department at the Centre Jean Perrin (Clermont-Ferrand, France). This group consisted of 258 families with 3 breast cancers in the same familial branch with at least 2 cases related in the first degree, 237 families with 2 cases of breast cancer in the same branch with at least 1 breast cancer diagnosed before age 40 years or with bilateral breast cancer, and 12 families with 2 cases of breast cancer and at least 1 male breast cancer. One affected patient per HBC family was screened for variants in CHEK2. Cases with HBC linked to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were excluded by direct sequencing of both genes and by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification of BRCA1. A control group recruited from the same region of France consisted of 513 female volunteers in good health and without any personal or family history of breast or gynecologic cancers at the time of the recruitment. All subjects signed informed consent agreements that were approved by the CCPPRB Regional Ethics Committee (Auvergne, France). To assess the relationship between CHEK2 variants and breast cancer risk, logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (as estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals [28].

DNA extraction and sequencing

To identify variants in the CHEK2 gene, exons 2 to 14 were analyzed (exon 1 is noncoding, and exon 15, representing 89 bp of coding sequence, could not be analyzed for all the patients, owing to the presence of repeated sequences) in both patients and controls for the genomic sequence [GenBank:NG_008150.1] and for the cDNA sequence [GenBank:NM_007194.3] [29] DNA was extracted from 10 ml of peripheral blood collected on heparin/lithium using a Genomix blood DNA extraction kit according to the manufacturer's instructions (Talent srl, Trieste, Italy). Samples were resuspended with Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (TE) (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). Exons 2 to 10, including intron-exon boundaries, were amplified by using standard PCR techniques (conditions and primers available on request). Because of the multiple copies of CHEK2 pseudogenes, we used a nested PCR strategy, described previously by Sodha et al. [10], to specifically amplify exons 10 to 14 [30]. Sequence reactions were performed on PCR products purified by ExoSAP-IT (Affymetrix, Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using BigDye v3 reagents (Applied Biosystems/Life Technologies, Foster City, CA, USA) (primers available on request), purified in Sephadex G-50 fine (G5080; Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) and analyzed using a 3130xl capillary electrophoresis system (Applied Biosystems/Life Technologies). Alignment to the reference sequences was performed using SeqMan NGen software (DNASTAR, Inc, Madison, WI, USA).

Bioinformatics studies

For each missense variant, prediction of the impact of the mutation on the protein was assessed by calculating the SIFT (Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant), Align-GVGD and PolyPhen-2 (Polymorphism Phenotyping v2) software tool scores [3134]. Align-GVGD predictions and SIFT score were computed using the ortholog alignment of exons 2 to 14 of CHEK2 derived by using Alamut software (Interactive Biosoftware, Rouen, France) [32]. Included were human (Homo sapiens) [GenBank:NP_009125.1], chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) [GenBank:XP_001172759.1], macaque (Macaca) [GenBank:XP_001101658.1], rat (Rattus norvegicus) [GenBank:NP_446129.1], mouse (Mus musculus) [GenBank:NP_057890.1], dog (Canis lupus familiaris) [GenBank:XP_543464.2], cow (Bos taurus) [GenBank:NP_001029703.1], chicken (Gallus gallus) [GenBank:XP_001232074.1], frog (Xenopus tropicalis) [GenBank:NP_001119996.1] and pufferfish (Tetraodon nigroviridis) [UniProtKB/TrEMBL:Q4TI84], all extracted from the Ensembl Compara database [35]. PolyPhen-2 score was calculated online using default settings and accession numbers [UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot:O96017] [36, 37]. The potential impact on splicing was studied using SpliceSiteFinder, MaxEntScan and GeneSplicer prediction software [3840].

Plasmid constructs

The pDream2.1 cloning vector (GenScript USA Inc, Piscataway, NJ, USA) carrying the full-length human CHEK2 coding sequence tagged with an N-terminal FLAG extension under the control of the LacZ promoter for expression in prokaryotes was verified to contain the wild-type (WT) sequence. The Stratagene QuickChange II Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit (Agilent Technologies, Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to generate mutant constructs Ser39Phe, Pro85Arg, Arg117Gly, Arg145Trp, Glu161Del, Arg180His, Lys224Glu, Lys244Arg, Met367fsX15, Tyr390Ser and Thr476Met, with the corresponding primers (available on request) in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. All constructs were confirmed by sequencing of the entire coding region of the gene (primers available on request).

Expression and extraction of recombinant CHEK2 protein

Escherichia coli strain BL21 was transformed with pDream plasmids(GenScript USA Inc) encoding WT or mutated Flag-CHEK2. Cultures were grown at 37°C in Luria Broth media containing 100 μg/ml ampicillin until absorbance at 600 nm reached 0.6 before isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside was added to a final concentration of 0.5 mM and incubated for 3 hours. Extraction of total bacterial proteins was performed as described previously [26].

Kinase activity of CHEK2 recombinant proteins

Omnia kinase assay buffer (18 μl; Invitrogen/Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) containing 10 μM Sox substrate peptide, 1 mM ATP, 0.2 mM dithiothreitol and 2 μl of 10 × Omnia buffer was incubated for 5 minutes at room temperature and aliquoted to a 96-well plate to ensure equal amounts of the chemosensor. For each assay reaction, 1.5 μg of total bacterial protein from induced cultures containing WT or mutated Flag-CHEK2 or from untransformed E. coli, were then added and mixed gently. CHEK2 protein was added at the moment of the fluorescence acquisition, allowing us to follow the kinetics of substrate phosphorylation. CHEK2 kinase activity was monitored with excitation at 360 nm and emission at 485 nm. Fluorescence was detected using an Infinite 200 PRO plate reader (Tecan Group Ltd, Männedorf, Switzerland) for 60 minutes at room temperature. For each mutation, an average of six wells and three independent experiments were conducted. Each curve was normalized by linear regression using the slope of the corresponding nontransformed bacterial protein extract curve. Thus the slope of the resulting curves represents the ability of CHEK2 recombinant protein to phosphorylate the substrate (see Additional file 1).

