Skip to main content
Human Genomics logoLink to Human Genomics
. 2006 Mar 1;2(5):287–296. doi: 10.1186/1479-7364-2-5-287

Functional nsSNPs from carcinogenesis-related genes expressed in breast tissue: Potential breast cancer risk alleles and their distribution across human populations

Sevtap Savas 1,2,3, Steffen Schmidt 4, Hamdi Jarjanazi 1,2,3, Hilmi Ozcelik 1,2,3,
PMCID: PMC3500178  PMID: 16595073

Abstract

Although highly penetrant alleles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been shown to predispose to breast cancer, the majority of breast cancer cases are assumed to result from the presence of low-moderate penetrant alleles and environmental carcinogens. Non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) are hypothesised to contribute to disease susceptibility and approximately 30 per cent of them are predicted to have a biological significance. In this study, we have applied a bioinformatics-based strategy to identify breast cancer-related nsSNPs from 981 carcinogenesis-related genes expressed in breast tissue. Our results revealed a total of 367 validated nsSNPs, 109 (29.7 per cent) of which are predicted to affect the protein function (functional nsSNPs), suggesting that these nsSNPs are likely to influence the development and homeostasis of breast tissue and hence contribute to breast cancer susceptibility. Sixty-seven of the functional nsSNPs presented as commonly occurring nsSNPs (minor allele frequencies ≥ 5 per cent), representing excellent candidates for breast cancer susceptibility. Additionally, a non-uniform distribution of the common functional nsSNPs among different human populations was observed: 15 nsSNPs were reported to be present in all populations analysed, whereas another set of 15 nsSNPs was specific to particular population(s). We propose that the nsSNPs analysed in this study constitute a unique resource of potential genetic factors for breast cancer susceptibility. Furthermore, the variations in functional nsSNP allele frequencies across major population backgrounds may point to the potential variability of the molecular basis of breast cancer predisposition and treatment response among different human populations.

Keywords: breast cancer predisposition, nsSNPs, breast tissue expression, carcinogenesis-related genes, PolyPhen

Introduction

Mutations of BRCA1[1] and BRCA2[2] confer high breast cancer risk to the carriers. Such highly penetrant mutations are only responsible for a small fraction (~5-10 per cent) of all breast cancer cases,[3,4] however, suggesting the presence of other, yet to be identified, mutations in other breast cancer predisposition genes [5-7]. Mutations in a number of genes, such as p53,[8]ATM[6] and Chek2,[9] have also been shown to contribute to breast cancer risk in a very small fraction of breast cancer cases. So far, no other high-penetrant breast cancer susceptibility gene has been identified; however, genetic variations including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been hypothesised to act as low-moderate penetrant alleles and contribute to breast cancer, as well as other complex diseases [7,10-12].

Variations in protein sequence and function are mainly due to the non-synonymous form of SNPs (nsSNPs). The fraction of nsSNPs in the genome is relatively low (~10 per cent of all coding SNPs)[13] compared with other types, but they are more likely to alter the structure, function and interaction of the proteins, and thus constitute a set of candidate genetic factors associated with disease predisposition [14,15]. Approximately 30 per cent of the nsSNPs are predicted to have biological consequences [16-18]. Several nsSNPs from the proteins acting in a variety of cellular pathways--such as apoptosis,[19] oxidative stress[20] and signal transduction[21]--have already been reported to be associated with an increased/decreased risk of breast cancer.

Several studies have described cancer-relevant nsSNPs;[22-25] however, to our knowledge they have not been studied in the context of expression of genes in a particular tissue. Clearly, in order for genes to be linked to a disease of a tissue, their protein products should somehow influence that particular tissue, either as exogenous proteins (such as hormones) or endogenous proteins (such as the proteins expressed in that tissue) [26,27]. In this study, we have applied a bioinformatics-based strategy and identified potentially functional nsSNPs from endogenous carcinogenesis-related proteins expressed in breast tissue.

Methods

Genes

The Ensembl transcript identifiers (http://www.ensembl.org/)[28] of the genes expressed in breast tissue were retrieved from the TissueInfo database (db) (http://icb.med.cornell.edu/services/tissueinfo/query) [29]. The list of carcinogenesis-related genes from 18 different categories ('DNA adduct', 'DNA damage', 'DNA replication', 'angiogenesis', 'apoptosis', 'behavior', 'cell cycle', 'cell signaling', 'development', 'gene regulation', 'transcription', 'immunology', 'metabolism', 'metastasis', 'pharmacology', 'signal transduction', 'tumor suppressors/oncogenes' and 'miscellaneous') was retrieved from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Genome Anatomy Project Genetic Annotation Initiative ([CGAP-GAI] website [http://lpgws.nci.nih.gov/html-cgap/cgl/]) [30]. The genes retrieved from the TissueInfo and the CGAP-GAI resources were then cross-referenced with each other to identify the group of carcinogenesis-related genes that are expressed in breast tissue.

nsSNPs

The nsSNPs from the group of carcinogenesis-related genes expressed in breast tissue were retrieved from dbSNP build 120 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/) [31]. Only the nsSNPs detected in ≥ 2 chromosomes in a sample panel of ≥ 40 chromosomes were included in this study (validated nsSNPs). Seventeen nsSNPs were found in both less and more than 5 per cent of the chromosomes analysed in different sample sets; for simplicity, we have classified such nsSNPs within the nsSNP set with ≥ 5 per cent minor allele frequencies throughout this paper.

