MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094222084 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-08-0065

Polymorphisms in<i>RAD51, XRCC2</i>, and<i>XRCC3</i>Are Not Related to Breast Cancer Risk

2008· article· en· W2094222084 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer D. Brooks, Roy E. Shore, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Diane Currie, Yelena Afanasyeva, Karen L. Koenig, Alan A. Arslan, Paolo Toniolo, Isaac Wirgin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsXRCC3Breast cancerGenotypeGenotypingConcordanceMedicineOncologyCohortInternal medicineCancerGeneGeneticsBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly penetrant, but rare, mutations in genes involved in double-strand break repair (i.e., BRCA1 and BRCA2) are associated with a risk for breast cancer of 40% to 65% by age 70 years (1, 2). Polymorphisms in other double-strand break repair genes are thought to contribute to the risk for the disease, either independently or through modifying the risk associated with rare mutations.This study focuses on polymorphisms in three genes involved in the homologous recombination of double-strand breaks: RAD51 5′ untranslated region 135 G&gt;C (rs1801320), X-ray repair cross-complementing group 2 (XRCC2) Arg188His (rs3218536), and XRCC3 Thr241Met (rs861539) in relation to breast cancer risk in the New York University Women's Health Study cohort.The New York University Women's Health Study cohort collected questionnaires and blood samples from 14,274 healthy women ages 35 to 65 years in 1985 to 1991 (3). The current nested case-control study is matched for age and date at blood donation and includes incident cases of invasive breast cancer diagnosed before March 1998, with further methodologic details described by Shore et al. (4).DNA was isolated using Qiagen QIAamp Blood Mini Kits (Qiagen, Inc.; ref. 4). Genotyping was done using PCR-RFLP methods described previously (ref. 4; see Appendix 1 for gene-specific PCR conditions and primer sequences). Blood clots and/or cell aggregates were available for 48% of the women. For the remaining women, serum specimens were used. Genotype results from clots/red cells and serum showed excellent concordance between repeated samples (n = 73) in pilot studies (97% for RAD51 135 G&gt;C, 99% for XRCC2 Arg188His, and 98% for XRCC3 Thr241Met). Quality control duplicates showed 100% concordance for all three polymorphisms.Deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was assessed in controls using the χ2 goodness-of-fit test. The relationship between genotype and breast cancer risk was evaluated using conditional logistic regression and the additive coding model. The dominant model was also assessed for RAD51 and XRCC2 because of the small number of individuals with the homozygous variant genotype. Tests for interaction between genotype and ethnicity, family history, body mass index, and smoking were planned a priori.Given our sample size (612 cases and 612 controls) and the allelic frequencies in our population, we had sufficient power (99% for RAD51 135 G&gt;C, 99% for XRCC2 Arg188His, and 88% for XRCC3 Thr241Met) to detect associations of the magnitude observed by Kadouri et al. (5) for RAD51 135 G&gt;C and Kuschel et al. (6) for XRCC2 Arg188His and XRCC3 Thr241Met.Genotype frequencies did not deviate from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P &gt; 0.5). Variant allele frequencies were comparable with those previously reported for populations of Caucasians of European descent for XRCC2 Arg188His (8%; refs. 6-9) and XRCC3 Thr241Met (36%; refs. 8-14), but the variant allele frequency for RAD51 135 G&gt;C of 9% was somewhat lower than previous reports (5, 6, 9).Table 1 describes study subject characteristics. As expected, significant differences in body mass index and parity/age at first full-term pregnancy were observed between cases and controls. However, these variables were not associated with genotype. Ethnicity was significantly associated with breast cancer risk and genotype. Asian and Hispanic women had a lower risk for breast cancer than non-Jewish White women (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.81); this association is as expected (15). Ethnicity was significantly related to genotype for RAD51 GC/CC (P &lt; 0.0001) and XRCC3 CT/TT (P &lt; 0.0001) genotypes. Among Black women, 37.4% had at least one copy of the RAD51 135 G&gt;C variant allele (non-Jewish White, 15.9%; Jewish White, 9.6%; others, 17.3%). The XRCC3 Thr241Met variant was most common (67.3%) among Jewish White women (non-Jewish White, 60.3%; Black, 38.4%; others, 40.8%). XRCC2 Arg188His variant was not significantly related to ethnicity.Unadjusted and ethnicity-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are presented in Table 2. Although ethnicity was found to be related to genotype and risk, adjusting for ethnicity altered the odds ratios only slightly. In this population, none of the polymorphisms was found to influence breast cancer risk. The sum of variant alleles was also not related to risk (data not shown). Similar results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to Caucasians (data not shown). No significant interaction was found between genotype and ethnicity, body mass index, smoking, parity, or family history.Genetic instability acquired through inefficient double-strand break repair is believed to be a component of breast cancer susceptibility. RAD51 plays a central role in homologous recombination, through direct interaction with XRCC2, XRCC3, BRCA1, BRCA2, etc., to form a complex essential for the repair of double-strand breaks and DNA cross-links (especially XRCC2 and XRCC3) and for the maintenance of chromosome stability (16).Studies have suggested that RAD51 135 G&gt;C modifies the breast cancer risk of women with a family history of breast cancer (17, 18) or carriers of BRCA2 mutations (5, 18-21). However, results have been inconsistent (22-24). Studies of non–BRCA2 mutation carriers or women without a family history have found no association between RAD51 135 G&gt;C and breast cancer risk (5, 6).Results for XRCC2 Arg188His have been similarly mixed (6-8, 23). It is thought that this polymorphism has only a small effect on gene activity (7), although it may modify risk in those with low levels of plasma α-carotene (25) or plasma folate (26).XRCC3 Thr241Met has been found to be associated with increased DNA adducts (27), chromosomal deletions (28), and sensitivity to ionizing radiation and cross-linking agents (29, 30). Some (6, 17, 31) but not all (10, 23, 25, 32, 33) studies have found XRCC3 Thr241Met to be related to an increased risk for breast cancer. Pooled analyses and meta-analyses show a small but significant increase in risk (8, 14, 22, 34).Disruption of double-strand break repair is thought to contribute to carcinogenesis through the accumulation of genetic errors and genetic instability (35). However, in this study, the RAD51, XRCC2, and XRCC3 variants were found not to be associated with breast cancer risk. Unlike other reports, no relationship was found between RAD51 135 G&gt;C and family history of breast cancer, perhaps because the participants in the study were not selected for having a family history of disease or being BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207