Results

CHEK2mutations contribute to hereditary breast cancer

To evaluate the contribution of CHEK2 mutations to HBC, we sequenced the coding sequence of the gene, including intron-exon boundaries. We observed 13 different variants in 16 of 507 cases and 4 different variants in 4 of 513 controls (Table 1). In the case population, there were eight different novel missense mutations and one previously described in osteosarcomas [41], as well as one nonsense mutation, one novel frame shift mutation, one splice donor mutation and three patients (0.59%) with the c.1100delC (Met367fsX13) mutation (Figure 1). No mutation hotspots were observed (Figure 1). Mutations among controls included three missense mutations and one affecting a splice donor site. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to report all mutations found in the control population. The missense mutation Lys244Arg was found in both cases and controls. The mutation frequency was higher for the cases (16 of 1,014 vs 4 of 1,026; P = 0.0065) (Table 2). The OR of CHEK2 mutation carriers was 4.15 (95% CI = 1.38 to 12.50), suggesting that CHEK2 contributes to hereditary risk of breast cancer.
Table 1

CHEK2 mutations identified in French women with hereditary breast cancer and a control group of unaffected women

Mutation

Amino acid change

Exon

Protein domain

Splicing effect

Align-GVGD class

SIFT median sequence conservation score

SIFT prediction

PolyPhen-2 prediction

Proposed diagnosis

Case population (n = 13)

         

190G > A [49] (two cases)

Glu64Lys

2

SQ/TQ

-

C15

2.23

Tolerated

Benign

Probably benign

190G > T

Glu64X

2

SQ/TQ

-

-

 

-

-

Probably deleterious

254C > G [23, 41]

Pro85Arg

2

-

-

C0

2.15

Tolerated

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

349A > G [23]

Arg117Gly

3

FHA

-

C65

2.07

Deleterious

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

670A > G

Lys224Glu

5

Kinase

-

C0

2.05

Tolerated

Benign

Probably benign

731A > G

Lys244Arg

6

Kinase

-

C0

2.04

Tolerated

Benign

Probably benign

751A > T [23]

Ile251Phe

6

Kinase

-

C0

2.04

Tolerated

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

846+4_846+7del

-

7

-

Possibly skip exon 7

-

-

-

-

Probably deleterious

1100del (three cases)

Thr367MetfsX15

11

Kinase

-

-

-

-

-

Probably deleterious

1169A > C

Tyr390Ser

11

Kinase

-

C0

2.04

Deleterious

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

1281C > A

Phe427Leu

12

Kinase

-

C0

2.04

Deleterious

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

1427C > T [23]

Thr476Met

13

Kinase

-

C0

2.05

Deleterious

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

Control population (n = 4)

         

116C > T

Ser39Phe

2

SQ/TQ

-

C65

3.10

Deleterious

Benign

Probably deleterious

251A > G

Glu84Gly

2

-

-

C65

2.17

Tolerated

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

731A > G

Lys244Arg

6

Kinase

-

C0

2.04

Tolerated

Benign

Probably benign

792+1dup

-

6

-

Probably skip exon 6

-

-

-

-

Probably deleterious

Additional mutations tested for kinase function [27]

     

410G > A

Arg137Gln

3

FHA

-

C0

2.22

Tolerated

Benign

Probably benign

433C > T

Arg145Trp

3

FHA

-

C65

2.05

Tolerated

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

481_483del

Glu161del

4

FHA

-

-

-

-

-

Probably deleterious

539G > A

Arg180His

4

FHA

-

C0

2.04

Tolerated

Probably damaging

Probably deleterious

Align-GVGD, SIFT (Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant) and PolyPhen-2 (Polymorphism Phenotyping v2) software tool scores and splicing effect were calculated. The possible impact of the different mutations on CHEK2 function is proposed. FHA = Forkhead-associated domain.

Figure 1

Position of CHEK2 mutations found in French non-BRCA HBC and control populations. FHA = Forkhead-associated domain; SQ/TQ = SQ/TQ cluster domain.

Table 2

CHEK2 mutations were more frequent in cases than in controls

CHEK2mutation type

Controls

(n= 1,026)a

Allelic frequency in controls

Cases

(n= 1,014)a

Allelic frequency in cases

P value

OR

95% CI

Any CHEK2 mutation

4

0.39%

16

1.58%

0.0065

4.15

(1.38 to 12.50)

CHEK2 deleterious mutations

3

0.29%

15

1.48%

0.0042

5.18

(1.49 to 18.00)

an indicates the number of alleles.

Bioinformatics study

Canonical splice donor and acceptor sites were evaluated using SpliceSiteFinder, MaxEntScan and GeneSplicer. All three programs provided consistent information that the two mutations affecting splice donor sites abrogate splicing of the exons concerned (Table 1). We thus considered these mutations to be deleterious. Because the effect of an amino substitution can be difficult to assess, a combination of three different in silico analyses (Align-GVGD class, SIFT prediction and PolyPhen-2 prediction) was used. For each missense variation, we compiled these three scores to propose a diagnosis. Missense variants were considered probably deleterious if at least one deleterious score was obtained and probably benign if three benign scores were obtained. Class above C35 was considered the threshold for deleterious variants in Align-GVGD.