PolyPhen analysis

The PolyPhen predictions[18] were retrieved from a pre-computed dbSNP-PolyPhen resource. All PolyPhen predictions were based on either alignment of at least five similar proteins (for a more reliable prediction) or structural parameters.

Results

The results obtained in this study are summarised in Table 1 and constitute only the validated nsSNPs with a reliable prediction made by the PolyPhen prediction tool (see Methods). A total of 367 nsSNPs from 189 carcinogenesis-related genes expressed in breast tissue are presented. A total of 109 nsSNPs (28.4 per cent) from 75 genes were predicted potentially to affect the protein function (functional nsSNPs). Additionally, 61.5 per cent (n = 67) of the potentially functional nsSNPs represented commonly occurring nsSNPs in the population (≥ 5 per cent minor allele frequency; Table 2). In this paper, we mainly discuss the commonly occurring functional nsSNPs; however, the list of rarely occurring functional nsSNPs can also be found under the supplementary table (http://www.ozceliklab.com/Breast_rare_nsSNPs/).

Table 1.

Summary of the results.

n
Genes

 Carcinogenesis-related genes 2,832

  Expressed in breast tissue 981

   With validated nsSNPs 189

   With functional nsSNPs 75

nsSNPs

 Validated nsSNPs 367

  Benign by PolyPhen 258

  Functional by PolyPhen 109

   With ≥ 5% minor allele frequency 67

   With < 5% minor allele frequency 42

Abbreviation: n = number; nsSNP = non-synonymous form of single nucleotide polymorphisms. Please note that only the genes and the nsSNPs for which a reliable PolyPhen prediction (based on ≥ 5 proteins in the alignment) was available are shown in this table.

Table 2.

Functional and common non-synonymous form of single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) from the breast tissue-expressed carcinogenesis-related genes.

Genea Accession
number
SNP IDb Amino acid
changec
Codond Damaging
allele
Damaging
amino acide
PolyPhen
prediction
Pathwayf
ACY1 NM_000666.1 rs2229152 R386C cgt/tgt t C Probably damaging IM

