Open Access

The CHEK2 1100delC allelic variant is not present in familial and sporadic breast cancer cases from Moroccan population

  • Chaymaa Marouf1, 2Email author,
  • Omar Hajji3,
  • Brehima Diakité1, 2,
  • Amal Tazzite1, 2,
  • Hassan Jouhadi4,
  • Abdellatif Benider4 and
  • Sellama Nadifi1, 2
SpringerPlus20154:38

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-014-0778-5

Received: 19 December 2014

Accepted: 27 December 2014

Published: 1 February 2015

Abstract

Purpose

The cell-cycle checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) is an important signal transducer of cellular responses to DNA damage, whose defects has been associated with increased risk for breast cancer. The CHEK2 1100delC mutation has been reported to confer a twofold increased risk of breast cancer among carriers. The frequency of the mutation varies among populations. The highest frequency has been described in Northern and Eastern European countries. However, the 1100delC mutation has been investigated in different case-control studies and none in Moroccan population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of this variant and determine its contribution to the development of breast cancer in sporadic cases and also in members of breast cancer families who tested negative or positive for a deleterious mutation in BRCA1/BRCA2.

Methods

In this case-control study we performed the CHEK2 1100delC mutation analysis by ASO-PCR in 134 breast cancer patients and 114 unaffected control individuals. Most of these families had several cases of breast cancer or ovarian cancer (or both).

Results

No CHEK2 1100delC mutations were detected in any of 134 individuals, including 59 women diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age (<40 years), 10 women with bilateral breast cancer, and 6 women with ovarian cancer.

Conclusion

Our preliminary genetic analysis are consistent with the reported very low frequency of CHEK2 1100delC mutation in North American populations (compared with Northern Europe), rendering CHEK2 1100delC such as an unlikely to be major breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Introduction

Cell-cycle checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2 [MIM 604373]) is a tumor suppressor gene widely researched as a strong candidate gene for breast cancer susceptibility (Iniesta et al. 2010; Vahteristo et al. 2002; CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004; Mateus Pereira et al. 2004; Offit et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2008; Rashid et al. 2005; Kleibl et al. 2005; Cybulski et al. 2007; Friedrichsen et al. 2004; Bernstein et al. 2006; Sodha et al. 2002; McInerney et al. 2009; Dufault et al. 2004; Einarsdottir et al. 2006; Weischer et al. 2007; Baeyens et al. 2005; Fletcher et al. 2009). The CHEK2 gene has been shown to play a major role in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) repair, apoptosis and cell cycle regulation. Indeed, in response to DNA damage, the ATM/CHEK2/p53 pathway is activated. The ATM (Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated) phosphorylates CHEK2, which in turn phosphorylates p53 leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis (Iniesta et al. 2010). In addition, CHEK2 protein regulates BRCA1 in response to DNA damage (Oldenburg et al. 2007).

The CHEK2 1100delC protein truncating variant is situated in exon 10 of the functional gene on chromosome 22q. This variant is caused by the deletion of a single cytosine at position 1100 resulting in the introduction of a stop codon after amino acid 380, inducing a loss of activity of the CHEK2 kinase (Iniesta et al. 2010).

The CHEK2 1100delC variant was found in women suffering from breast cancer with familial Li-Fraumeni syndrome (Bell et al. 1999). In 2004, CHEK2-Breast Cancer Consortium did a collaborative analysis with 10 studies from 5 western countries, which involved 10 860 breast cancer cases and 9 065 controls (CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004). The Consortium found the frequency of CHEK2 1100delC to be 1.9% and 0.7% in cases and controls respectively, and confirmed that this gene variant could potentially increase the risk of breast cancer. The CHEK2 1100delC variant has been reported to be a low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility allele (Vahteristo et al. 2002; CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004; Oldenburg et al. 2003; Kuusisto Kirsi et al. 2011). It results in an approximately two-fold risk of breast cancer in women and a ten-fold risk in men (van der Groep et al. 2011). It has been detected in 5% of breast cancer patients from non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 families (Vahteristo et al. 2002; Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002). The frequency of CHEK2 1100delC allele varies among different populations. Indeed, high mutation rates are seen in Northern and Eastern European countries (Vahteristo et al. 2002; CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004; Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002) although its frequency is much lower in North America (Mateus Pereira et al. 2004; Offit et al. 2003), whereas the mutation does not seem to be a triggering factor to breast cancer in Poland (Kwiatkowska et al. 2006; Cybulski et al. 2004) and some multiple-case breast cancer families from Australia (Jekimovs et al. 2005). Likewise, the frequency of CHEK2 1100delC seems to be very low in Southern Europe, Italy (Caligo et al. 2004), Spain (Osorio et al. 2004; Bellosillo et al. 2005) and rare in Brazil (Zhang et al. 2008).