Substitutions with a SIFT score less than 0.05 are predicted to be deleterious. A SIFT median sequence conservation score cutoff of 3.25 was used to measure the diversity of the sequences used for prediction, and a score greater than 3.25 could indicate that the prediction was based on closely related sequences. This would result in a low confidence score if the variant were considered deleterious. No SIFT median sequence conservation score reached this cutoff, indicating that the aligned sequences were diverse enough for confident prediction of substitutions that should affect protein function. One mutation, Lys244Arg, present in both cases and controls, was not considered to be potentially deleterious on the basis of the results of any of the algorithms used, suggesting it is a rare but benign variant. All other missense variants were considered potentially damaging on the basis of at least one measure.

Effect of CHEK2mutations on kinase activity

To evaluate whether missense variants inhibit the function of the CHEK2 protein, an in vitro kinase activity test based on a CHEK2-specific substrate peptide carrying a C-terminal SOX was developed [42]. Overexpression of recombinant CHEK2 at high levels in bacteria is associated with CHEK2 autophosphorylation and activation in the absence of DNA damage [13]. This property was used to obtain recombinant activated CHEK2. Upon the phosphorylation of the SOX-specific substrate by CHEK2, the presence of the chemosensor SOX results in an increase in fluorescence at 485 nm. Activity was detected for the WT protein but not for proteins extracted from nontransformed bacteria or recombinant CHEK2 protein carrying c.1100delC (Figure 2). Only missense variants were tested for kinase activity. c.190G > T (Glu64X), c.825_826del, c.846+4_+7del and c.792+1dup were considered deleterious without further analysis. Four mutations tested for kinase activity in vitro by Sodha et al. [27] were included to validate the assay.
Figure 2

Kinase activity of recombinant Flag-CHEK2 protein. Total protein extract (1.5 μg) was tested for the ability to phosphorylate a fluorescent substrate. The slope of the resulting curve represents Flag-CHEK2 kinase activity. The slope of the wild-type (WT) Flag-CHEK2 kinase activity curve was normalized to 1. Nontransformed protein extracts (NT) and mutant c.1100delC served as controls. Each point represents an average of five measurements performed in triplicate.

Three different classes of kinase activity were observed: WT-like, intermediate and null (Figure 2). Mutations Ser39Phe, Arg145Trp and Arg137Gln exhibited WT-like kinase activity, suggesting that these mutations do not affect the ability of recombinant CHEK2 to recognize, bind and phosphorylate its substrate (Figure 2). The mutants Pro85Arg, Arg180His and Lys244Arg had significantly lower, but not null, kinase activity (Figure 2), which placed them in the intermediate class. The mutations Glu161Del, Lys224Glu, Thr476Met and Tyr380Ser did not have any kinase activity. Nine of the eleven mutations showed kinase activity consistent with the in silico analysis, demonstrating the good but incomplete correlation of those two approaches (Table 3).
Table 3

Relationship between in silico and in vitro results

Mutation

Domain

In silicoconclusion

In vitroconclusion

Concordance

Ser39Phe

SQ/TQ

Probably deleterious

WT-like

No

Pro85Arg

Unknown function

Probably deleterious

Intermediate

Yes

Arg137Gln

FHA

Probably benign

WT-like

Yes

Arg145Trp

FHA

Probably deleterious

Intermediate

Yes

Glu161Del

FHA

Probably deleterious

Null

Yes

Arg180His

FHA

Probably deleterious

Intermediate

Yes

Lys 224Glu

Kinase core

Probably benign

Null

No

Lys244Arg

Kinase core

Probably benign

WT-like

Yes

Met367fsX13

Kinase core

Probably deleterious

Null

Yes

Tyr390Ser

Kinase core

Probably deleterious

Null

Yes

Thr476Met

Kinase core

Probably deleterious

Null

Yes

Both in silico and in vitro analyses suggested that the variant Lys244Arg, present in cases and controls, can be considered benign. This variant was thus removed from the pool of potentially deleterious CHEK2 variants that contribute to HBC. As a result, the mutation frequency was reduced to 1.48% for cases and 0.29% for controls (Table 2). This difference remained significant (P = 0.0042), and the OR associated with the presence of a deleterious mutation was increased to 5.18 (95% CI: 1.49 to 18.00).

Discussion

We found strong evidence of an association between CHEK2 variants and HBC, with an OR of 5.18. Of 16 different mutations, 9 were unreferenced variants. This demonstrates that, in populations without founder mutations, an aggregate of rare variants makes CHEK2 an appreciable breast cancer risk gene.

The functional consequences of missense variants can be difficult to establish, and in estimating associated risks it is important to separate deleterious from neutral variants. We were unfortunately unable to complement the functional data presented here with a study of the cosegregation of these variants with cancer, because only the index case was available for analysis in the majority of families.

Missense variant Ser39Phe was predicted as probably deleterious by two of the three scores (SIFT and Align-GVGD), but exhibited WT-like kinase activity. This discordance may suggest that not all deleterious changes in the CHEK2 protein can be revealed by the in vitro kinase activity test, most notably for changes outside the catalytic domain. Changes affecting interactions with upstream activators such as ATM, for example, may not be detectable by our measure. In contrast, Lys224Glu was predicted to be a tolerable change by the three scores, but exhibited null kinase activity, demonstrating the complementarity of those two approaches.

Further functional tests, such as expression in eukaryotic cells, followed by measures of activation by DNA strand breaks, protein stability and interaction with cellular partners may be necessary to appreciate all effects of these mutations, especially for those where the in silico and in vitro conclusions differ. We thus retain this variant as potentially deleterious, unlike Lys244Arg, which was characterized as benign by all measures.