ADD1 NM_014189.2 rs4961 G460W ggg/tgg t W Probably damaging IM

ADD1 NM_014189.2 rs4962 N541I aat/att t I Probably damaging IM

ADD1 NM_014189.2 rs4971 Y270N tat/aat a N Probably damaging IM

ADM NM_001124.1 rs5005 S50R agc/agg g R Possibly damaging AN

ADRB2 NM_000024.3 rs1042713 G16R gga/aga a R Possibly damaging BE, IM

ALDH2 NM_000690.2 rs671 E504K gaa/aaa a K Possibly damaging IM, PH

APOE NM_000041.1 rs429358 C130R tgc/cgc c R Probably damaging IM

AXIN2 NM_004655.1 rs2240308 P50S cct/tct t S Probably damaging DE

C2 NM_000063.3 rs4151648 R734C cgc/tgc t C Possibly damaging IM

CD2 NM_001767.2 rs699738 H266Q cac/caa a Q Probably damaging AN, IM, MET

CDH12 NM_004061.2 rs4371716 V68M gtg/atg g V Probably damaging IM

CHGA NM_001275.2 rs729940 R399W cgg/tgg t W Probably damaging IM

CHGA NM_001275.2 rs9658667 G382S ggc/agc a S Possibly damaging IM

CLU NM_001831.1 rs9331936 N317H aac/cac c H Possibly damaging IM

CSF1 NM_000757.3 rs2229165 G438R ggg/agg a R Probably damaging IM

CSF3R NM_000760.2 rs3917973 M231T atg/acg c T Probably damaging IM

CSF3R NM_000760.2 rs3917974 Q346R cag/cgg g R Possibly damaging IM

CSF3R NM_000760.2 rs3917991 D510H gac/cac c H Possibly damaging IM

CYBA NM_000101.1 rs4673 Y72H tac/cac c H Possibly damaging IM

CYP11B1 NM_000497.2 rs4541 A386V gcg/gtg c A Possibly damaging PH

CYP11B1 NM_000497.2 rs5287 M160I atg/atc c I Possibly damaging PH

CYP11B1 NM_000497.2 rs5294 Y439H tac/cac t Y Probably damaging PH

CYP11B1 NM_000497.2 rs5312 E383V gag/gtg t V Probably damaging PH

CYP1B1 NM_000104.2 rs1800440 N453S aac/agc g S Possibly damaging IM, PH

CYP2A6 NM_000762.4 rs1801272 L160H ctc/cac a H Probably damaging IM, PH

CYP2B6 NM_000767.3 rs2279343 K262R aag/agg a K Possibly damaging PH

CYP2C9 NM_000771.2 rs1799853 R144C cgt/tgt t C Probably damaging IM, PH

DAG1 NM_004393.1 rs2131107 S14W tcg/tgg c S Probably damaging IM

ENG NM_000118.1 rs1800956 D366H gac/cac c H Possibly damaging AN, DE, IM, MET

EPHX1 NM_000120.2 rs1051740 Y113H tac/cac c H Possibly damaging IM, ME, PH

ERBB2 NM_004448.1 rs1058808 P1170A ccc/gcc g A Possibly damaging IM, ST, TS/ON

F2R NM_001992.2 rs2230849 Y187N tac/aac a N Probably damaging IM

FPR1 NM_002029.3 rs867228 E346A gag/gcg c A Possibly damaging IM

FUCA2 NM_032020.3 rs3762001 H371Y cat/tat t Y Possibly damaging IM

GAA NM_000152.2 rs1800307 G576S ggc/agc a S Possibly damaging IM

GBP1 NM_002053.1 rs1048425 T349S acc/agc g S Possibly damaging CS

GYS1 NM_002103.3 rs5453 P691A cca/gca g A Probably damaging IM

GYS1 NM_002103.3 rs5456 K130E aag/gag g E Possibly damaging IM

GYS1 NM_002103.3 rs5461 N283S aat/agt g S Possibly damaging IM

HK2 NM_000189.4 rs2229629 R844K agg/aag g R Possibly damaging IM, MIS

LIG4 NM_002312.2 rs1805388 T9I act/att t I Possibly damaging DA, DD

MC1R NM_002386.2 rs1805005 V60L gtg/ttg t L Possibly damaging IM

MC1R NM_002386.2 rs1805007 R151C cgc/tgc t C Probably damaging IM

MC1R NM_002386.2 rs3212366 F196L ttc/ctc c L Probably damaging IM

MMP9 NM_004994.1 rs2250889 R574P cgg/ccg g R Possibly damaging AN, IM

MMP9 NM_004994.1 rs3918252 N127K aac/aag g K Probably damaging AN, IM

MNDA NM_002432.1 rs2276403 H357Y cac/tac t Y Possibly damaging GR, TR

MUC4 NM_004532.2 rs2259292 G88D ggc/gac g G Possibly damaging IM

NFATC1 NM_006162.3 rs754093 C751G tgt/ggt g G Probably damaging IM

NOTCH4 NM_004557.2 rs2071282 P203L ccc/ctc t L Probably damaging IM, TS/ON

PGM3 NM_015599.1 rs473267 D466N gat/aat a N Possibly damaging IM

PLAU NM_002658.1 rs2227564 L141P ctg/ccg t L Possibly damaging AN

PLAUR NM_002659.1 rs4760 L317P ctc/ccc c P Possibly damaging AN

PTGS2 NM_000963.1 rs5272 E488G gag/ggg g G Probably damaging IM, MIS

PTPN3 NM_002829.2 rs3793524 A90P gcc/ccc g A Probably damaging CC, CS

SLC1A5 NM_005628.1 rs3027956 P17A ccc/gcc g A Possibly damaging IM

STAT2 NM_005419.2 rs2066816 Q66H cag/cat t H Possibly damaging IM, ST

TBXAS1 NM_001061.2 rs5760 G390V ggc/gtc t V Probably damaging IM

TBXAS1 NM_001061.2 rs5762 R425C cgc/tgc t C Probably damaging IM

TBXAS1 NM_001061.2 rs5770 R261G agg/ggg g G Probably damaging IM

TDG NM_003211.2 rs4135113 G199S ggc/agc a S Possibly damaging DD

TUBA1 NM_006000.1 rs3731891 R243C cgc/tgc t C Probably damaging CS, MET

TYR NM_000372.2 rs1042602 S192Y tct/tat a Y Possibly damaging ME

VCAM1 NM_001078.2 rs3783613 G413A ggt/gct c A Possibly damaging AN, CS, IM, MET

XRCC1 NM_006297.1 rs25489 R280H cgt/cat a H Possibly damaging DD, DR, IM

XRCC1 NM_006297.1 rs1799782 R194W cgg/tgg t W Probably damaging DD, DR, IM

Abbreviations: AN = angiogenesis; BE = behaviour, CC = cell cycle; CS = cell signalling; DA = DNA adduct; DD = DNA damage; DE = development; GR = gene regulation; IM = immunology; ME = metabolism;

MET = metastasis; MIS = miscellaneous; PH = pharmacology; ST = signal transduction; TS/ON = tumour suppressor/oncogene; TR = transcription.

All nsSNPs are with ≥ 5 per cent minor allele frequency.

a The gene symbols are as approved by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee [67].

b SNP identifiers (IDs) correspond to the dbSNP IDs (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/) [31].

c The position of the amino acid substitution and the amino acids specified by the major and minor SNP alleles are indicated.

d The codons specified by the major and the minor SNP alleles are shown. The nucleotide change is underlined.

e One-letter codes for the amino acids that are predicted to affect the protein function by PolyPhen.

f The pathway(s) that the proteins are implicated in are as shown by the Cancer Genome Anatomy Project Genetic Annotation Initiative website (http://lpgws.nci.nih.gov/html-cgap/cgl/) [30].

