Refining the role of pms2 in Lynch syndrome: germline mutational analysis improved by comprehensive assessment of variants
- Ester Borràs1,
- Marta Pineda1,
- Juan Cadiñanos2,
- Jesús del Valle1,
- Angela Brieger3,
- Inga Hinrichsen3,
- Ruben Cabanillas2,
- Matilde Navarro1,
- Joan Brunet4,
- Xavier Sanjuan5,
- Eva Musulen6,
- Helen van der Klift7,
- Conxi Lázaro1,
- Guido Plotz3,
- Ignacio Blanco1,
- Gabriel Capellá1
- 1Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO-IDIBELL, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
- 2Institute of Molecular and Oncological Medicine of Asturias, IMOMA, Oviedo, Spain
- 3Medical Clinic 1, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany
- 4Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO-IdIBGI, Girona, Spain
- 5Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Bellvitge, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
- 6Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
- 7Department of Human and Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Correspondence to Dr Gabriel Capellá and Dr Marta Pineda, Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO-IDIBELL, Gran Via 199-203, 08908 Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; and
- Received 3 January 2013
- Revised 25 April 2013
- Accepted 28 April 2013
- Published Online First 24 May 2013
Background and aim The majority of mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations causing Lynch syndrome (LS) occur either in MLH1 or MSH2. However, the relative contribution of PMS2 is less well defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of PMS2 in LS by assessing the pathogenicity of variants of unknown significance (VUS) detected in the mutational analysis of PMS2 in a series of Spanish patients.
Methods From a cohort of 202 LS suspected patients, 13 patients showing loss of PMS2 expression in tumours were screened for germline mutations in PMS2, using a long range PCR based strategy and multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Pathogenicity assessment of PMS2 VUS was performed evaluating clinicopathological data, frequency in control population and in silico and in vitro analyses at the RNA and protein level.
Results Overall 25 different PMS2 DNA variants were detected. Fourteen were classified as polymorphisms. Nine variants were classified as pathogenic: seven alterations based on their molecular nature and two after demonstrating a functional defect (c.538-3C>G affected mRNA processing and c.137G>T impaired MMR activity). The c.1569C>G variant was classified as likely neutral while the c.384G>A remained as a VUS. We have also shown that the polymorphic variant c.59G>A is MMR proficient.
Conclusions Pathogenic PMS2 mutations were detected in 69% of patients harbouring LS associated tumours with loss of PMS2 expression. In all, PMS2 mutations account for 6% of the LS cases identified. The comprehensive functional analysis shown here has been useful in the classification of PMS2 VUS and contributes to refining the role of PMS2 in LS.