ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024
In silico analysis of the wild-type and mutant-type of BRCA2 gene.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to conduct an in silico analysis of a novel compound heterozygous variant in breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA2) to clarify its structure-function relationship and elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
methodsA tumor biopsy sample was obtained from a 42-year-old Chinese woman during surgery, and a maxBRCA™ test was conducted using the patient's whole blood. We obtained an experimentally determined 3D structure (1mje.pdb) of the BRCA2 protein from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) as a relatively reliable reference. Subsequently, the wild-type and mutant structures were predicted using SWISS-MODEL and AlphaFold, and the accuracy of these predictions was assessed through the SAVES online server. Furthermore, we utilized a high ambiguity-driven protein-protein docking (HADDOCK) algorithm and protein-ligand interaction profiler (PLIP) to predict the pathogenicity of the mutations and elucidate pathogenic mechanisms that potentially underlies TNBC.
resultsHistological examination revealed that the tumor biopsy sample exhibited classical pathological characteristics of TNBC. Furthermore, the maxBRCA™ test revealed two compound heterozygous BRCA2 gene mutations (c.7670 C > T.pA2557V and c.8356G > A.pA2786T). Through performing in silico structural analyses and constructing of 3D models of the mutants, we established that the mutant amino acids valine and threonine were located in the helical domain and oligonucleotide binding 1 (OB1), regions that interact with DSS1.
conclusionOur analysis revealed that substituting valine and threonine in the helical domain region alters the structure and function of BRCA2 proteins. This mutation potentially affects the binding of proteins and DNA fragments and disrupts interactions between the helical domain region and OB1 with DSS1, potentially leading to the development of TNBC. Our findings suggest that the identified compound heterozygous mutation contributes to the clinical presentation of TNBC, providing new insights into the pathogenesis of TNBC and the influence of compound heterozygous mutations in BRCA2.
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.