A fraction of protein products of genes bearing commonly occurring functional nsSNPs were found to be involved in one or more carcinogenesis-related biological pathways compiled by the CGAP-GAI[30] (Table 2). Such nsSNPs were mostly found in the proteins from DNA repair (three genes, four nsSNPs); metastasis (four genes, four nsSNPs); angiogenesis (seven genes, eight nsSNPs); pharmacology (seven genes, ten nsSNPs); and immunology (38 genes, 51 nsSNPs).

We have also analysed the distribution of the commonly occurring functional nsSNPs across human populations. For simplicity, we have categorised the frequency information obtained from different dbSNP entries into three major groups: African (African and African-American), Caucasian (Caucasian and European) and Asian (Chinese and East Asian) populations. Minor allele frequencies for nsSNPs were available for at least three different human populations for 30 out of 67 commonly occurring functional nsSNPs (Table 3). Fifteen nsSNPs were found in all populations analysed (n ≥ 3). In the case of the remaining 15 nsSNPs, five were found exclusively in one population (ADM-S50R and MMP9-N127K in African; ALDH2-E504K and MNDA-H357Y in Asian; MC1R-R151C in Caucasian). Additionally, three nsSNPs were found in Caucasian, Asian or Hispanic samples, but not in the African samples (CHGA-G382S, CYP1B1-N453S and CYP2C9-R144C). Moreover, in the case of five nsSNPs, the major and the minor alleles were different among the populations analysed (ADBR2-G16R, CDH12-V68M, ERBB2-P1170A, PGM3-D466N and SLC1A5-P17A).

Table 3.

Functional and common non-synonymous form of single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) with frequency information available from different human populations.

Genea SNP IDb Amino acid change c African Asian Caucasian Hispanic
ADD1 rs4961 G460W 46 chr. G = 0.891 T = 0.109 48 chr. G = 0.521 T = 0.479 48 chr. G = 0.833 T = 0.167 n/a

ADM rs5005 S50R 46 chr. C = 0.957 G = 0.043 48 chr. C = 1.000 48 chr. C = 1.000 n/a

ADRB2 rs1042713 G16R 46 chr. G = 0.609 A = 0.391 48 chr. A = 0.583 G = 0.417 46 chr. G = 0.674 A = 0.326 n/a

ALDH2 rs671 E504K 48 chr. G = 1.000 48 0 G = 0.771 A = 0.229 58 chr. G = 1.000 44 chr. G = 1.000

CDH12 rs4371716 V68M 46 chr. T = 0.674 C = 0.326 48 chr. C = 0.812 T = 0.188 48 chr. C = 0.729 T = 0.271 n/a

CHGA rs729940 R399W 114 chr. C = 0.954 T = 0.046 88 chr. C = 0.715 T = 0.285 104 chr. C = 0.893 T = 0.107 56 chr. C = 0.769 T = 0.231

CHGA rs9658667 G382S 114 chr. G = 1.000 88 chr. G = 0.982 A = 0.018 104 chr. G = 0.951 A = 0.049 56 chr. G = 0.941 A = 0.059

CSF3R rs3917973 M231T 48 chr. T = 0.938 C = 0.062 48 chr. T = 1.000 58 chr. T = 0.983 C = 0.017 46 chr. T = 1.000

CSF3R rs3917991 D510H 48 chr. G = 0.750 C = 0.250 48 chr. G = 1.000 58 chr. G = 1.000 46 chr. G = 0.935 C = 0.065

CYBA rs4673 Y72H 48 chr. C = 0.542 T = 0.458 1480 chr. G = 0.907 A = 0.093 60 chr. C = 0.683 T = 0.317 46 chr. C = 0.783 T = 0.217

CYP1B1 rs1800440 N453S 48 chr. A = 1.000 48 chr. A = 0.958 G = 0.042 62 chr. A = 0.806 G = 0.194 46 chr. A = 0.761 G = 0.239

CYP2A6 rs1801272 L160H 46 chr. T = 1.000 46 chr. T = 1.000 60 chr. T = 0.900 A = 0.100 46 chr. T = 0.978 A = 0.022

CYP2C9 rs1799853 R144C 48 chr. C = 1.000 48 chr. C = 0.979 T = 0.021 62 chr. C = 0.871 T = 0.129 46 chr. C = 0.935 T = 0.065

ENG rs1800956 D366H 46 chr. C = 0.978 G = 0.022 1480 chr. C = 0.942 G = 0.058 46 chr. C = 1.000 n/a

EPHX1 rs1051740 Y113H 48 chr. T = 0.917
C = 0.083
84 chr. T = 0.620
C = 0.380
62 chr. T = 0.613
C = 0.387
46 chr. T = 0.587
C = 0.413

ERBB2 rs1058808 P1170A 40 chr. C = 0.775 G = 0.225 1502 chr. G = 0.514 C = 0.486 48 chr. G = 0.646 C = 0.354 n/a

