Figures
Abstract
Large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) in DNA-mismatch-repair (MMR) genes, particularly among MSH2 gene, are frequently involved in the etiology of Lynch syndrome (LS). The Multiplex Ligation and Probe Amplification assay (MLPA) is commonly used to identify such alterations. However, in most cases, the MLPA-identified alteration is not characterized at the molecular level, which might be important to identify recurrent alterations and to analyze the molecular mechanisms underlying these mutational events. Probands from a cohort of Lynch Syndrome families were screened for point mutation in MMR genes, subsequently the MLPA assay was used for LGR screening. The identified MLPA alteration was confirmed by cDNA, CGH-microarrays or massive parallel sequencing. In this study, we have delimited the region of 11 LGRs variants on MSH2 locus. Six of them were fully characterized the breakpoints and 9 of them were considered pathogenic. According to our data, LGR on MSH2 locus constituted the 10.8% (9 out of 83) of pathogenic germline alterations found in LS. The frequency of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) in LGR carriers was 55% and 11% respectively. Analysis of the breakpoint sequences revealed that in 3 cases, deletions appeared to originate from Alu-mediated recombination events. In the remaining cases, sequence alignment failed to detect microhomology around the breakpoints. The present study provides knowledge on the molecular characterization of MSH2 LGRs, which may have important implications in LS diagnosis and Genetic Counseling. In addition, our data suggests that nonhomologous events would be more frequently involved in the etiology of MSH2 LGRs than expected.
Citation: Romero A, Garre P, Valentin O, Sanz J, Pérez-Segura P, Llovet P, et al. (2013) Frequency and Variability of Genomic Rearrangements on MSH2 in Spanish Lynch Syndrome Families. PLoS ONE 8(9): e72195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072195
Editor: Paolo Peterlongo, IFOM, Fondazione Istituto FIRC di Oncologia Molecolare, Italy
Received: May 22, 2013; Accepted: July 6, 2013; Published: September 11, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Romero et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FEDER) research grants FIS 10/00641 and RTICC 12/003606/00. AR is supported by Rio Hortega Fellowship, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common of the hereditary colon cancer syndromes. It is characterized by a dominantly inherited predisposition to early onset colorectal carcinoma and certain extra colonic tumours, caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, most commonly in MLH1 and MSH2 [1]–[3].The genetic diagnosis of this inherited predisposition offers an opportunity for intensive targeted clinical surveillance of healthy carriers, which has been proven to reduce significantly cancer morbidity and mortality [4]. On the other hand, the identification of individuals not carrying the family-specific mutation can avoid unnecessary surveillance procedures and alleviate the fear of cancer. Point mutation screening fails to detect pathogenic changes in a considerable percentage of families meeting Amsterdam criteria [4], [5] with large genomic rearrangements (LGRs), particularly among the MSH2 gene, representing a significant fraction of germline mutations in LS families [6]. Consequently, the screening of LGRs has been incorporated into the routine of most laboratories.
Several methodologies can be used to identify LGRs. Overall, the Multiplex Ligation and Probe Amplification (MLPA) assay might be the most widely used approach for LGR screening in these genes [7]–[9]. However, using MLPA assay LGRs cannot be fully characterized and must be confirmed by other method. The molecular characterization of LGRs is essential to identify recurrent alterations, to identify genotype/phenotype relationships and to analyse the genetic mechanisms underlying these alterations. However, the molecular characterization of LGRs by conventional techniques can be a time consuming and tedious process. High-throughput technologies, such as CGH microarrays or massive parallel sequencing, open the door for feasible LGRs characterization and can potentially overcome such limitations.
The aim of our study was to characterize at the molecular level and to establish the pathogenicity of the LGRs in MSH2 locus found by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) assay used to screen our Lynch Syndrome families. To confirm the LGRs found by MLPA, we used CGH microrarrys, cDNA or massive parallel sequencing all changes were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. We were able to delimit the region for 9 variants and to fully characterize the break point for 6 of the 9 variants. The remaining two variants, one was corroborate the MLPA by the study of the cDNA and the other was not possible to characterized.