The association between the CHEK2 gene and breast cancer risk has been supported mainly by case-control studies of founder mutations such as 1100delC, I157T (frequent in northern and eastern Europe) or the Polish founder mutation IVS2+1 G > A (c.444+1G > A) [19, 20, 24, 43, 44]. In our population, only one of these founder mutations was observed, accounting for one-third of deleterious mutations. Analysis of the entire coding sequence was necessary to capture the majority of the different mutations present. This might be the case for other populations where the frequency of the CHEK2 founder mutations is low.

In Table 4, to give an overview of CHEK2 contribution to breast cancer, we summarize the results of 36 different case-control studies from different countries where the presence of variants was assessed by allele-specific sequencing or DNA sequencing of the entire gene. The ORs of breast cancer from the different studies of c.1100delC are similar, regardless of the selection of cases, with a combined OR of 2.77. We also found comparable results for the other protein-truncating mutation c.444+1G > A, which is less frequent but has an OR similar to that for c.1100delC. No positive association with HBC was observed, possible due to the very low frequency of the variant in both cases and controls. The frequent variant I157T was associated with lower ORs than null mutations. Although this variant has been associated with breast cancer risk in early-onset or unselected cases, in our study it did not exhibit a significant association with HBC. Although the frequency of these deleterious mutations was different among populations, the ORs associated with breast cancer were consistent for the two null mutations and lower for the missense mutation. These data were collected using allele-specific sequencing, suggesting that testing for CHEK2 founder mutations is cost-effective in some populations because the variants are sufficiently common and the test is relatively inexpensive. Consequently, however, these techniques exclude mutations present elsewhere in the gene.
Table 4

Odds ratio for breast cancer among women with CHEK2 variants

Variants

References

Geographic populations

Case populations

Mutation frequency in controls (n/total)

Mutation frequency in cases (n/total)

OR (95% (CI)

c.1100delC

 

Mixed populations

All studies

0.33% (559/166,596)

0.90% (861/94,076)

2.77 (2.49 to 3.08)**

 

[19, 22, 25, 45, 47, 5059]

AJ, AUS, B, CDN, CZ, DK, E, FIN, G, IRL, KP, NL, S, UK, USA

UBC

0.31% (2,502/80,168)

0.80% (464/58,290)

2.56 (2.19 to 2.99)**

 

[3, 19, 22, 24, 25, 50, 54, 6064]

B, CDN, CZ, D, FIN, NL, S, UK, USA

HBC

0.39% (111/28,402)

1.27% (215/17,000)

3.29 (2.61 to 4.14)**

 

[23, 54, 65]

D, USA, AUS, CDN

EOBC

0.14% (14/9,846)

0.46% (21/4,588)

2.77 (1.23 to 6.26)**

 

[18, 53, 60, 66, 67]

AJ, DK, G, FIN, NL, RUS, UK, USA

BBC

0.43% (130/29,936)

1.35% (142/10,496)

3.17 (2.49 to 4.03)**

c.444+1G > A

(IVS2+1G > A)

 

Mixed populations

All studies

0.19% (82/42,266)

0.66% (217/33,142)

3.45 (2.67 to 4.46)**

 

[68, 69]

PL

EOBC

0.19% (49/25,426)

0.59% (91/15,338)

3.10 (2.19 to 4.39)**

 

[24, 43]

D, BY

HBC

0.12% (3/2,586)

0.26% (4/1,536)

2.25 (0.5 to 10.08) (NS)

 

[43, 59, 70]

D, BY, PL

UBC

0.20% (28/14,254)

0.61% (113/18,604)

3.12 (2.06 to 4.72)**

I157T

 

Mixed populations

All studies

2.14% (1,031/48,268)

3.11% (1062/34,128)

1.56 (1.43 to 1.70)**

 

[22, 23, 65, 68]

PL, USA, AUS, CDN

EOBC

1.46% (270/18,432)

1.99% (215/10,780)

1.59 (1.32 to 1.91)**

 

[20, 22, 24, 43, 71]

D, BY, FIN, NL, USA

HBC

1.77% (116/6,544)

1.51% (47/3,118)

0.89 (0.60 to 1.20) (NS)

 

[20, 22, 25, 43, 44, 59, 70]

By, CZ, D, FIN, PL, USA

UBC

2.04% (644/31,600)

2.95% (807/27,346)

1.48 (1.33 to 1.65)**

Whole-gene studies

[22]

USA

UBC

0.57% (24/4,210)

0.50% (4/800)

0.88 (0.3 to 2.55) (NS)

 

[24]

D

HBC

0.50% (18/3,630)

3.00% (31/1,032)

6.38 (3.54 to 11.5)**

 

[25]

CZ

HBC

1.39% (19/1,366)

2.01% (27/1,346)

1.46 (0.80 to 2.65) (NS)

  

F

HBC

0.39% (4/1,026)

1.58% (16/1,014)

4.15 (1.38 to 12.50)**

 

[23]

USA, CDN, AUS

EOBC

1.84% (40/2,178)

4.91% (6/2,484)

2.76 (1.65 to 4.60)**

BBC = bilateral breast cancer; EOBC = early-onset breast cancer; HBC = hereditary breast cancer not related to a BRCA mutation; UBC = unselected breast cancer; AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish; AUS = Australia; B = Belgium; BY = Belarus; CDN = Canada; CZ = Czech Republic; D = Germany; DK = Denmark; E = Spain; F = France; FIN = Finland; IRL = Ireland; KP = South Korea; NL = The Netherlands; PL = Poland; RUS = Russia; S = Sweden; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America; NS = nonsignificant (P < 0.05); **P < 0.0001. Participant numbers may vary from original publications because of exclusion of study subgroups.