FPR1 rs867228 E346A 44 chr. G = 0.818 T = 0.182 46 chr. G = 0.761 T = 0.239 48 chr. G = 0.771 T = 0.229 n/a

FUCA2 rs3762001 H371Y 44 chr. G = 0.818 A = 0.182 1282 chr. G = 0.789 A = 0.211 44 chr. G = 0.795 A = 0.205 n/a

LIG4 rs1805388 T9I 48 chr. C = 0.979
T = 0.021
48 chr. G = 0.792
A = 0.208
62 chr. C = 0.871
T = 0.129
46 chr.
C = 0.848
T = 0.152

MC1R rs1805007 R151C 42 chr. C = 1.000 40 chr. C = 1.000 46 chr. C = 0.891 T = 0.109 n/a

MMP9 rs2250889 R574P 46 chr. C = 0.870 G = 0.130 1488 chr. C = 0.688 G = 0.312 48 chr. C = 0.896 G = 0.104 n/a

MMP9 rs3918252 N127K 48 chr. C = 0.938 G = 0.062 48 chr. C = 1.000 48 chr. C = 1.000 n/a

MNDA rs2276403 H357Y 46 chr. C = 1.000 1484 chr. C = 0.944 T = 0.056 48 chr. C = 1.000 n/a

PGM3 rs473267 D466N 46 chr. T = 0.565 C = 0.435 84 chr. C = 0.750 T = 0.250 48 chr. C = 0.688 T = 0.312 n/a

PLAU rs2227564 L141P 48 chr. C = 0.979 T = 0.021 1492 chr. G = 0.783 A = 0.217 44 chr. C = 0.659 T = 0.341 n/a

PTPN3 rs3793524 A90P 46 chr. G = 0.522 C = 0.478 1498 chr. G = 0.628 C = 0.372 46 chr. C = 0.717 G = 0.283 n/a

SLC1A5 rs3027956 P17A 46 chr. G = 0.957 C = 0.043 42 chr. G = 0.524 C = 0.476 146 chr. C = 0.710 G = 0.290 n/a

TYR rs1042602 S192Y 46 chr. C = 0.957 A = 0.043 48 chr. C = 1.000 48 chr. C = 0.750 A = 0.250 n/a

VCAM1 rs3783613 G413A 48 chr. G = 0.938 C = 0.062 44 chr. G = 0.977 C = 0.023 48 chr. G = 1.000 n/a

XRCC1 rs25489 R280H 48 chr. G = 0.937
A = 0.063
84 chr. C = 1.000 62 chr. G = 0.968
A = 0.032
46 chr.
G = 0.957
A = 0.043

Abbreviations: chr: chromosomes; n/a: not available.

a The gene symbols are as approved by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee [67].

b SNP identifiers (IDs) correspond to the dbSNP IDs (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/) [31].

c The position of the amino acid substitution and the amino acids specified by the major and minor SNP alleles are indicated. The frequency information is as in dbSNP build 123 and is based on ≥ 40 chromosomes. Please note that the samples annotated as African and African-American; Caucasian and European; Chinese and East Asian are combined together here and are referred to as African, Caucasian and Asian, respectively. Whenever more than one entry was available for a group, only the information from the entries with the highest number of chromosomes is included here.

Discussion

A portion of SNPs is considered to contribute to complex disease development [7,10-12]. SNPs in or around the candidate genes might be directly linked to a disease; however, not all SNPs are supposed to affect gene expression and function, so selection of those with potential effects is keenly debated [32]. Several studies have developed tools and/or systematically analysed nsSNPs to identify those that affect gene function based on evolutionary conservation or structural parameters [16-18,33]. PolyPhen[18] is one such web-based tool utilised to select the nsSNPs that are likely to affect protein function. In short, the PolyPhen predictions are based on protein alignments, structural parameters or sequence annotations. The sensitivity of PolyPhen has been reported to be approximately 82 per cent [18].

In this study, we hypothesised that the systematic analysis of candidate genes that are expressed in the affected tissue is likely to improve and enrich the identification of disease-susceptibility alleles. Accordingly, using a bioinformatics-based strategy, we identified the functional nsSNPs from a large number of genes related to the carcinogenesis-related pathways (DNA repair, cell cycle, signal transduction, etc), which are expressed in breast tissue. We propose that these potentially functional nsSNPs can result in abnormalities at the protein level, which are likely to affect the development, metabolism and homeostasis of the breast tissue, and thus can contribute to breast cancer susceptibility.

The genes with functional nsSNPs identified in this study were from a variety of carcinogenesis-related cellular pathways. According to this information, possible biological roles for these nsSNPs may be suggested. For example, nsSNPs from angiogenesis- and metastasis-related proteins may have roles in tumour growth and the development of metastatic tumours [34,35]. Additionally, DNA repair nsSNPs may lead to the accumulation of somatic mutations and thus can participate in cancer initiation and promotion [34-36]. Furthermore, together with the DNA repair nsSNPs, the nsSNPs from the pharmacology genes may also be good candidates for the studies targeting the efficacy, differential response and adverse effect of chemo-/radiotherapy in breast cancer [37-39]. The majority of the nsSNPs were from the genes related to immunological responses (74.6 per cent), which can both suppress and promote tumorigenesis [34]. It is likely that the larger number of the functional nsSNPs in immune system-related genes is a reflection of the large number of immunology genes in the breast tissue-expressed gene set (60 per cent).

