ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2011
Identification of germline alterations of the mad homology 2 domain of SMAD3 and SMAD4 from the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry (CFR).
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consequences of Mutations and Abnormal Expression of SMAD4 in Tumors and T Cells.OncoTargets and therapy · 2021Review
- Demethylzeylasteral (T-96) inhibits triple-negative breast cancer invasion by blocking the canonical and non-canonical TGF-β signaling pathways.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2019Article
- Mutation profiling of anaplastic ependymoma grade III by Ion Proton next generation DNA sequencing.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Cell-free DNA mutations as biomarkers in breast cancer patients receiving tamoxifen.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Appreciating the broad clinical features of SMAD4 mutation carriers: a multicenter chart review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014Article
- Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014Article
- Sustained activation of SMAD3/SMAD4 by FOXM1 promotes TGF-β-dependent cancer metastasis.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2014Article
- Interpretation of mRNA splicing mutations in genetic disease: review of the literature and guidelines for information-theoretical analysis.F1000Research · 2014Review
- Reuse of public genome-wide gene expression data.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2013Review
- Two sides of the story? Smad4 loss in pancreatic cancer versus head-and-neck cancer.FEBS letters · 2012Review
- Roles of TGFβ signaling Smads in squamous cell carcinoma.Cell & bioscience · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA common feature of neoplastic cells is that mutations in SMADs can contribute to the loss of sensitivity to the anti-tumor effects of transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). However, germline mutation analysis of SMAD3 and SMAD4, the principle substrates of the TGF-β signaling pathway, has not yet been conducted in breast cancer. Thus, it is currently unknown whether germline SMAD3 and SMAD4 mutations are involved in breast cancer predisposition.
methodsWe performed mutation analysis of the highly conserved mad-homology 2 (MH2) domains for both genes in genomic DNA from 408 non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer cases and 710 population controls recruited by the Ontario site of the breast cancer family registry (CFR) using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) and direct DNA sequencing. The results were interpreted in several ways. First, we adapted nucleotide diversity analysis to quantitatively assess whether the frequency of alterations differ between the two genes. Next, in silico tools were used to predict variants' effect on domain function and mRNA splicing. Finally, 37 cases or controls harboring alterations were tested for aberrant splicing using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time PCR statistical comparison of germline expressions by non-parametric Mann-Whitney test of independent samples.
resultsWe identified 27 variants including 2 novel SMAD4 coding variants c.1350G > A (p.Gln450Gln), and c.1701A > G (p.Ile525Val). There were no inactivating mutations even though c.1350G > A was predicted to affect exonic splicing enhancers. However, several additional findings were of note: 1) nucleotide diversity estimate for SMAD3 but not SMAD4 indicated that coding variants of the MH2 domain were more infrequent than expected; 2) in breast cancer cases SMAD3 was significantly over-expressed relative to controls (P < 0.05) while the case harboring SMAD4 c.1350G > A was associated with elevated germline expression (> 5-fold); 3) separate analysis using tissue expression data showed statistically significant over-expression of SMAD3 and SMAD4 in breast carcinomas.
conclusionsThis study shows that inactivating germline alterations in SMAD3 and SMAD4 are rare, suggesting a limited role in driving tumorigenesis. Nevertheless, aberrant germline expressions of SMAD3 and SMAD4 may be more common in breast cancer than previously suspected and offer novel insight into their roles in predisposition and/or progression of breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.