Because the c.1100delC allele does not seem to be present in southern Europeans or in most non-Caucasian populations [4547], other research groups have used full-gene sequencing to determine whether other variants contribute to breast cancer risk. There is a positive association between CHEK2 variants and HBC in the Australian, Canadian, North American, German and now French, but not Czech Republic, populations [2225]. This suggests that CHEK2 analysis in populations where the common founder mutations are rare requires screening of the entire sequence.

Narod's [48] recent review supports the view that testing non-BRCA HBC families for mutations in CHEK2 can provide useful information to evaluate the risk of breast cancer and suggests that the relatively high cost of sequencing makes only the targeted search of frequent mutations cost-effective. In certain populations, one or a few mutations do indeed capture the majority of CHEK2 variants associated with cancer risk. In most regions, however, this allele-specific approach is inadequate and a full-resequencing strategy should be considered. The rapidly falling cost of resequencing, as well as alternate techniques, should make this possible.

Conclusions

The usefulness of the information gained from genetic analysis of CHEK2 is currently a matter of debate. As we have discussed, the risk of breast cancer for a woman with a null mutation in this gene is increased two- to fivefold. Increased breast surveillance may be proposed for carriers, but when counseling a family with many breast cancer cases, only some of whom carry the CHEK2 mutation, it is unclear what advice may be given to noncarriers. Collecting research information on CHEK2 mutations, however, serves to advance our understanding of the contribution of this gene to hereditary cancer risk.

Web resources

The URLs for the accession numbers and data presented herein are as follows:

Entrez gene database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene (for CHEK2 sequencing)

Ensembl Compara database: http://www.ensembl.org/info/docs/compara/index.html

UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot database: http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot

Abbreviations

HBC: 

hereditary breast cancer

FHA: 

Forkhead-associated

WT: 

wild type.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Molecular Genetic Diagnosis team and Dr Bernard-Gallon's team for technical assistance. The Ligue Contre le Cancer d'Auvergne provided financial support. A. Desrichard was funded by grants from the Conseil Regional d'Auvergne and FEDER.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratoire Diagnostic Génétique et Moléculaire, Centre Jean Perrin
(2)
Clermont Université, Université d'Auvergne