A considerable number of genes with functional nsSNPs have been previously linked to breast cancer aetiology: ADM,[40]ADRB2,[41]APOE,[42]CHGA,[43]CSF1,[44]CYP1B1,[45]DAG1,[46]ENG,[47]EPHX1,[48]ERBB2,[49]F2R,[50]MMP9,[51]MUC4,[52]NFATC1,[53]NOTCH4,[54]PLAU,[55]PLAUR,[55]PTGS2[56] and VCAM1 [57]. Therefore, we propose that the nsSNPs in Table 2 are excellent candidates as genetic factors involved in breast cancer initiation, promotion or progression. Additionally, some of these nsSNPs may be critical for breast cancer treatment outcome.

When the distribution of the commonly occurring functional nsSNPs was analysed, differences in the major alleles and the allele frequencies across human populations were observed. For example, 15 commonly occurring nsSNPs were found in all populations, whereas another set of 15 nsSNPs was specific to particular population(s). These differences might be reflections of either the age of the allele, founder effects or the dissimilar selective pressures acting on different populations [58,59]. Most importantly, the data also indicate that a common nsSNP with a potential biological consequence in our set was equally likely to be either prevalent across different human populations or limited to some populations. Clearly, the latter prompted us to conclude that the population-specific functional nsSNPs may contribute to the genetic predisposition in individuals with a specific background. In this regard, this conclusion is consistent with previous studies in which genetic variations with significantly different allelic frequencies among populations were found to be associated with specific disease or differential drug responses [60-65]. This information may be particularly helpful to researchers in determining which nsSNPs may be relevant to utilise in specific population-based studies. In addition, although further analyses are required, it is tempting to speculate that these nsSNPs may be a part of the potential variability of the molecular basis of breast cancer predisposition and drug response among different human populations.

Data integration from several databases forms the basis of our strategy to determine functional SNPs of breast tissue-expressed genes. The quality and the quantity of the genomic data within individual databases influence the comprehensiveness of the combined data. The functional SNP list presented in this study is a result of data integration from three databases -- namely, TissueInfo,[29] Ensembl,[28] and dbSNP [31]. The non-matching data fields (eg transcript identifiers) between TissueInfo, Ensembl and dbSNP have been the main source of missing data. For example, although BRCA1 was known to have a potentially functional SNP (predicted previously), this information has not been captured because of non-matching transcript identifier information for BRCA1 in the databases. Thus, incompatibility of data in different databases has been a rate-limiting factor for the bioinformatics-based strategies presented here. The improvement of the quality and the quantity of genomic data in the databases will prove beneficial for researching complex questions. Also, the genes presented in this paper are based on the expressed sequence tag information, which may lead to an under-representation of rarely expressed genes [29,66]. Data integration using other tissue expression databases is likely to enrich the quality of the data produced. Nevertheless, although it is possible that the SNPs presented here may not represent the most comprehensive list, the SNPs identified using the proposed strategy represent a valuable resource for studying the genetic predisposition to breast cancer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have designed a novel strategy to identify potentially functional variants of cancer-related genes expressed in breast tissue. Our results demonstrated the presence of 109 nsSNPs with a potential biological consequence, 67 of which were frequent in human populations. We propose that, together with other genetic and environmental factors, these nsSNPs may be involved in breast cancer initiation and progression; thus, these nsSNPs represent the premium candidates as genetic variations of breast cancer predisposition. We also suggest that a considerable fraction of the nsSNPs may, in fact, be population-specific genetic variations.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Baris Tuncertan and Mehjabeen Shariff for retrieving the data from the dbSNP and the pre-computed PolyPhen resource and Dr Michelle Cotterchio for critically reading the manuscript. This work was supported by grants (BCTR0100627) from the Susan Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, USA, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Sevtap Savas is supported, in part, by a 'CIHR Strategic Training Program Grant -- The Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute Training Program: Applying Genomics to Human Health' fellowship.

