The Functional Hallmarks of Cancer Predisposition Genes
Alexandra Capellini,Matthew Williams,Kenan Onel,Kuan-Lin Huang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S311548
2021-06-02
Cancer Management and Research
Abstract:Alexandra Capellini, 1, * Matthew Williams, 1, * Kenan Onel, 1– 3 Kuan-Lin Huang 1– 3 1 Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, New York, NY, 10029, USA; 2 Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, New York, NY, 10029, USA; 3 Icahn Institute for Data Science and Genomic Technology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, New York, NY, 10029, USA *These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Kenan Onel; Kuan-Lin Huang Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1498, New York, NY, 10029, USA Tel +1 212-824-6134 Email ; The canonical model for hereditary cancer predisposition is a cancer predisposition gene (CPG) that drives either one or both of two fundamental hallmarks of cancer, defective genomic integrity and deregulated cell proliferation, ultimately resulting in the accumulation of mutations within cells. Thus, the genes most commonly associated with cancer-predisposing genetic syndromes are tumor suppressor genes that regulate DNA repair (eg, BRCA1, BRCA2, MMR genes) and/or cell cycle (eg, APC, RB1 ). In recent years, however, the spectrum of high-penetrance CPGs has expanded considerably to include genes in non-canonical pathways such as oncogenic signaling, metabolism, and protein translation. We propose here that, given the variety of pathways that may ultimately affect genome integrity and cell proliferation, the model of cancer genetic predisposition needs to be expanded to account for diverse mechanisms. This synthesis calls for modeling and multi-omic studies applying novel experimental and computational approaches to understand cancer genetic predisposition. Keywords: cancer, genetics, predisposition, multi-omics, genomics, oncogenesis Cancer arises from accumulated mutations, which are the products of DNA surveillance and repair errors and the number of cellular divisions. 1 The presence of a diverse mutational landscape in healthy tissue under environmental assault is an important precursor in the micro-evolutionary process of carcinogenesis. Recent reports that sequenced biopsies of physiologically normal tissues, including sun-exposed eyelid epidermis, Barrett's esophagus, colorectal epithelial cells, and liver, demonstrated a diverse array of "driver" mutations associated with tumors with varying degrees of clonal expansion among these non-cancerous biopsy specimens, highlighting a precancerous landscape for clonal selection that begins with mutation acquisition. 2–4 It can thus be reasoned that individuals with elevated mutation rates will have a higher risk of developing cancer. Aligned with this rationale, many of the known hereditary cancer predisposition genes (CPGs)—genes harboring inherited germline variants that confer high or moderate risks—are critical components of DNA damage repair pathways, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 in homologous recombination. Additionally, increased cellular proliferation directly contributes to the number of cellular divisions. An established CPG that directly regulates cellular proliferation is RB1 , whose gene products halt DNA replication and mediates cell survival, apoptosis, and differentiation. Using the differential risks of retinoblastoma in germline RB1 carriers versus non-carriers, Alfred Knudson statistically demonstrated the two-hit model of cancer predisposition in 1972. 5 Advances in sequencing technology engendered the discovery of CPGs in pedigrees enriched for familial cases and large sets of non-familial cancer cases. In these large sample sets, it was found that approximately 5–15% of cancer cases are carriers of pathogenic variation within CPGs. 6–8 However, many of the newly identified CPGs do not have a primary function in these two canonical predisposition processes. These CPGs affect diverse pathways including metabolism, protein translation, and rRNA processing. How they result in higher cancer risks remains unclear. Herein, we highlight this crucial knowledge gap and discuss a few possible mechanistic contributions of emerging cancer predisposition pathways to stress-induced somatic mutation acquisition and cellular proliferation, which may ultimately lead to clonal diversification ( Figure 1 ). This synthesis is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather, it illustrates a conceptual model and describes through representative examples how non-canonical cancer predisposition pathways may mediate cancer risks. Figure 1 Pr -Abstract Truncated-
oncology