References

  1. Panda S, Isbatan A, Adami GR: Modification of the ATM/ATR directed DNA damage response state with aging and long after hepatocyte senescence induction in vivo. Mech Ageing Dev. 2008, 129: 332-340. 10.1016/j.mad.2008.02.014.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Rahman N, Seal S, Thompson D, Kelly P, Renwick A, Elliott A, Reid S, Spanova K, Barfoot R, Chagtai T, Jayatilake H, McGuffog L, Hanks S, Evans DG, Eccles D, Breast Cancer Susceptibility Collaboration (UK), Easton DF, Stratton MR: PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet. 2007, 39: 165-167. 10.1038/ng1959.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Klijn J, Wasielewski M, de Snoo A, Oldenburg R, Hollestelle A, Houben M, Crepin E, van Veghel-Plandsoen M, Elstrodt F, van Duijn C, Bartels C, Meijers C, Schutte M, McGuffog L, Thompson D, Easton D, Sodha N, Seal S, Barfoot R, Mangion J, Chang-Claude J, Eccles D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Houlston R, Murday V, Narod S, Peretz T, Peto J, Phelan C, Zhang HX, Szabo C, Devilee P, Goldgar D, Futreal PA, Nathanson KL, Weber B, Rahman N, Stratton MR, CHEK2-Breast Cancer Consortium: Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2*1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet. 2002, 31: 55-59. 10.1038/ng879.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Renwick A, Thompson D, Seal S, Kelly P, Chagtai T, Ahmed M, North B, Jayatilake H, Barfoot R, Spanova K, McGuffog L, Evans DG, Eccles D, Breast Cancer Susceptibility Collaboration (UK), Easton DF, Stratton MR, Rahman N: ATM mutations that cause ataxia-telangiectasia are breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 873-875. 10.1038/ng1837.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Seal S, Thompson D, Renwick A, Elliott A, Kelly P, Barfoot R, Chagtai T, Jayatilake H, Ahmed M, Spanova K, North B, McGuffog L, Evans DG, Eccles D, Breast Cancer Susceptibility Collaboration (UK), Easton DF, Stratton MR, Rahman N: Truncating mutations in the Fanconi anemia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 1239-1241. 10.1038/ng1902.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, McMullan G, Day NE, Ponder BA, Easton D: Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population-based study. Genet Epidemiol. 2001, 21: 1-18. 10.1002/gepi.1014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ponder BA: Cancer genetics. Nature. 2001, 411: 336-341. 10.1038/35077207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, McMullan G, Day NE, Stratton MR, Peto J, Ponder BJ, Easton DF: A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer. 2002, 86: 76-83. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600008.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Pharoah PD, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BA: Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet. 2002, 31: 33-36. 10.1038/ng853.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sodha N, Houlston RS, Bullock S, Yuille MA, Chu C, Turner G, Eeles RA: Increasing evidence that germline mutations in CHEK2 do not cause Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Hum Mutat. 2002, 20: 460-462. 10.1002/humu.10136.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bartek J, Falck J, Lukas J: Chk2 kinase: a busy messenger. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001, 2: 877-886. 10.1038/35103059.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Matsuoka S, Huang M, Elledge SJ: Linkage of ATM to cell cycle regulation by the Chk2 protein kinase. Science. 1998, 282: 1893-1897.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ahn JY, Li X, Davis HL, Canman CE: Phosphorylation of threonine 68 promotes oligomerization and autophosphorylation of the Chk2 protein kinase via the Forkhead-associated domain. J Biol Chem. 2002, 277: 19389-19395. 10.1074/jbc.M200822200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee JS, Collins KM, Brown AL, Lee CH, Chung JH: hCds1-mediated phosphorylation of BRCA1 regulates the DNA damage response. Nature. 2000, 404: 201-204. 10.1038/35004614.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Falck J, Mailand N, Syljuåsen RG, Bartek J, Lukas J: The ATM-Chk2-Cdc25A checkpoint pathway guards against radioresistant DNA synthesis. Nature. 2001, 410: 842-847. 10.1038/35071124.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Falck J, Petrini JH, Williams BR, Lukas J, Bartek J: The DNA damage-dependent intra-S phase checkpoint is regulated by parallel pathways. Nat Genet. 2002, 30: 290-294. 10.1038/ng845.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bartek J, Lukas J: Chk1 and Chk2 kinases in checkpoint control and cancer. Cancer Cell. 2003, 3: 421-429. 10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00110-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bell DW, Varley JM, Szydlo TE, Kang DH, Wahrer DC, Shannon KE, Lubratovich M, Verselis SJ, Isselbacher KJ, Fraumeni JF, Birch JM, Li FP, Garber JE, Haber DA: Heterozygous germ line hCHK2 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Science. 1999, 286: 2528-2531. 10.1126/science.286.5449.2528.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Vahteristo P, Bartkova J, Eerola H, Syrjäkoski K, Ojala S, Kilpivaara O, Tamminen A, Kononen J, Aittomäki K, Heikkilä P, Holli K, Blomqvist C, Bartek J, Kallioniemi OP, Nevanlinna H: A CHEK2 genetic variant contributing to a substantial fraction of familial breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2002, 71: 432-438. 10.1086/341943.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kilpivaara O, Vahteristo P, Falck J, Syrjäkoski K, Eerola H, Easton D, Bartkova J, Lukas J, Heikkilä P, Aittomäki K, Holli K, Blomqvist C, Kallioniemi OP, Bartek J, Nevanlinna H: CHEK2 variant I157T may be associated with increased breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2004, 111: 543-547. 10.1002/ijc.20299.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Staalesen V, Falck J, Geisler S, Bartkova J, Børresen-Dale AL, Lukas J, Lillehaug JR, Bartek J, Lønning PE: Alternative splicing and mutation status of CHEK2 in stage III breast cancer. Oncogene. 2004, 23: 8535-8544. 10.1038/sj.onc.1207928.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bell DW, Kim SH, Godwin AK, Schiripo TA, Harris PL, Haserlat SM, Wahrer DC, Haiman CA, Daly MB, Niendorf KB, Smith MR, Sgroi DC, Garber JE, Olopade OI, Le Marchand L, Henderson BE, Altshuler D, Haber DA, Freedman ML: Genetic and functional analysis of CHEK2 (CHK2) variants in multiethnic cohorts. Int J Cancer. 2007, 121: 2661-2667. 10.1002/ijc.23026.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Calvez-Kelm F, Lesueur F, Damiola F, Vallée M, Voegele C, Babikyan D, Durand G, Forey N, McKay-Chopin S, Robinot N, Nguyen-Dumont T, Thomas A, Byrnes GB, Breast Cancer Family Registry, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Andrulis IL, John EM, Tavtigian SV: Rare, evolutionarily unlikely missense substitutions in CHEK2 contribute to breast cancer susceptibility: results from a breast cancer family registry case-control mutation-screening study. Breast Cancer Res. 2011, 13: R6-10.1186/bcr2810.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Dufault MR, Betz B, Wappenschmidt B, Hofmann W, Bandick K, Golla A, Pietschmann A, Nestle-Krämling C, Rhiem K, Hüttner C, von Lindern C, Dall P, Kiechle M, Untch M, Jonat W, Meindl A, Scherneck S, Niederacher D, Schmutzler RK, Arnold N: Limited relevance of the CHEK2 gene in hereditary breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004, 110: 320-325. 