References

  1. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D. et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994;266:66–71. doi: 10.1126/science.7545954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J. et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature. 1995;378:789–792. doi: 10.1038/378789a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hofmann W, Schlag PM. BRCA1 and BRCA2 -- Breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2000;126:487–496. doi: 10.1007/s004320000140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hodgson SV, Morrison PJ, Irving M. Breast cancer genetics: Unsolved questions and open perspectives in an expanding clinical practice. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2004;129:56–64. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dong C, Hemminki K. Modification of cancer risks in offspring by sibling and parental cancers from 2,112,616 nuclear families. Int J Cancer. 2001;92:144–150. doi: 10.1002/1097-0215(200102)9999:9999&#x0003c;::AID-IJC1147&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chenevix-Trench G, Spurdle AB, Gatei M. et al. Dominant negative ATM mutations in breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:205–215. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.3.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ponder BA. Cancer genetics. Nature. 2001;411:336–341. doi: 10.1038/35077207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Malkin D, Li FP, Strong LC. et al. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science. 1990;250:1233–1238. doi: 10.1126/science.1978757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Klijn J. et al. Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet. 2002;31:55–59. doi: 10.1038/ng879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Risch N, Merikangas K. The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases. Science. 1996;273:1516–1517. doi: 10.1126/science.273.5281.1516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins A, Lonjou C, Morton NE. Genetic epidemiology of single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:15173–15177. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.26.15173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Houlston RS, Peto J. The search for low-penetrance cancer susceptibility alleles. Oncogene. 2004;23:6471–6476. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Reumers J, Schymkowitz J, Ferkinghoff-Borg J, SNPeffect: A database mapping molecular phenotypic effects of human non-synonymous coding SNPs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005. pp. D527–D532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Chanock S. Candidate genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the study of human disease. Dis Markers. 2001;17:89–98. doi: 10.1155/2001/858760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pharoah PD, Dunning AM, Ponder BA, Easton DF. Association studies for finding cancer-susceptibility genetic variants. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:850–860. doi: 10.1038/nrc1476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang Z, Moult J. SNPs, protein structure, and disease. Hum Mutat. 2001;17:263–270. doi: 10.1002/humu.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ng PC, Henikoff S. Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. Genome Res. 2002;12:436–446. doi: 10.1101/gr.212802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ramensky V, Bork P, Sunyaev S. Human non-synonymous SNPs: Server and survey. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30:3894–3900. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. MacPherson G, Healey CS, Teare MD. et al. Association of a common variant of the CASP8 gene with reduced risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1866–1869. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Menzel HJ, Sarmanova J, Soucek P. et al. Association of NQO1 polymorphism with spontaneous breast cancer in two independent populations. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:1989–1994. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rutter JL, Chatterjee N, Wacholder S, Struewing J. The HER2 I655V polymorphism and breast cancer risk in Ashkenazim. Epidemiology. 2003;14:694–700. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000083227.74669.7b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Livingston RJ, von Niederhausern A, Jegga AG. et al. Pattern of sequence variation across 213 environmental response genes. Genome Res. 2004;14:1821–1831. doi: 10.1101/gr.2730004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Savas S, Kim DY, Ahmad MF. et al. Identifying functional genetic variants in DNA repair pathway using protein conservation analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:801–807. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Xi T, Jones IM, Mohrenweiser HW. Many amino acid substitution variants identified in DNA repair genes during human population screenings are predicted to impact protein function. Genomics. 2004;83:970–979. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2003.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Savas S, Ahmad MF, Shariff M. et al. Candidate nsSNPs that can affect the functions and interactions of cell cycle proteins. Proteins. 2005;58:697–705. doi: 10.1002/prot.20367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ben-Shlomo I, Vitt UA, Hsueh AJ. Perspective: The ovarian kaleidoscope database-II. Functional genomic analysis of an organ-specific database. Endocrinology. 2002;143:2041–2044. doi: 10.1210/en.143.6.2041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Morton CC. Gene discovery in the auditory system using a tissue specific approach. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;130:26–28. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hubbard T, Andrews D, Caccamo M, Ensembl 2005. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005. pp. D447–D453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Skrabanek L, Campagne F. TissueInfo: High-throughput identification of tissue expression profiles and specificity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:E102–2. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.21.e102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Clifford R, Edmonson M, Hu Y. et al. Expression-based genetic/physical maps of single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified by the cancer genome anatomy project. Genome Res. 2000;10:1259–1265. doi: 10.1101/gr.10.8.1259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sherry ST, Ward MH, Kholodov M. et al. dbSNP: The NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:308–311. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.1.308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Daly AK, Day CP. Candidate gene case-control association studies: Advantages and potential pitfalls. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52:489–499. doi: 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01510.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sunyaev S, Ramensky V, Koch I. et al. Prediction of deleterious human alleles. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10:591–597. doi: 10.1093/hmg/10.6.591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakobisiak M, Lasek W, Golab J. Natural mechanisms protecting against cancer. Immunol Lett. 2003;90:103–122. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2003.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirsch M, Schackert G, Black PM. Metastasis and angiogenesis. Cancer Treat Res. 2004;117:285–304. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8871-3_17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohrenweiser HW. Genetic variation and exposure related risk estimation: Will toxicology enter a new era? DNA repair and cancer as a paradigm. Toxicol Pathol. 