Functional impairment of p16(INK4A) due to CDKN2A p.Gly23Asp missense mutation.

The CDKN2A locus encodes for two distinct tumor suppressor proteins, p16(INK4A) and p14(ARF), involved in cell cycle regulation. CDKN2A germline mutations have been associated with familial predisposition to melanoma and other tumor types. Besides bona-fide pathogenic mutations, many sequence variants have been identified, but their effect is not well known. We detected the p.Gly23Asp missense mutation in one of the two tested melanoma patients of a family with three melanoma cases. Even though the mutated amino acid is located in a conserved domain that specifically binds to and blocks the function of CDK4/6, its lack of segregation with disease suggested a series of functional assays to discriminate between a pathogenic variant and a neutral polymorphism. The effect of this mutation has been investigated exploiting four p16(INK4A) properties: its ability (i) to bind CDK4, (ii) to inhibit pRb phosphorylation, (iii) to evenly localize in the cell, and (iv) to cause cell cycle arrest. The mutant protein properties were evaluated transfecting three different cell lines (U2-OS and NM-39, both p16-null, and SaOS 2, p53 and pRb-null) with plasmids expressing either p16(wt), p16(23Asp), or the p16(32Pro) pathogenic variant. We found that p16(23Asp) was less efficient than p16(wt) in CDK4 binding, in inhibiting pRb phosphorylation, in inducing G1 cell cycle arrest; moreover, its pattern of distribution throughout the cell was suggestive of protein aggregation, thus assessing a pathogenic role for p16(23Asp) in familial melanoma.

Establishment and characterization of xenografts and cancer cell cultures derived from BRCA1 -/- epithelial ovarian cancers.

The BRCA1 gene is responsible for a high number of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers that cluster in families with a strong genetic predisposition. Despite intense investigation, the accumulating findings on BRCA1 biological functions have not yet been translated into specific therapeutic approaches, also due to the lack of suitable experimental models. The purpose of this study was to establish and characterize cell cultures and xenografts from patients with BRCA1 -/- ovarian cancers. We derived two ovarian cancer cell lines, termed PD-OVCA1 and PD-OVCA2, both from patients previously treated with chemotherapy, that propagate in SCID mice as well as in vitro for a limited number of passages. Both cell lines expressed cytokeratins and the CA125 tumour marker. A detailed molecular characterization highlighted both constitutive and somatic genetic events that abrogate BRCA1 gene function. Both cell lines were shown to lose the wild type BRCA1 allele; intriguingly, these deletions were apparently accompanied by gain of one or more copies of the mutant alleles. Finally, a genomic profile of major chromosomal aberrations was obtained by the Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) technique, which disclosed chromosomal imbalances targeting specific genes in each cell line. The PD-OVCA1 and PD-OVCA2 ovarian cancer cell lines will provide a valuable tool for new experimental models for the study of BRCA1-associated tumour biology.

BRCA1 p.Val1688del is a deleterious mutation that recurs in breast and ovarian cancer families from Northeast Italy.

PURPOSE: A growing number of sequence changes of unknown clinical significance are being identified in the BRCA1 gene. However, these variants cannot be used for identification and surveillance of at-risk individuals unless their pathogenic role can be demonstrated. The frequency of these variants makes research on this subject a relevant topic in the field of predisposition to breast and ovarian cancers. Herein, we investigate the pathogenicity of the BRCA1 p.Val1688del (c.5181_5183delGTT) variant, which recurs in our population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Recent studies have drawn attention to different strategies that, if considered singly, do not usually provide sufficient power to firmly state for or against causality, thus forcing to a re-evaluation of the literature on each specific variant. To increase the power of our study, we used a recently described strategy that integrates data from multiple independent evidences. By this approach, we analyzed data from the comprehensive study of 12 breast/ovarian cancer families carrying p.Val1688del. RESULTS: We succeeded in integrating five independent evidences of disease causality including segregation, tumor pathology, and evolutionary and epidemiologic data. Under this model, we obtained a final score of 349,000:1 in favor of disease causality. This result largely matches established cutoffs, and thus is readily translatable into a clear clinical message. CONCLUSION: We show that p.Val1688del is a pathogenic mutation deriving from a common founder. Notably, this study alone increases by 15% the number of BRCA1-positive families in our patients' cohort, thus substantially contributing to explain many of the families wherein prediction of a BRCA1 mutation contrasted with the absence of a molecular recognizable defect.

Prevalence of BRCA1 genomic rearrangements in a large cohort of Italian breast and breast/ovarian cancer families without detectable BRCA1 and BRCA2 point mutations.

The presence of genomic rearrangements of the BRCA1 gene in breast and/or ovarian cancer families has been intensively investigated in patients from various countries over the last years. A number of different rearrangements have been reported by several studies that clearly document the involvement of this mutation type in genetic predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Population-specific studies are now needed to evaluate the prevalence of genomic rearrangements before deciding whether to include ad hoc screening procedures into standard diagnostic mutation detection approaches. Indeed, the vast majority of the studies have been performed on small, highly selected, sample sets because of the limitations imposed by the laborious technical approaches. Moreover, prevalence figures are likely to differ across different countries according to the ethnic origin of each specific population. Here we analyze a large cohort of 653 Italian probands, negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 point mutations, gathered from four National Institutions. We report the identification of BRCA1 genomic rearrangements in 12 independent families. Noteworthy, half of the probands carry mutations that recur in more than one Italian family. Considering the whole spectrum of Italian BRCA1 gene rearrangements identified thus far in consecutive patients, we estimate that alterations of this type account for 19% (95% CI: 0.11 < 0.19 < 0.28) of the BRCA1 mutation positive families. We conclude that the search for major genomic rearrangements is essential for an accurate and comprehensive BRCA1 mutation detection strategy in Italy.