10.1002/ijc.20073.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleibl Z, Novotny J, Bezdickova D, Malik R, Kleiblova P, Foretova L, Petruzelka L, Ilencikova D, Cinek P, Pohlreich P: The CHEK2 c.1100delC germline mutation rarely contributes to breast cancer development in the Czech Republic. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 90: 165-167. 10.1007/s10549-004-4023-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarz JK, Lovly CM, Piwnica-Worms H: Regulation of the Chk2 protein kinase by oligomerization-mediated cis- and trans-phosphorylation. Mol Cancer Res. 2003, 1: 598-609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sodha N, Mantoni TS, Tavtigian SV, Eeles R, Garrett MD: Rare germ line CHEK2 variants identified in breast cancer families encode proteins that show impaired activation. Cancer Res. 2006, 66: 8966-8970. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1990.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Delort L, Kwiatkowski F, Chalabi N, Satih S, Bignon YJ, Bernard-Gallon DJ: Risk factors for early age at breast cancer onset: the "COSA program" population-based study. Anticancer Res. 2007, 27: 1087-1094.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Gene database: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene]
  30. Sodha N, Houlston RS, Williams R, Yuille MA, Mangion J, Eeles RA: A robust method for detecting CHK2/RAD53 mutations in genomic DNA. Hum Mutat. 2002, 19: 173-177. 10.1002/humu.10031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sunyaev S, Ramensky V, Bork P: Towards a structural basis of human non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms. Trends Genet. 2000, 16: 198-200. 10.1016/S0168-9525(00)01988-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tavtigian SV, Deffenbaugh AM, Yin L, Judkins T, Scholl T, Samollow PB, de Silva D, Zharkikh A, Thomas A: Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral. J Med Genet. 2006, 43: 295-305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathe E, Olivier M, Kato S, Ishioka C, Hainaut P, Tavtigian SV: Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: 1317-1325. 10.1093/nar/gkj518.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ng PC, Henikoff S: SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 3812-3814. 10.1093/nar/gkg509.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Ensembl Comparative Genomics database: [http://useast.ensembl.org/info/docs/compara/index.html]
  36. UniProt Consortium: UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot database: [http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/]
  37. Adzhubei IA, Schmidt S, Peshkin L, Ramensky VE, Gerasimova A, Bork P, Kondrashov AS, Sunyaev SR: A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods. 2010, 7: 248-249. 10.1038/nmeth0410-248.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Pertea M, Lin X, Salzberg SL: GeneSplicer: a new computational method for splice site prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29: 1185-1190. 10.1093/nar/29.5.1185.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Yeo G, Burge CB: Maximum entropy modeling of short sequence motifs with applications to RNA splicing signals. J Comput Biol. 2004, 11: 377-394. 10.1089/1066527041410418.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Desmet FO, Hamroun D, Lalande M, Collod-Béroud G, Claustres M, Béroud C: Human Splicing Finder: an online bioinformatics tool to predict splicing signals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37: e67-10.1093/nar/gkp215.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller CW, Ikezoe T, Krug U, Hofmann WK, Tavor S, Vegesna V, Tsukasaki K, Takeuchi S, Koeffler HP: Mutations of the CHK2 gene are found in some osteosarcomas, but are rare in breast, lung, and ovarian tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002, 33: 17-21. 10.1002/gcc.1207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Shults MD, Janes KA, Lauffenburger DA, Imperiali B: A multiplexed homogeneous fluorescence-based assay for protein kinase activity in cell lysates. Nat Methods. 2005, 2: 277-283. 10.1038/nmeth747.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bogdanova N, Enssen-Dubrowinskaja N, Feshchenko S, Lazjuk GI, Rogov YI, Dammann O, Bremer M, Karstens JH, Sohn C, Dörk T: Association of two mutations in the CHEK2 gene with breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2005, 116: 263-266. 10.1002/ijc.21022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Cybulski C, Górski B, Huzarski T, Masojć B, Mierzejewski M, Debniak T, Teodorczyk U, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Matyjasik J, Zlowocka E, Lenner M, Grabowska E, Nej K, Castaneda J, Medrek K, Szymańska A, Szymańska J, Kurzawski G, Suchy J, Oszurek O, Witek A, Narod SA, Lubiński J: CHEK2 is a multiorgan cancer susceptibility gene. Am J Hum Genet. 2004, 75: 1131-1135. 10.1086/426403.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Osorio A, Rodríguez-López R, Díez O, de la Hoya M, Ignacio Martínez J, Vega A, Esteban-Cardeñosa E, Alonso C, Caldés T, Benítez J: The breast cancer low-penetrance allele 1100delC in the CHEK2 gene is not present in Spanish familial breast cancer population. Int J Cancer. 2004, 108: 54-56. 10.1002/ijc.11414.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee AS, Ang P: CHEK2*1100delC screening of Asian women with a family history of breast cancer is unwarranted. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 2419-2420.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang S, Phelan CM, Zhang P, Rousseau F, Ghadirian P, Robidoux A, Foulkes W, Hamel N, McCready D, Trudeau M, Lynch H, Horsman D, De Matsuda ML, Aziz Z, Gomes M, Costa MM, Liede A, Poll A, Sun P, Narod SA: Frequency of the CHEK2 1100delC mutation among women with breast cancer: an international study. Cancer Res. 2008, 68: 2154-2157. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Narod SA: Testing for CHEK2 in the cancer genetics clinic: ready for prime time?. Clin Genet. 2010, 78: 1-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Dong X, Wang L, Taniguchi K, Wang X, Cunningham JM, McDonnell SK, Qian C, Marks AF, Slager SL, Peterson BJ, Smith DI, Cheville JC, Blute ML, Jacobsen SJ, Schaid DJ, Tindall DJ, Thibodeau SN, Liu W: Mutations in CHEK2 associated with prostate cancer risk. Am J Hum Genet. 2003, 72: 270-280. 10.1086/346094.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Baeyens A, Claes K, Willems P, De Ruyck K, Thierens H, Vral A: Chromosomal radiosensitivity of breast cancer with a CHEK2 mutation. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2005, 163: 106-112. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2005.04.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. de Bock GH, Schutte M, Krol-Warmerdam EM, Seynaeve C, Blom J, Brekelmans CT, Meijers-Heijboer H, van Asperen CJ, Cornelisse CJ, Devilee P, Tollenaar RA, Klijn JG: Tumour characteristics and prognosis of breast cancer patients carrying the germline CHEK2*1100delC variant. J Med Genet. 2004, 41: 731-735. 10.1136/jmg.2004.019737.