Moreover, another quantitative synthesis was done by Weischer et al. (Weischer et al. 2007). Combined with 16 studies, it showed that CHEK2 1100delC heterozygotes rate was 3- to 5-fold higher in the breast cancer group than the control group. However, this widely discussed variant of CHEK2 – which seemed clearly associated with the predominance of breast cancer in western countries – was rarely detected in Asian populations, such as the Chinese (Song et al. 2006), Koreans (Choi et al. 2008), Japanese (Bell et al. 2007), Singaporeans (Lee & Ang 2008), Malaysians (Thirthagiri et al. 2009) and South Indians (Rajkumar et al. 2003).

In Morocco, according to the Greater Casablanca Cancer Registry, breast cancer seems to be the first female cancer with a standardized incidence of 36.4 per 100,000 women for an average age of 49.5 years (Bouchbika et al. 2013). Although this incidence appears higher compared to the other Maghreb countries (Hamdi Cherif et al. 2010; Ben Abdallah et al. 2009; El Mistiri et al. 2010), it remains low compared to developed countries (Marrett et al. 2008; Botha et al. 2003; Jemal et al. 2011). In the greater area of Casablanca, 57 % of the cases were under 50 years of age (Bouchbika et al. 2013) and 7% of cases registered at the city of Rabat are younger than 35 years (Tazi et al. 2013).

In addition, Morocco is a country of northwestern Africa composed predominantly of Berber and Arab ethnic groups. The contribution of these ethnic groups to the genetic diversity of Moroccan population is evident. Therefore, it is crucial to improve our understanding, both on the subject of genetic susceptibilities and environmental risk factors. In the present study, we examined DNA from Moroccan patients who have been screened and found not to carry BRCA1/2 mutations. The purpose of the study was to determine the frequency of CHEK2 1100delC mutation and the implication of CHEK2 as a breast cancer susceptibility gene in the Moroccan population.

Materials and methods

Subjects

DNA samples were collected from 134 patients. Among them, 113 were recruited from Mohammed VI Center for Cancer Treatment of Ibn Rochd University Hospital of Casablanca during 2009–2010 and 21 patients were kindly provided by the Oncology Unit of the Littoral Clinic during 2013.

Data were collected from medical records and clinico-pathological reports. The group of sporadic cases (n = 75) presented a mean age of 36.9 years with an age range of 23–59 years. The group of familial breast and/or ovarian cases (n = 59) presented a mean age of 44.8 years with an age range of 25–67 years, and included women with specific family-history criteria (Figure 1):
Figure 1

Pedigree corresponding to one of the families included in the present study of CHEK2 1100delC mutation in hereditary breast cancer. The index case is indicated with an arrow.

  • Three or more first or second degree relatives with breast cancer diagnosed in the same familial branch, at any age

  • Two first degree relatives with breast cancer, with at least one early onset breast cancer case (≤40 years) or male breast cancer case or ovarian cancer case.

The control group included a total of 114 matched healthy women with no personal history of cancer diseases selected from DNA bank volunteers of the Genetics and Molecular Pathology Laboratory with a median age of 36.4 years and an age range of 20–77 years.

The study was approved by our institutional ethics committee and written informed consent for genetic testing was obtained from all subjects.

DNA isolation and PCR amplification

Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes using the salting out method (Miller et al. 1988). Genomic DNA was dissolved in TE (10 mM Tris–HCl and 0.1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0), confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis and then quantified using the Nanovue TM Plus spectrophotometer.

ASO-PCR analysis was performed to determine the 1100delC mutation of CHEK2 gene, as described previously (Rashid et al. 2005).The CHEK2 1100delC mutation genotyping was performed with forward primer CHEK2ex10f (5′-GCAAAATTAAATGTCCTAACTTGC-3′) in combination with previously described reverse primers CHEK2ex10r andCHEK2delCr primers (Cybulski et al. 2004).

CHEK2 gene was amplified in a final volume of 25 μl containing: 10× reaction buffer, 25 mM MgCl2, 5 mM dNTPs, 5 μM primers, 500 U HotStarTaq DNA polymerase and 150 ng genomic DNA. Touchdown PCR conditions were as follows: 15 min at 95°C, 10 cycles of 20 s at 94°C, 25 s at annealing temperature 68–55°C touchdown (1.4°C/cycle), and 30 s at 72°C followed by 36 cycles of 20 s at 94°C, 25 s at 55°C, and 35 s at 72°C, and then a final extension step of 10 min at 72°C.

The PCR product was separated by electrophoresis in a 1% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide and visualized under UV illumination. Wild type allele resulted in 537 bp fragment and variant allele resulted in 200 bp fragment.