2004;32:136–145. doi: 10.1080/01926230490424671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Andreassen CN, Alsner J, Overgaard M, Overgaard J. Prediction of normal tissue radiosensitivity from polymorphisms in candidate genes. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2003.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Watters JW, McLeod HL. Cancer pharmacogenomics: Current and future applications. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2003;1603:99–111. doi: 10.1016/s0304-419x(03)00003-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sullivan A, Syed N, Gasco M. et al. Polymorphism in wildtype p53 modulates response to chemotherapy in vitro and in vivo. Oncogene. 2004;23:3328–3337. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Oehler MK, Fischer DC, Orlowska-Volk M. et al. Tissue and plasma expression of the angiogenic peptide adrenomedullin in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:1927–1933. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Cakir Y, Plummer HK, Tithof PK, Schuller HM. Beta-adrenergic and arachidonic acid-mediated growth regulation of human breast cancer cell lines. Int J Oncol. 2002;21:153–157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zunarelli E, Nicoll JA, Migaldi M, Trentini GP. Apolipoprotein E polymorphism and breast carcinoma: Correlation with cell proliferation indices and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;63:193–198. doi: 10.1023/A:1006464409137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pagani A, Papotti M, Hofler H. et al. Chromogranin A and B gene expression in carcinomas of the breast. Correlation of immunocytochemical, immunoblot, and hybridization analyses. Am J Pathol. 1990;136:319–327. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lin EY, Gouon-Evans V, Nguyen AV, Pollard JW. The macrophage growth factor CSF-1 in mammary gland development and tumor progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2002;7:147–162. doi: 10.1023/A:1020399802795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Spink DC, Spink BC, Cao JQ. et al. Differential expression of CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 in human breast epithelial cells and breast tumor cells. Carcinogenesis. 1998;19:291–298. doi: 10.1093/carcin/19.2.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sgambato A, Migaldi M, Montanari M. et al. Dystroglycan expression is frequently reduced in human breast and colon cancers and is associated with tumor progression. Am J Pathol. 2003;162:849–860. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63881-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Li C, Guo B, Bernabeu C, Kumar S. Angiogenesis in breast cancer: The role of transforming growth factor beta and CD105. Microsc Res Tech. 2001;52:437–449. doi: 10.1002/1097-0029(20010215)52:4&#x0003c;437::AID-JEMT1029&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Fritz P, Murdter TE, Eichelbaum M. et al. Microsomal epoxide hydrolase expression as a predictor of tamoxifen response in primary breast cancer: A retrospective exploratory study with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhou BP, Hung MC. Dysregulation of cellular signaling by HER2/neu in breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003;30:38–48. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2003.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Booden MA, Eckert LB, Der CJ, Trejo J. Persistent signaling by dysregulated thrombin receptor trafficking promotes breast carcinoma cell invasion. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24:1990–1999. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.5.1990-1999.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee PP, Hwang JJ, Murphy G, Ip MM. Functional significance of MMP-9 in tumor necrosis factor-induced proliferation and branching morphogenesis of mammary epithelial cells. Endocrinology. 2000;141:3764–3773. doi: 10.1210/en.141.10.3764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Carraway KL, Price-Schiavi SA, Komatsu M. et al. Muc4/sialomucin complex in the mammary gland and breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2001;6:323–337. doi: 10.1023/A:1011327708973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jauliac S, Lopez-Rodriguez C, Shaw LM. et al. The role of NFAT transcription factors in integrin-mediated carcinoma invasion. Nat Cell Biol. 2002;4:540–544. doi: 10.1038/ncb816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Politi K, Feirt N, Kitajewski J. Notch in mammary gland development and breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2004;14:341–347. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2004.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sliva D. Signaling pathways responsible for cancer cell invasion as targets for cancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2004;4:327–336. doi: 10.2174/1568009043332961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Singh B, Lucci A. Role of cyclooxygenase-2 in breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2002;108:173–179. doi: 10.1006/jsre.2002.6532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. O'Hanlon DM, Fitzsimons H, Lynch J. et al. Soluble adhesion molecules (E-selectin, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1) in breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:2252–2257. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00218-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW. The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution. Nat Genet. 2003;33:266–275. doi: 10.1038/ng1113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Fay JC, Wu CI. Sequence divergence, functional constraint, and selection in protein evolution. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003;4:213–235. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.4.020303.162528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. London SJ, Lehman TA, Taylor JA. Myeloperoxidase genetic polymorphism and lung cancer risk. Cancer Res. 1997;57:5001–5003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Evans DA, McLeod HL, Pritchard S. et al. Interethnic variability in human drug responses. Drug Metab Dispos. 2001;29:606–610. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Gibson AW, Edberg JC, Wu J. et al. Novel single nucleotide polymorphisms in the distal IL-10 promoter affect IL-10 production and enhance the risk of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Immunol. 2001;166:3915–3922. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.6.3915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Hopper JL. Genetic epidemiology of female breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2001;11:367–374. doi: 10.1006/scbi.2001.0392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Xu C, Goodz S, Sellers EM, Tyndale RF. CYP2A6 genetic variation and potential consequences. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54:1245–1256. doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00065-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Shimizu E, Hashimoto K, Iyo M. Ethnic difference of the BDNF 196G/A (val66met) polymorphism frequencies: The possibility to explain ethnic mental traits. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2004;126:122–123. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.20118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang SM, Rowley JD. A strategy for genome-wide gene analysis: Integrated procedure for gene identification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:11909–11914. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.20.11909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Povey S, Lovering R, Bruford E. et al. The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) Hum Genet. 2001;109:678–680. doi: 10.1007/s00439-001-0615-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Genomics are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES