2007
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddm077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Counting potentially functional variants in BRCA1, BRCA2 and ATM predicts breast cancer susceptibility

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
1
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
30
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Wu et al 32 showed that a multigenic analysis of DNA-repair and cell-cycle control genes was efficient at predicting an individual's risk of bladder cancer. Johnson et al 33 demonstrated that a combinatorial study of marginally significant risk alleles in candidate genes was efficient at predicting an individual's risk of breast cancer. Maller et al 34 described the additive action of risk alleles of the CFH, LOC387715 and CFB/C2 loci in genetic susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wu et al 32 showed that a multigenic analysis of DNA-repair and cell-cycle control genes was efficient at predicting an individual's risk of bladder cancer. Johnson et al 33 demonstrated that a combinatorial study of marginally significant risk alleles in candidate genes was efficient at predicting an individual's risk of breast cancer. Maller et al 34 described the additive action of risk alleles of the CFH, LOC387715 and CFB/C2 loci in genetic susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lastly, we used the published BIC classifications to classify deleterious mutations. However, if unclassified variants of unknown clinical significance in these genes (39)(40)(41) are associated with radiation-induced CBC, we may have underestimated the association.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They do not consider the additive pathogenic effect of multiple low-penetrance alleles (Weedon et al, 2006;Johnson et al, 2007) although this needs to be kept under close review. This document does not consider changes that are considered to be clearly pathogenic not requiring any further interpretation, such as frameshift mutations, changes that alter the consensus AG/GT boundaries and nonsense mutations.…”
Section: Scope Of the Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%