Results

A total of 134 Moroccan subjects were selected for our study. General characteristic of the subjects including distribution of tumor characteristic such as histological grade and location of cancer were obtained from patients’ medical records and listed in Table 1. In total, 134 breast cancer cases and 114 controls were successfully screened for the 1100delC variant of the CHEK2 gene using the ASO-PCR technique. None of the 134 Moroccan breast cancer patients carried the CHEK2 1100delC mutation. Moreover among the 134 cases, 40 patients had been screened for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (Tazzite et al. 2012). Thus, in the 30 patients who were non-BRCA mutation carriers, the analysis of 1100delC mutation was also found negative.
Table 1

Characteristics of individuals with breast cancer at time of diagnosis, screened for the CHEK2 1100delC mutation

Characteristics

Samples

Cases/Controls

134 / 114

Age at diagnosis, mean ± SD (years)

41 ± 11

Range (years)

23– 67

Menopausal status

No. (%)

Premenopausal

76(56.71)

Postmenopausal

57(42.53)

Missing

1(0.74)

Estrogen receptor

 

Positive

100 (74.62)

Negative

24(17.91)

Missing

10 (7.46)

Progesterone receptor

 

Positive

98 (73.13)

Negative

30(22.38)

Missing

6 (4.47)

Estrogen/Progesterone receptor

 

ER + /PR +

66 (49.25)

ER + /PR

15 (11.19)

ER /PR +

10 (7.46)

ER /PR

43 (32.08)

Tumor size

 

<2 cm

20 (14.92)

>2 cm

56 (41.79)

>5 cm

31(23.13)

Tumor of any size with extension

27 (20.14)

Histological grade

 

1

8 (5.97)

2

87 (64.92)

3

39 (29.10)

Lymph node status

 

Negative

56(41.79)

Positive

78 (58.20)

Distant metastases

 

Negative

106(79.10)

Positive

28 (20.89)

This finding suggests that this mutation is probably not present or is present at an extremely low frequency in Moroccan population.

Discussion

In our present molecular study, we evaluated the involvement of the low-penetrance susceptibility 1100delC allelic variant in the CHEK2 gene in the Moroccan population. For this purpose, we performed a screening of this mutation in 134 Moroccan breast cancer patients and 114 healthy controls. Our results have shown that none of the 248 analyzed samples carried the CHEK2 1100delC mutation, suggesting that the frequency of this mutation is extremely low (or not present) in the Moroccan population.

On the other hand, our results are in line with some previous findings showing that there was no association between CHEK2 1100delC mutation and risk for Breast Cancer (Zhang et al. 2008; Caligo et al. 2004; Osorio et al. 2004; Bellosillo et al. 2005; Rajkumar et al. 2003; Sodha et al. 2007; Gonzalez-Hormazabal et al. 2008) (Table 2). Nonetheless, it should be noted that in Northern and Eastern European (Vahteristo et al. 2002; CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004; Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002) CHEK2 1100delC mutation is associated with an increased risk of Breast Cancer (on the basis of age at diagnosis and family history of breast cancer).
Table 2

Frequency of CHEK2 1100delC mutation in breast cancer cases and controls by ethnicity

   

Overall

Overall

Carriers n (frequency of carriers, %)

Carriers n (frequency of carriers, %)

 

Study

Population

Year

Case

Control

Case

Control

Reference

América

       

1. Meijers-Heijboer and al

USA

2002

264

166

6 (2.3)

1(0.6)

(Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002)

2. Offit KPH and al

USA

2003

67

569

0 (0)

2 (0.4)

(Offit et al. 2003)

3. Pereira and al

USA

2004

829

859

9 (1.1)

4(0.5)

(Mateus Pereira et al. 2004)

4. Friedrichsen and al

USA

2004

506

459

6 (1.2)

2 (0.4)

(Friedrichsen et al. 2004)

5. Bernstein and al

CANADA

2006

1199

496

18 (1.34)

1 (0.2)

(Bernstein et al. 2006)

6. Novak and al

CANADA

2008

149

141

3 (2.01)

1 (0.7)

(Novak et al. 2008)

7. Shiyu Zhang and al

CANADA

2008

560

6460

4 (0.7)

19 (0.3)

(Zhang et al. 2008)

8. Gonzalez-Hormazabal and al

CHILE

2008

196

1124

0 (0)

0 (0)

(Gonzalez-Hormazabal et al. 2008)

9. Shiyu Zhang and al

BRAZIL

2008

155

377

1 (0.7)

0 (0)

(Zhang et al. 2008)

10. Bell DW

LATINAS

2007

362

384

1

0 (0)

(Sodha et al. 2007)

Europe

       

Sodha and al

UNITED KINGDOM

2002

68

300

3(4.4)

0(0)

(Sodha et al. 2002)

Check2 Consortium

UNITED KINGDOM

2004

2886

3749

35(1.2)

20 (0.53)

(CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004)

Meijers-Heijboer and al

UNITED KINGDOM

2002

564

288

7(1.3)

1(0.35)

(Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002)

Meijers-Heijboer and al

THE NETHERLANDS

2002

79

460

2(2.5)

6(1.2)

(Meijers-Heijboer et al. 2002)

Oldenburg and al

THE NETHERLANDS

2003

237

212

27(11.4)

6(2.8)

(Oldenburg et al. 2003)

Check2 Consortium

THE NETHERLANDS

2004

1706

184

65(3.8)

3(1.6)

(CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004)

De Jong and al

THE NETHERLANDS

2005

962

367

28(2.9)

5(1.4)

(De Jong et al. 2005)

Offit KPH and al

ASHKENAZI JEWISH

2003

33

1096

1(3)

3(0.3)

(Offit et al. 2003)

Shiyu Zhang and al

JEWISH

2008a

320

180

4(1.3)

0(0)

(Zhang et al. 2008)

McInerney and al

IRELAND

2009

903

1016

5(0.5)

1(0.1)

(McInerney et al. 2009)

Martinez-Bouzas and al

BASQUE COUNTRY

2007

214

120

2(0.93)

0(0)

(Martınez-Bouzas et al. 2007)

Cybulski and al

POLAND

2004a

1017

4000

5(0.5)

10(0.25)

(Cybulski et al. 2004)

Cybulski and al

POLAND

2007b

4454

5496

20(0.4)

12(0.2)

(Cybulski et al. 2007)

Kleibl and al

CZECH REPUBLIC

2005

1046

730

4(0.38)

2(0.27)

(Kleibl et al. 2005)

Check2 Consortium

GERMANY

2004

985

401

11(1.1)

1(0.25)

(CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004)

Dufault and al

GERMANY

2004

516

1315

8(1.6)

6(0.5)

(Dufault et al. 2004)

Rashid and al

GERMANY

2005

613

651

5(0.82)

6(0.92)

(Rashid et al. 2005)

Einarsdottir and al

SWEDEN

2006

1510

1334

20(0.7)

8(0.4)

(Einarsdottir et al. 2006)

Margollin and

SWEDEN

2007

450

760

10(2.2)

5(0.7)

(Margolin et al. 2007)

Weischer and al

DENMARK

2007

1088

4643

13(1.1)

22(0.5)

(Weischer et al. 2007)

Vahteristo and al

FINLAND

2002

1035

1885

21(2.1)

26 (1.4)

(Vahteristo et al. 2002)

Check2 Consortium

FINLAND

2004

464

447

13(2.9)

5(1.1)

(CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004)

Kirsi and al

FINLAND

2011

82

380

3(0.037)

6(0.016)

(Kuusisto Kirsi et al. 2011)

Osorio and al

SPAIN

2004

456

400

0(0)

0(0)

(Osorio et al. 2004)

Caligo and al

ITALY

2004

939

334

1(0.1)

0(0)

(Caligo et al. 2004)

Baeyens and al

BELGIUM

2005

178

100

4(2.24)

0(0)

(Baeyens et al. 2005)

Asia

       

Shiyu Zhang and al

FILIPINO

2008

342

7

0(0)

0(0)

(Zhang et al. 2008)

Chekmariova and al

RUSSIA

2006

815

448

22(5.2)

1(0.2)

(Chekmariova et al. 2006)

Bell DW

JAPANE

2007

428

378

0(0)

0(0)

(Sodha et al. 2007)

Rajkumar T and al

SOUTH INDIA

2003

22

1

0(0)

0(0)

(Rajkumar et al. 2003)

Africa

       

Present study

MOROCCO

2013

134

114

0(0)

0(0)

Present study

A rational explanation for these discrepancies may be due to ethnic or geographic variations. As reported in several studies, it is evident that the contribution of CHEK2 1100delC mutation to the burden of cancer varies according to the ethnic group, and from country to country (Antoni et al. 2007; Gonzalez-Hormazabal et al. 2008; Martınez-Bouzas et al. 2007) (Table 2). For instance, CHEK2 1100delC mutation was frequently observed in some Western and Northern Europe (CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004), but it was very rare in the Central Europe (Kleibl et al. 2005; Kwiatkowska et al. 2006), Southern Europe (Italy and Spain) (Caligo et al. 2004; Osorio et al. 2004) and Australia (Jekimovs et al. 2005). In Basque Country, Martinez-Bouzas et al. reported the 1100delC mutation in 0.93% of the cases with breast cancer, and in none of the control populations. Therefore, the authors raise the hypothesis of the existence of a 1100delC frequency gradient from the North-West to the South-East of Europe, caused by an ancestral common origin in the Northern Europe (Osorio et al. 2004; Gonzalez-Hormazabal et al. 2008; Martınez-Bouzas et al. 2007). Likewise, this variant is very low in North America (CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004; Offit et al. 2003), and rare in Brazil (Zhang et al. 2008). The CHEK2 1100delc mutation is not present in Chilean families with familial breast (Gonzalez-Hormazabal et al. 2008), and it was rarely detected in Asian populations, such as the Chinese (Song et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2008), Koreans (Choi et al. 2008), Japanese (Sodha et al. 2007), Singaporeans (Lee & Ang 2008), Malysians (Thirthagiri et al. 2009), South Indians (Rajkumar et al. 2003), and Philippines (Zhang et al. 2008).

Antoniou et al. (2002) suggested that susceptibility to breast cancer in non-carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations may be mainly due to a “polygenic” model, with a large number of susceptibility alleles, each conferring a small increase in risk. Further evaluation of these interactions will be required to identify and analyze other susceptibility genes. Moreover, Martınez-Bouzas et al. (2007) detected a 0,93% prevalence among 214 Basque Country non BRCA1/2 patients and Gutiérrez-Enríquez et al. (2008)) reported 0,3% frequency in 331 non BRCA1/2 families from Basque Country and Catalonia. On the other hand, Zhang et al. (2008) found no CHEK2 mutation in 307 White women with breast cancer and a BRCA mutation. It is unlikely that women with a BRCA mutation will be found to harbor a CHEK2 mutation.

However, it is possible that other CHEK2 variants will confer susceptibility to breast cancer in other countries. Therefore, many studies screened the full coding sequence of CHEK2. For example, a splice-site mutation in CHEK2 IVS2 + G > A has been found to be associated with breast cancer susceptibility in Poland (Cybulski et al. 2007), and the S428F allele of the CHEK2 gene increases breast cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish women (Shaag et al. 2005). Likewise, several previous studies have suggested that CHEK2 I157T variant may contribute to inherited breast cancer predisposition (Cybulski et al. 2007; Kilpivaara et al. 2004; Bogdanova et al. 2005).

A limitation of our study was the reliance on family members’ reports of cancer in their relatives. Secondly, the sample size was limited and it is important to confirm our findings in a larger study. Thirdly, this study only focused on single gene without taking into consideration SNP-SNP and gene–gene interactions, or the possibility of linkage disequilibrium between polymorphisms, which may affect individual susceptibility to breast cancer.

Conclusion

Since its discovery as a BC susceptibility allele, the occurrence of CHEK2 1100delC mutation depends on the geographical area and/or ethnical characteristics of populations (CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer 2004). Thus, the absence or rarity of the CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity among patients with breast cancer in our population underlines the importance of considering ethnic background before offering a genetic test. Further studies need to expand and elaborate on the putative contribution of this variant in the Moroccan population.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank all the patients and their families for their participation in this study. We also thank all the staff of the Oncology Department of Ibn Rochd University Hospital and the Genetic and Molecular Pathology Laboratory for their collaboration. Our gratitude goes also to Dr. Omar Hajji and all the staff of Oncology department of Littoral Clinic for their assistance in data and sample collection. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Nadia Said for her excellent assistance to draft the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratory of Genetics and Molecular Pathology–Medical School of Casablanca
(2)
University Hassan II Ain Chock, Center Of Doctoral Sciences “In Health Sciences”
(3)
Department of Oncology, Littoral Clinic
(4)
Mohammed VI Center for Cancer Treatment, Ibn Rochd University Hospital

References

  1. Antoni L, Sodha N, Collins I, Garrett MD (2007) CHK2 kinase: cancer susceptibility and cancer therapy – two sides of the same coin? Nature 7:925–936Google Scholar
  2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, McMullan G, Day NE, Stratton MR, Peto J (2002) A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer 86(1):76–83View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeyens A, Claes K, Willems P, De Ruyck K, Thierens H, Vral A (2005) Chromosomal radiosensitivity of breast cancer with a CHEK2 mutation. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 163:106–12View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell DW, Varley JM, Szydlo TE, Kang DH, Wahrer DC, Shannon KE, Lubratovich M, Verselis SJ, Isselbacher KJ, Fraumeni JF, Birch JM, Li FP, Garber JE, Haber DA (1999) Heterozygous germ line hCHEK2 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Science 286:2528–31View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell DW, Kim SH, Godwin AK, Schiripo TA, Harris PL, Haserlat SM, Wahrer DC, Haiman CA, Daly MB, Niendorf KB, Smith MR, Sgroi DC, Garber JE, Olopade OI, Le Marchand L, Henderson BE, Altshuler D, Haber DA, Freedman ML (2007) Genetic and functional analysis of CHEK2 (CHK2) variants in multiethnic cohorts. Int J Cancer 121:2661–7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellosillo B, Tusquets I, Longaron R, Pérez-Lezaun A, Bellet M, Fabregat X, Serrano S, Sole F (2005) Absence of CHEK2 mutations in Spanish families with hereditary breast cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 161:93–95View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Abdallah M, Zehani S, Maalej M, Hsairi M, Hechiche M, Ben Romdhane K, Boussen H, Saadi A, Achour N, Ben Ayed F (2009) Cancer du sein en Tunisie: caractéristiques épidémiologiques et tendance évolutive de l’incidence. Tunis Med 87:417–25Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein JL, Teraoka SN, John EM, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Lapinski R, Olson ER, Wolitzer AL, Seminara D, Whittemore AS, Concannon P (2006) The CHEK2*1100delC allelic variant and risk of breast cancer: Screening results from the breast cancer family registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15:348–352View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogdanova N, Enben-Dubrowinskaja N, Feshchenko S, Lazjuk GI, Rogov YI, Dammann O, Bremer M, Karstens JH, Sohn C, Dork T (2005) Association of two mutations in the CHEK2 gene with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 116:263–266View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Botha JL, Bray F, Sankila R, Parkin DM (2003) Breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in 16 European countries. Eur J Cancer 39:1718–29View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouchbika Z, Haddad H, Benchakroun N, Eddakaoui H, Kotbi S, Megrini A, Bourezgui H, Sahraoui S, Corbex M, Harif M, Benider A (2013) Cancer incidence in Morocco: report from Casablanca registry 2005–2007. Pan Afr Med J 16:31View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Caligo MA, Agata S, Aceto G, Crucianelli R, Manoukian S, Peissel B, Scaini MC, Sensi E, Veschi S, Cama A, Radice P, Viel A, D’Andrea E, Montagna M (2004) The CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation plays an irrelevant role in breast cancer predisposition in Italy. Hum Mutat 24:100–101View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case–control Consortium CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer (2004) A collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet 74:1175–1182View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Chekmariova EVSA, Buslov KG, Iyevleva AG, Ulibina YM, Rozanov ME, Mitiushkina NVTA, Matsko DE, Voskresenskiy DA, Chagunava OL, Devilee P, Cornelisse CSV, Imyanitov EN (2006) CHEK2 1100delC mutation is frequent among Russian breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:99–102View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen W, Yurong S, Liansheng N (2008) Breast cancer low-penetrance allele 1100delC in the CHEK2 gene: not present in the Chinese familial breast cancer population. Adv Ther 25:496–501View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi DH, Cho DY, Lee MH, Park HS, Ahn SH, Son BH, Haffty BG (2008) The CHEK2 1100delC mutation is not present in Korean patients with breast cancer cases tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:569–73View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Cybulski C, Gorski B, Huzarski T, Masojc’ B, Mierzejewski M, Debniak T, Teodorczyk U, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Matyjasik J, Złowocka E, Lenner M, Grabowska E, Nej K, Castaneda J, Medrek K, Szymanska A, Szymanska J, Kurzawski G, Suchy J, Oszurek O, Witek A, Narod SA, Lubinski J (2004) CHEK2 is a multiorgan cancer susceptibility gene. Am J Hum Genet 75:1131–1135View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Górski B, Debniak T, Masojć B, Jakubowska A, van de Wetering T, Narod SA, Lubiński J (2007) A deletion in CHEK2 of 5,395 bp predisposes to breast cancer in Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102:119–122View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. De Jong MM, Nolte IM, Te Meerman GJ, Van der Graaf WTA, Oosterom E, Bruinenberg M, Van der Steege G, Oosterwijk JC, Van der Hout AH, Boezen HM, Schaapveld M, Kleibeuker JH, De Vries EGE (2005) No increased susceptibility to breast cancer from combined CHEK2 1100delC genotype and the HLA class III region risk factors. Eur J Cancer 41:1819–1823View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Dufault MR, Betz B, Wappenschmidt B, Hofmann W, Bandick K, Golla A, Pietschmann A, Nestle-Kramling C, Rhiem K, Huttner C, Von Lindern C, Dall P, Kiechle M, Untch M, Jonat W, Meindl A, Scherneck S, Niederacher D, Schmutzler RK, Arnold N (2004) Limited relevance of the CHEK2 gene in hereditary breast cancer. Int J Cancer 110:320–325View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Einarsdottir K, Humphreys K, Bonnard C, Palmgren J, Iles MM, Sjolander A, Li Y, Seng Chia K, Liu ET, Hall P, Liu J, Wedren S (2006) Linkage disequilibrium mapping of CHEK2: Common variation and breast cancer risk. PLoS Med 3:e168View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. El Mistiri M, Pirani M, El Sahli N, El Mangoush M, Attia A, Shembesh R, Habel S, El Homry F, Hamad S, Federico M (2010) Cancer profile in eastern Libya: incidence and mortality in the year 2004. Ann Oncol 21:1924–6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Fletcher O, Johnson N, Dos Santos SI, Kilpivaara O, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H, Wasielewski M, Meijers-Heijerboer H, Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Van’t Veer LJ, Bremer M, Dörk T, Chekmariova EV, Sokolenko AP, Imyanitov EN, Hamann U, Rashid MU, Brauch H, Justenhoven C, Ashworth A, Peto J (2009) Family history, genetic testing, and clinical risk prediction: pooled analysis of CHEK2*1100delC in 1,828 bilateral breast cancers and 7,030 controls. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:230–4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedrichsen DM, Malone KE, Doody DR, Daling JR, Ostrander EA (2004) Frequency of CHEK2 mutations in a population based, patient case–control study of breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res 6:R629–R635View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonzalez-Hormazabal P, Castro VG, Blanco R, Gomez F, Peralta O, Waugh E, Bravo T, Reyes JM, Jara L (2008) Absence of CHEK2 1100delC mutation in familial breast cancer cases from a South American population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:543–545View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, Balmaña J, Baiget M, Díez O (2008) Detection of the CHEK2 1100delC mutation by MLPA BRCA1/2 analysis: a worthwhile strategy for its clinical applicability in 1100delC low-frequency populations? Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:455–7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamdi Cherif M, Zaidi Z, Abdellouche D, Hamdi S, Lakhdari N, Djema BA (2010) Registre du cancer de Sétif (Algérie): incidence, tendance et survie, 1986–2005. J Afr Cancer 2:245–58View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Iniesta MD, Gorin MA, Chien LC, Thomas SM, Milliron KJ, Douglas JA, Merajver SD (2010) Absence of CHEK2*1100delC mutation in families with hereditary breast cancer in North America. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 202:136–140View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Jekimovs CR, Chen X, Arnold J, Gatei M, Richard DJ, Investigators kConFab, Spurdle AB, Khanna KK, Chenevix-Trench G (2005) Low frequency of CHEK2 1100delC allele in Australian multiple-case breast cancer families: functional analysis in heterozygous individuals. Br J Cancer 92:784–790View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilpivaara O, Vahteristo P, Falck J, Syrjakoski K, Eerola H, Easton D, Bartkova J, Lukas J, Heikkila P, Aittomaki K, Holli K, Blomqvist C, Kallioniemi OP, Bartek J, Nevanlinna H (2004) CHEK2 variant I157t may be associated with increased breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 111:543–547View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleibl Z, Novotny J, Bezdickova D, Malik R, Kleiblova P, Foretova L, Petruzelka L, Ilencikova D, Cinek P, Pohlreich P (2005) The CHEK2 c.1100delC germline mutation rarely contributes to breast cancer development in the Czech Republic. Breast Cancer Res Treat 90:165–167View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuusisto Kirsi M, Aleksandra B, Vihinen M, Schleutker J, Sallinen SL (2011) Screening for BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRIP1, RAD50, and CDH1 mutations in high-risk Finnish BRCA1/2-founder mutation-negative breast and/or ovarian cancer individuals. Breast Cancer Res 13:R20View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Kwiatkowska E, Skasko E, Niwinska A, Wojciechowska-Lacka A, Rachtan J, Molong L, Nowakowska D, Konopka B, Janiec-Jankowska A, Paszko Z, Steffen J (2006) Low frequency of the CHEK2*1100delC mutation among breast cancer probands from three regions of Poland. Neoplasma 53:305–308Google Scholar
  35. Lee AS, Ang P (2008) CHEK2*1100delC screening of Asian women with a family history of breast cancer is unwarranted. J Clin Oncol 16:4335Google Scholar
  36. Margolin S, Eiberg H, Lindblom A, Bisgaard ML (2007) CHEK2 1100delC is prevalent in Swedish early onset familial breast Cancer. BMC Cancer 7:163View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Marrett LD, De P, Airia P, Dryer D (2008) Cancer in Canada in 2008. CMAJ 179:1163–70View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Martınez-Bouzas CBE, Guerra I, Gorostiaga J, Mendizabal JL, De-Pablo JLG-AE, Sanz-Parra A, Tejada MI (2007) CHEK2 1100delC is present in familial breast cancer cases of the Basque Country. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103:111–113View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Mateus Pereira LH, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Pineda MA, Alexander BH, Greene MH, Struewing JP (2004) CHEK2:1100delC and female breast cancer in the United States. Int J Cancer 112:541–543View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. McInerney NM, Miller N, Rowan A, Colleran G, Barclay E, Curran C, Kerin MJ, Tomlinson IP, Sawyer E (2009) Evaluation of variants in the CHEK2, BRIP1 and PALB2 genes in an Irish breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121:203–210View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Meijers-Heijboer H, Van den Ouweland A, Klijn J, Wasielewski M, De Snoo A, Oldenburg R, Hollestelle A, Houben M, Crepin E, Van Veghel-Plandsoen M, Elstrodt F, Van Duijn C, Bartels C, Meijers C, Schutte M, McGuffog L, Thompson D, Easton DF, Sodha N, Seal S, Barfoot R, Mangion J, Chang-Claude J, Eccles D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Houlston R, Murday V, Narod S, Peretz T, Peto J, Phelan C, Zhang HX, Szabo C, Devilee P, Goldgar D, Futreal PA, Nathanson KL, Weber BL, Rahman N, Stratton MR (2002) Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2*1100delC in non-carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet 31:55–59View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF (1988) A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res 16:1215View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Novak DJ, Chen LQ, Ghadirian P, Hamel N, Zhang P, Rossiny V, Cardinal G, Robidoux A, Tonin PN, Rousseau F, Narod SA, Foulkes WD (2008) Identification of a novel CHEK2 variant and assessment of its contribution to the risk of breast cancer in French Canadian women. BMC Cancer 8:239View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Offit KPH, Kirchhoff T, Kolachana P, Rapaport B, Gregersen P, Johnson S, Yossepowitch OHH, Satagopan J, Robson M, Scheuer L, Nafa K, Ellis N (2003) Frequency of CHEK2*1100delC in New York breast cancer cases and controls. BMC Med Genet 4:1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Oldenburg RA, Kroeze-Jansema K, Kraan J, Morreau H, Klijn JGM, Hoogerbrugge N, Ligtenberg MJL, van Asperen CJ, Vasen HFA, Meijers C, Meijers-Heijboer H, de Bock TH, Cornelisse CJ, Devilee P (2003) The CHEK2*1100delC variant acts as a breast cancer risk modifier in non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case families. Cancer Res 63:8153–8157Google Scholar
  46. Oldenburg RA, Meijers-Heijboer H, Cornelisse CJ, Devilee P (2007) Genetic susceptibility for breast cancer: how many more genes to be found? Oncol Hematol 63:125–149Google Scholar
  47. Osorio A, Rodriguez-Lopez R, Diez O, de la Hoya M, Martinez JI, Vega A, Esteban-Cardenosa E, Alonso C, Caldes T, Benitez J (2004) The breast cancer low-penetrance allele 1100delC in the CHEK2 gene is not present in Spanish familial breast cancer population. Int J Cancer 108:54–56View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Rajkumar T, Soumittra N, Nancy NK, Swaminathan R, Sridevi V, Shanta V (2003) BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2 (1100 del C) germline mutations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families in South India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 4:203–208Google Scholar
  49. Rashid MU, Jakubowska A, Justenhoven C, Harth V, Pesch B, Baisch C, Pierl CB, Bruning T, Ko Y, Benner A, Wichmann HE, Rauch H, Hamann U (2005) German populations with infrequent CHEK2*1100delC and minor associations with early-onset and familial breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 41:2896–2903View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaag A, Walsh T, Renbaum P, Kirchhoff T, Nafa K, Shiovitz S, Mandell JB, Welcsh P, Lee MK, Ellis N, Offit K, Levy-Lahad E, King MC (2005) Functional and genomic approaches reveal an ancient CHEK2 allele associated with breast cancer in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Hum Mol Genet 14:555–563View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Sodha N, Bullock S, Taylor R, Mitchell G, Guertl-Lackner B, Williams RD, Bevan S, Bishop K, McGuire S, Houlston RS, Eeles RA (2002) CHEK2 variants in susceptibility to breast cancer and evidence of retention of the wild type allele in tumours. Br J Cancer 87:1445–1448View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Sodha DW, Kim SH, Godwin AK, Schiripo TA, Harris PL, Haserlat SM, Wahrer DCR, Haiman CA, Daly MB, Niendorf KB, Smith MR, Sgroi DC, Garber JE, Olopade OI, Marchand LL, Henderson BE, Altshuler D, Haber DA, Freedman ML (2007) Genetic and functional analysis of CHEK2 (CHK2) variants in multiethnic cohorts. Int J Cancer 121:2661–2667View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Song CG, Hu Z, Yuan WT, Di GH, Shen ZZ, Huang W, Shao ZM (2006) CHEK2 c.1100delC may not contribute to genetic background of hereditary breast cancer from Shanghai of China. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi 23:443–5Google Scholar
  54. Tazi MA, Er-Raki A, Benjaafar N (2013) Cancer incidence in Rabat, Morocco: 2006–2008. Ecancer 7:338Google Scholar
  55. Tazzite A, Jouhadi H, Nadifi S, Aretini P, Falaschi E, Collavoli A, Benider A, Caligo MA (2012) BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Moroccan breast/ovarian cancer families: novel mutations and unclassified variants. Gynecol Oncol 125:687–692View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Thirthagiri E, Cheong LS, Yip CH, Teo SH (2009) CHEK2*1100delC does not contribute to risk to breast cancer among Malay, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. Fam Cancer 8:355–358View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Vahteristo P, Bartkova J, Eerola H, Syrjakoski K, Ojala S, Kilpivaara O, Tamminen A, Kononen J, Aittomaki K, Heikkila P, Holli K, Blomqvist C, Bartek J, Kallioniemi OP, Nevanlinna H (2002) A CHEK2 genetic variant contributing to a substantial fraction of familial breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 71:432–438View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Groep P, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ (2011) Pathology of hereditary breast cancer. Cell Oncol 34:71–88View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Axelsson CK, Nordestgaard BG (2007) Increased risk of breast cancer associated, with CHEK2*1100delC. J Clin Oncol 25:57–63View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang S, Phelan CM, Zhang P, Rousseau F, Ghadirian P, Robidoux A, Foulkes W, Hamel N, McCready D, Trudeau M, Lynch H, Horsman D, Lourdes Leon De Matsuda M, Aziz Z, Gomes M, Magalhaes Costa M, Liede A, Poll A, Sun P, Narod SA (2008) Frequency of the CHEK2 1100delC Mutation among Women with Breast Cancer: An International Study. Cancer Res 68:7Google Scholar

Copyright

© Marouf et al.; licensee Springer. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.