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Mateus Pereira LH, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Pineda MA, Alexander BH, Greene MH, Struewing JP: CHEK2:1100delC and female breast cancer in the United States. Int J Cancer. 2004, 112: 541-543. 10.1002/ijc.20439.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Offit K, Pierce H, Kirchhoff T, Kolachana P, Rapaport B, Gregersen P, Johnson S, Yossepowitch O, Huang H, Satagopan J, Robson M, Scheuer L, Nafa K, Ellis N: Frequency of CHEK2*1100delC in New York breast cancer cases and controls. BMC Med Genet. 2003, 4: 1-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Rashid MU, Jakubowska A, Justenhoven C, Harth V, Pesch B, Baisch C, Pierl CB, Brüning T, Ko Y, Benner A, Wichmann HE, Brauch H, Hamann U, GENICA Network: German populations with infrequent CHEK2*1100delC and minor associations with early-onset and familial breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005, 41: 2896-2903. 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.04.049.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case-Control Consortium: CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2004, 74: 1175-1182.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Axelsson CK, Nordestgaard BG: Increased risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2*1100delC. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 57-63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Choi DH, Cho DY, Lee MH, Park HS, Ahn SH, Son BH, Haffty BG: The CHEK2 1100delC mutation is not present in Korean patients with breast cancer cases tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, 112: 569-573. 10.1007/s10549-007-9878-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. McInerney NM, Miller N, Rowan A, Colleran G, Barclay E, Curran C, Kerin MJ, Tomlinson IP, Sawyer E: Evaluation of variants in the CHEK2, BRIP1 and PALB2 genes in an Irish breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010, 121: 203-210. 10.1007/s10549-009-0540-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Scharrer U, Skrzypczak-Zielinska M, Wituszynska W, Mierzejewski M, Krause K, Cybulski C, Froster UG: A simple method of investigating mutations in CHEK2 by DHPLC: a study of the German populations of Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2010, 199: 48-52. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2009.11.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Bernstein JL, Teraoka SN, John EM, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Lapinski R, Olson ER, Wolitzer AL, Seminara D, Whittemore AS, Concannon P: The CHEK2*1100delC allelic variant and risk of breast cancer: screening results from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 348-352. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0557.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. De Jong MM, Van der Graaf WTA, Nolte IM, Te Meerman GJ, Oosterwijk JC, Van der Steege G, Boezen M, Schaapveld M, Kleibeuker JH, De Vries EGE: Increased CHEK2 1100delC genotype frequency (also) in unselected breast cancer patients [abstract 9536]. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22 (14 Supplement): 844s-Google Scholar
  62. Meijers-Heijboer H, Wijnen J, Vasen H, Wasielewski M, Wagner A, Hollestelle A, Elstrodt F, van den Bos R, de Snoo A, Fat GT, Brekelmans C, Jagmohan S, Franken P, Verkuijlen P, van den Ouweland A, Chapman P, Tops C, Möslein G, Burn J, Lynch H, Klijn J, Fodde R, Schutte M: The CHEK2 1100delC mutation identifies families with a hereditary breast and colorectal cancer phenotype. Am J Hum Genet. 2003, 72: 1308-1314. 10.1086/375121.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sodha N, Bullock S, Taylor R, Mitchell G, Guertl-Lackner B, Williams RD, Bevan S, Bishop K, McGuire S, Houlston RS, Eeles RA: CHEK2 variants in susceptibility to breast cancer and evidence of retention of the wild type allele in tumours. Br J Cancer. 2002, 87: 1445-1448. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600637.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Margolin S, Eiberg H, Lindblom A, Bisgaard ML: CHEK2 1100delC is prevalent in Swedish early onset familial breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007, 7: 163-10.1186/1471-2407-7-163.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Friedrichsen DM, Malone KE, Doody DR, Daling JR, Ostrander EA: Frequency of CHEK2 mutations in a population based, case-control study of breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res. 2004, 6: R629-R635. 10.1186/bcr933.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Fletcher O, Johnson N, dos Santos Silva I, Kilpivaara O, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H, Wasielewski M, Meijers-Heijerboer H, Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Van't Veer LJ, Bremer M, Dörk T, Chekmariova EV, Sokolenko AP, Imyanitov EN, Hamann U, Rashid MU, Brauch H, Justenhoven C, Ashworth A, Peto J: Family history, genetic testing, and clinical risk prediction: pooled analysis of CHEK2*1100delC in 1,828 bilateral breast cancers and 7,030 controls. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009, 18: 230-234. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0416.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Mellemkjaer L, Dahl C, Olsen JH, Bertelsen L, Guldberg P, Christensen J, Børresen-Dale AL, Stovall M, Langholz B, Bernstein L, Lynch CF, Malone KE, Haile RW, Andersson M, Thomas DC, Concannon P, Capanu M, Boice JD, WECARE Study Collaborative Group, Bernstein JL: Risk for contralateral breast cancer among carriers of the CHEK2*1100delC mutation in the WECARE Study. Br J Cancer. 2008, 98: 728-733. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604228.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Cybulski C, Górski B, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Debniak T, Wokolorczyk D, Jakubowska A, Kowalska E, Oszurek O, Narod SA, Lubinski J: CHEK2-positive breast cancers in young Polish women. Clin Cancer Res. 2006, 12: 4832-4835. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0158.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Cybulski C, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Debniak T, Jakubowska A, Górski B, Wokołorczyk D, Masojć B, Narod SA, Lubiński J: Estrogen receptor status in CHEK2-positive breast cancers: implications for chemoprevention. Clin Genet. 2009, 75: 72-78. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01111.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Cybulski C, Górski B, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Debniak T, Wokołorczyk D, Jakubowska A, Serrano-Fernández P, Dörk T, Narod SA, Lubiński J: Effect of CHEK2 missense variant I157T on the risk of breast cancer in carriers of other CHEK2 or BRCA1 mutations. J Med Genet. 2009, 46: 132-135.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Schutte M, Seal S, Barfoot R, Meijers-Heijboer H, Wasielewski M, Evans DG, Eccles D, Meijers C, Lohman F, Klijn J, van den Ouweland A, Futreal PA, Nathanson KL, Weber BL, Easton DF, Stratton MR, Rahman N, Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Variants in CHEK2 other than 1100delC do not make a major contribution to breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Hum Genet. 2003, 72: 1023-1028. 10.1086/373965.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Desrichard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.