This is the first long study on LGR in Spanish Lynch Syndrome Families and will contribute to a better diagnostic of this type of families.
Materials and Methods
Patients and samples
Suspected Lynch Syndrome (LS) patients were selected through the San Carlos Hospital Cancer Genetic Counseling Unit (Madrid, Spain). Detailed family histories, from at least three generations, and geographic origins were obtained from the proband and participating relatives. Cancer diagnoses and deaths were confirmed by reviewing the medical records, pathology reports or death certificates. Mutation screening of MMR genes were performed previously in 83 index cases from LS families, 48 were Amsterdam I and 35 Amsterdam II criteria [10], [11] and associated with MSI phenotype and loss of MMR protein expression in tumours. The results of the study had been published [12]–[16]. In the present study our cohort; include 15 patients from our 83 LS families that resulted negative for point mutations analysis in MMR genes that were screened for LGR in MMR genes by MLPA.
Ethics statement
The study was approved by the Hospital Clínico San Carlos Ethics Committee, Madrid, Spain. An informed consent was signed from each participant after appropriate counseling according to the protocols approved by our Institutional Review Boards.
DNA isolation
Genomic DNA from peripheral blood lymphocytes was extracted using MagNA Pure LC total nucleic acid extraction kit in a MagNA Pure LC instrument (Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany).
RNA isolation RT-PCR
Total RNA, from peripheral blood lymphocytes, was extracted using the Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA), following the instructions of the manufacturer. 200 ng of total RNA was used as a template to obtain first-strand cDNA using the SuperScript First-Strand Synthesis System for RT-PCR (Invitrogen, Parsley, UK), following the manufacturer's instructions. The cDNA was further amplified with a primer pairs spanning the deletions (specific sequence primers are available upon request). RT-PCR products were subsequently electrophoresed on agarose gels and sequenced using the ABI-3100 Avant genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, USA)
MLPA
MLPA analysis was performed after comprehensive MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 mutation scanning (full coding sequence, intron/exon boundaries) considered negative for the presence of germ-line mutations. Screening for MSH2 LGRs was performed using SALSA MLPA kit P003-B1 and P003-B2 according to instructions provided by the manufacturer's (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). All reactions were carried out using 100 ng of DNA. Separation and relative quantification of the peaks was performed in an ABI-3130 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, USA). Variation in peak areas was evaluated by cumulative comparison of samples from the same experiment with GeneScan software (Applied Biosystems, USA). For the assessment of allele dosage, the protocol described by the manufacturer (www.mrc-holland.com) was applied. DNA samples with a dosage value less than 0.7 or greater than 1.2 were confirmed in a second independent reaction.
CGH microarrays
Samples were hybridized against OncoNIM® Familial Cancer, a 60 k Agilent based custom array-CGH (Nimgenetics; Madrid, Spain). This custom array covers the whole genome with a median spatial resolution of 1 probe per 150 kb, with high density coverage in 20 genes related to familial cancer (100 bp median spatial resolution for these genes, with 1 probe per 50 kb in 5′ and 3′ flanking regions). Hybridizations were performed according to the manufacturer's protocols. A commercially available male DNA sample (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) was used as reference DNA. Microarray data were extracted and visualized using the Feature Extraction Software v10.7 and Agilent Genomic Workbench v.5.0 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) using ADM-2 (set as 10) as aberration detection statistic. Only CNVs with, at least, ten consecutive probes for the 20 selected genes, and five consecutive probes for the whole genome, were analyzed. Genomic build NCBI37 (Hg19) was used for delineating the genomic coordinates of the detected CNVs.
Long range PCR amplification and massive parallel sequencing
Based on the MLPA data, long-range PCR across the deletion was applied using TAKARA LA PCR kit (TaKaRa Bio Inc., Otsu, Shiga, Japan). Primers used for these analysis and PCR conditions are detailed table S1. PCR products were separated on 0.8–1% agarose gels and visualized by ethidium bromide staining. Long-range PCR products containing the expected rearrangement were further purified using Qiaquick PCR purification Kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA) and quantified using PicoGreen (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR).
Libraries were synthesized from 500 ng of genomic DNA following the Rapid Library Preparation Method Manual (Roche Applied Science, Mannheim, Germany) and were bar-coded with Rapid Library MID adaptors (Roche 454 life sciences, Mannheim, Germany). The quality of these libraries was analyzed in a Bioanalyser using High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, California, USA). Individual libraries were quantified with qPCR using KAPA Library Quantification kit for Roche 454 Titanium (part KK4802KapaBiosystems Inc., Boston, MA). Based on the individual library concentrations, equimolar pools were made, titrated, and submitted to emulsion-based PCR using GS FLX Titanium LV emPCR kit and GS FLX Titanium emPCR Breaking Kit (Roche Applied Science, Mannheim, Germany), following the manufacturer's instructions. Subsequently, samples were sequenced in GS FLX 454, using a GS FLX Titanium PicoTiterPlate Kit combined with a GS FLX Titanium Sequencing Kit XLR70 (Roche Applied Science, Mannheim, Germany).The average coverage for the captured region ranged from 22.018 reads to 29.036.
Sequencing data was processed using the 454 Sequencing System Software Package v.2.6 (454 Life Sciences Corp, Branford, CT). Reads of high quality were mapped to the reference MSH2 sequence (Ensembl version: ENSG00000095002.8; genomic region: GRCh37:2:47.605.875 to 47.630.535) using the gsMapper with default parameters. Individual sequences were assembled into contigs by the gsMapper software. Finally, chimeric reads (defined as those which matched to two different regions within the reference) were selected and mapped against the reference sequence. Reads accumulated in two discrete regions were considered the breakpoint of deletions.
Break point sanger sequencing
Based on CGH-microarrays and massive parallel sequencing results, new PCR were designed using a set of primers that specifically amplified the mutated allele (Table S1). PCR products were directly sequenced using the BigDye Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing kit. Sequence analysis was performed on the ABI 3130 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). All LGRs are described at the genomic DNA level. The nomenclature for deletions complies with the rules recommended by the Human Genome Variation Society (www.hgvs.org). Genomic break point locations are given in relation to reference sequence for the MSH2 gene (Ensembl version: ENSG00000095002.8; genomic region: GRCh37:2:47630108-47789450:1; Ensemble release 69).The mentioned MSH2 reference sequence was submitted to RepeatMasker and was analyzed with default settings.
Results
Identification of novel MSH2 deletions in MSH2 deficient lynch families
15 Probands that resulted negative for point mutations analysis in MMR genes were submitted to MLPA screening which identified 5 families with putative deletions targeting exon 2, exon 7, exon 8, exons 11–16 and exons 7–16; 3 families with gene duplication that included exon 14, exons 11–16 and exons 8–10 and one family with a deletion targeting exons 8–9 of EPCAM gene and exons 1–6 of MSH2 gene. Figure 1 outlines the LGRs found in our population.
Schematic outline of the genomic region involved in the LGRs, showing 7 deletions (white bars) and 3 amplifications (black bars).
We confirmed the MLPA-identified alteration by applying different experimental approaches (Table 1). Alleles containing the deletions in exon 7,exons 11–16,and exons 7–16, were further amplified by Long-range PCR using specific primers (Table S1) and submitted to massive parallel sequencing. Then, we confirmed the deletion breakpoints by Sanger sequencing using specific primers (Table S1). The DNA sample of patient harboring MSH2 exon 8 deletion was hybridized to a customized array-CGH which provided a prediction of the rearrangement break points. Interesting, this patient also had a deletion in the intronic region of PTEN (10q23.31(89652736-89653653)×1). The PTEN deletion has been previously reported in healthy individuals with apparently no pathogenic effect. Samples with MSH2 amplification were also hybridized to the custom array-CGH. The predicted positions flanking the extension of the gene amplification for each sample are detailed in Table 1. Remarkable, the proband carrying the gene amplification encompassing exons 8–10 also had a 2.5 Kb deletion in intron 10 (g.47694636-47697106del2471) and a gene amplification involving exon 14 (2p21 (47705272-47705615)×3) (Figure 2A). The gene amplification encompassing exons 8–10 was further verified by conventional PCR using the outward facing primers. A PCR product was amplified only in the proband and not in the control (Figure 2B). Subsequently, the PCR product was sequenced by Sanger methodology confirming a 31.5 kb duplication preceded by a 7 bp AAACAAT insertion (g.[47694485_86insAAACAAT;47694485_86insENSG00000095002:g.47662877_47694485]) (Figure 2C). In addition, the presence of the 2.5 kb deletion was further confirmed by conventional PCR. The analysis of more families members revealed that the 2.5 Kb deletion was in the same allele that the duplication.
A) array CGH rearrangement characterization. B) Amplification of the junction fragment using the outward facing primers in duplicated head-to-tail interval and electrophoresis gel showing PCR product in a mutation carrier. C) Sequence electropherogram of the junction fragment.
In total, we precisely localized and sequenced the breakpoints in 6 MSH2 novel deletions which varied in size from 2471 to 76839. Regarding amplification of exons 11–16 we could not amplify the junction fragment from genomic DNA although we used different primer sets based on CGH array data.
Additionally, the deletions targeting exons 2, 7 and 8 were further characterized at the RNA level. Using specific primers (available upon request), we were able to amplify cDNA from a control and cDNA from deletion carriers, which in all cases yielded a smaller PCR product than the control. Direct sequencing revealed the presence of messengers lacking exons 2, 7 and 8 respectively (Figure S2).
Segregation analysis of the LGRs characterized in these families, identified additional LGRs carriers and non carriers. Pedigrees of all families harboring MSH2 LGRs are available in Figure S1.
In six of the MSH2 variants were reported the region in the LOVD and the remaining five were not reported. (Table S2). All MSH2 rearrangements breakpoints were not previously reported in the InSiGHT (LOVD) (Table S2) and Ensemble data bases and all were established as pathogenic taking into account by the segregation analysis in the families, lost of MSH2 protein expression in the tumors, MSI-H phenotype and a severe phenotype in the family
Genotype-phenotype correlations
Clinico-pathological features and molecular findings of the LGRs carrier families are detailed in Table 1. The mean age at first diagnosis was 42.9 years (range 18–68). At the time of the study 11 MSH2 LGRs carriers were asymptomatic, two of them aged 74 and 66 (patient III:6 from family 537 and III:3 from family 499 respectively).
According to our results, the frequency of MSH2 LGRs in Amsterdam I families was 10.4% and 11.4% in Amsterdam II families. On the other hand, based on our data, LGR on MSH2 locus constitutes the 10.8% (9 out of 83) of pathogenic germline alterations found in LS families in our population and the 20.5% (9 out of 44) of the total alterations found by our group in MSH2 locus.
The correlation between the type of mutation (punctual or rearrangement) and the phenotype is shown in Table 2. There were no differences according to first tumor type, age at first tumor diagnosis or number of tumors developed. According to our data, the 55% of LGR carriers developed CRC compare with 42% in punctual mutation carries however this difference did not reach statistical significance. On the other hand, endometrial cancer (EC) was diagnosed in 11% of LGR carriers and in 14% of punctual mutation carriers.
LGRs mechanisms of origin
In order to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the origin of LGRs in MSH2 gene we analyzed the entire sequence of MSH2 gene (genomic region: GRCh37:2:47630108-47789450:1). Analysis with default settings identified 168 SINEs, 39 LINEs, 33 LTRs, and 29 DNA elements. Together, these repeat elements comprise 47.46% of the whole sequence, indicating a relatively high density of repetitive Alu elements within this region. Simple inspection permitted us to notice that breakpoints, in some cases, were located at interspersed repeated elements. Three MSH2 deletion breakpoints characterized in this study were located within Alu repeats (Table 3).The two recombined Alu elements were always directed in the same orientation (Figure S3). Sequence alignments of the proximal and distal Alu sequences revealed the presence of stretches with microhomology at the breakpoint, ranging in size from 15 to 48 bp (Table 3) (Figure S3), indicating that, in these cases deletions might have arisen by Alu-Alu mediated nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR). However, this mechanism does not explain g.47672050-47680329del8280, and g.47694636-47697106del2471 rearrangements in which nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) may serve as a better explanation for the origin of the deletions. In these patients, sequence alignment of the regions surrounding the breakpoints discarded both non-allelic homologous recombination and micro-homology mediated events, despite the fact that in case of g.47694636-47697106del2471 5′ and 3′ breakpoints were embedded in interspersed repeated sequences. Similarly, in case of exon 8 deletion (g.47672050-47680329del8280) the sequence surrounding the breakpoint at 5′ corresponded to AluSx. In the same way, alignment analysis of exons 8–10 amplification junction fragment failed to detected stretches of homology at the breakpoints, therefore discarding homologous recombination as the mechanisms of origin for such alteration although the breakpoint at 3′ was embedded in a AluSx sequence.
Discussion
In this study, we report the characterization at the molecular level of 9 novel structural alterations on the MSH2 locus in patients with LS based on clinical and immunohistochemicals findings and that resulted negative for point mutations analysis in MMR genes. According to our results, the prevalence of MSH2 LGRs in Amsterdam I and II families was 10.4% and 11.4% respectively. In our study MSH2 deletions constituted 10.8% of pathogenic germline alterations found in LS families, indicating that LGRs account for non negligible proportion of MSH2 mutations, which is in accordance with previously LGRs rates reported from similar series [5], [6], [17]–[19].
The spectrum of tumors developed in carriers, of Spanish families harboring MSH2 LGR, were mostly CRC. The frequency of CRC in LGRs carriers was higher than in point mutation carriers while the opposite was observed for EC. However, as others before, we failed to demonstrate phenotypic significant differences of families carrying the detected rearrangements and families harboring other types of mutations [8], [17].
Six of the detected rearrangements were deletions. The deletion .47694636-47697106del2471 has been found in family 481 and affects intron 10. We didn't consider it as pathogenic because it has been found in co-ocurrence with the pathogenic duplication of exons 8–10. In the remaining cases, the rearrangement creates a premature stop codon that would produce a putative truncated protein or an in-frame deletion, affecting important functional domains of the protein. Four rearrangements consist of amplifications. In case of the MSH2 amplification of exons 8–10, we were able to sequence the junction fragment, therefore demonstrating the pathogenic significance of this alteration. Amplification of exon 14 and ex 11–16 was not possible to localize the exact breakpoint. We didn't considered the amplification of the PTEN because has been reported in healthy individuals with no pathogenic effect.
LGRs can be generated through different genetic mechanisms such as NAHR, micro-homology mediated events, involving very short homologous sequences, or homology-independent processes such as classical NHEJ [20]–[22]. It is well established that there is a relatively high local density of repetitive Alu elements throughout MSH2 locus [23]–[26] increasing the chance of Alu-mediated recombination, which might explain the wide variety of deletions within this region. In our study, we have found that in some cases LGRs breakpoints fall within repetitive sequences. Specifically, we have found Alu elements to be involved in 3 LGRs, indicating that in these cases meiotic NAHR could be the most likely underlying mechanism. In case of g.47672050-47680329del8280 and g.47694636-47697106del2471 rearrangements, the sequences surrounding the breakpoints did not contain enough homology despite the fact that breakpoints were embedded within repeated elements, suggesting that, in these cases, LGRs might be generated by a non-homologous mechanism as NHEJ. The same can be argued for exons 8–10 amplification. Therefore, indicating that location of breakpoints at Alu sequences is not a proxy for NAHR. Alu-mediated NAHR has been proposed as the most frequent mechanism underlying MSH2 LGRs [24], while homology-independent processes are considered to be exceptional. Nonetheless, homology-independent processes have been involved in LGRs that cause predisposition to colon cancer before [26], [27]. According to our data, non-homologous mechanisms in LGRs generation could have been underestimated and would be more frequent than previously expected despite the relatively high density of Alu repeat elements within MSH2 locus. Similar conclusions have been reached in BRCA2 LGRs carriers [28]. Analysis of lagers cohorts of LGRs carriers would be clearly warranted in order to clarify this issue.
High throughput technologies allow nowadays accurately detecting and characterizing these classes of mutations, diminishing substantially the time of analysis. In our study we were able to confirm the previously detected MLPA alteration by CGH-microarrays and massive parallel sequencing. Guidelines for application of high throughput technologies to genetic diagnostic have been developed [29]. In our view, we believe that standard Sanger sequencing should be applied to verify positive results as well as it provides the basis for a simplified test for high risk relatives.
In conclusion, we have reported 9 novel pathogenic mutations causing LS. Our data suggests that LGRs may explain a significant proportion of point mutation negative families with MMR protein loss and MSI-H phenotype in tumor tissue. Moreover, our data suggests that non-homologous mechanisms would be more frequently involved in the etiology of MSH2 LGRs than estimated.
The incorporation of novel high throughput technologies to routine analysis will enable the characterization of this class of mutation more easily. The identification of these variants is important for diagnosis, genetic counseling and management of the patients and families with Lynch syndrome.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
Pedigrees of families harboring LGRs in MSH2.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072195.s001
(PPTX)
Figure S2.
Study at cDNA level of the three patients carrying deletions of exons 2, 7 and 8.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072195.s002
(TIF)
Figure S3.
Alignments of MSH2 deleted allele with 5′ and 3′ sequences. The boxed sequence indicates the microhomology at the breakpoint region.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072195.s003
(TIF)
Table S2.
MSH2 variants in the LOVD database.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072195.s005
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
We thank the families for participating in this study and to Alicia Tosar and Paula Diaque for their technical assistance.
Web Resources
The following online computer programmes were used in this work:
Primer3 v.0.4.0: http://fokker.wi.mit.edu/primer3/input.htm
Ensemble: http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene
InSiGHT: http://www.insight-group.org/
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: AR TC. Performed the experiments: AR OV PL JS. Analyzed the data: AR PG MdlH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PP-S ED-R. Wrote the paper: AR TC.
References
- 1. Lagerstedt Robinson K, Liu T, Vandrovcova J, Halvarsson B, Clendenning M, et al. (2007) Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) diagnostics. J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 291–299
- 2. Vasen HFA, Möslein G, Alonso A, Bernstein I, Bertario L, et al. (2007) Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 44: 353–362
- 3. Lynch HT, Lynch JF, Lynch PM, Attard T (2008) Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: molecular genetics, genetic counseling, diagnosis and management. Fam Cancer 7: 27–39
- 4. Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Aktan-Collan K, Aaltonen LA, et al. (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118: 829–834.
- 5. Wijnen J, van der Klift H, Vasen H, Khan PM, Menko F, et al. (1998) MSH2 genomic deletions are a frequent cause of HNPCC. Nat Genet 20: 326–328
- 6. Gylling A, Ridanpää M, Vierimaa O, Aittomäki K, Avela K, et al. (2009) Large genomic rearrangements and germline epimutations in Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer 124: 2333–2340
- 7. Schouten JP, McElgunn CJ, Waaijer R, Zwijnenburg D, Diepvens F, et al. (2002) Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 30: e57.
- 8. Perez-Cabornero L, Velasco E, Infante M, Sanz D, Lastra E, et al. (2009) A new strategy to screen MMR genes in Lynch Syndrome: HA-CAE, MLPA and RT-PCR. Eur J Cancer 45: 1485–1493
- 9. Eijk-Van Os PG, Schouten JP (2011) Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA®) for the detection of copy number variation in genomic sequences. Methods Mol Biol 688: 97–126
- 10. Bellacosa A, Genuardi M, Anti M, Viel A, Ponz de Leon M (1996) Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: review of clinical, molecular genetics, and counseling aspects. Am J Med Genet 62: 353–364
- 11. Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR, Henson DE, Jass JR, et al. (1997) A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome: meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 1758–1762.
- 12. Caldés T, Godino J, Perez-Segura P, de la Hoya M, Diaz-Rubio E, et al. (2000) New mutation in the hMSH2 gene in a Spanish Muir-Torre syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 95: 2389–2390
- 13. Sánchez de Abajo A, de la Hoya M, Tosar A, Godino J, Fernández JM, et al. (2005) Low prevalence of germline hMSH6 mutations in colorectal cancer families from Spain. World J Gastroenterol 11: 5770–5776.
- 14. Caldés T, Godino J, Sanchez A, Corbacho C, De la Hoya M, et al. (2004) Immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability testing for selecting MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep 12: 621–629.
- 15. Godino J, de La Hoya M, Diaz-Rubio E, Benito M, Caldés T (2001) Eight novel germline MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer families from Spain. Hum Mutat 18: 549
- 16. Caldes T, Godino J, de la Hoya M, Garcia Carbonero I, Perez Segura P, et al. (2002) Prevalence of germline mutations of MLH1 and MSH2 in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families from Spain. Int J Cancer 98: 774–779.
- 17. Baudhuin LM, Ferber MJ, Winters JL, Steenblock KJ, Swanson RL, et al. (2005) Characterization of hMLH1 and hMSH2 gene dosage alterations in Lynch syndrome patients. Gastroenterology 129: 846–854
- 18. Grabowski M, Mueller-Koch Y, Grasbon-Frodl E, Koehler U, Keller G, et al. (2005) Deletions account for 17% of pathogenic germline alterations in MLH1 and MSH2 in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families. Genet Test 9: 138–146
- 19. Martínez-Bouzas C, Ojembarrena E, Beristain E, Errasti J, Viguera N, et al. (2007) High proportion of large genomic rearrangements in hMSH2 in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families of the Basque Country. Cancer Lett 255: 295–299
- 20. McVey M, Lee SE (2008) MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet 24: 529–538
- 21. Hastings PJ, Lupski JR, Rosenberg SM, Ira G (2009) Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nat Rev Genet 10: 551–564
- 22. Vissers LELM, Bhatt SS, Janssen IM, Xia Z, Lalani SR, et al. (2009) Rare pathogenic microdeletions and tandem duplications are microhomology-mediated and stimulated by local genomic architecture. Hum Mol Genet 18: 3579–3593
- 23. Van der Klift H, Wijnen J, Wagner A, Verkuilen P, Tops C, et al. (2005) Molecular characterization of the spectrum of genomic deletions in the mismatch repair genes MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 responsible for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Genes Chromosomes Cancer 44: 123–138
- 24. Li L, McVety S, Younan R, Liang P, Du Sart D, et al. (2006) Distinct patterns of germ-line deletions in MLH1 and MSH2: the implication of Alu repetitive element in the genetic etiology of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC). Hum Mutat 27: 388
- 25. Aissi-Ben Moussa S, Moussa A, Lovecchio T, Kourda N, Najjar T, et al. (2009) Identification and characterization of a novel MLH1 genomic rearrangement as the cause of HNPCC in a Tunisian family: evidence for a homologous Alu-mediated recombination. Fam Cancer 8: 119–126
- 26. Kuiper RP, Vissers LELM, Venkatachalam R, Bodmer D, Hoenselaar E, et al. (2011) Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome. Hum Mutat 32: 407–414
- 27. McVety S, Younan R, Li L, Gordon PH, Wong N, et al. (2005) Novel genomic insertion– deletion in MLH1: possible mechanistic role for non-homologous end-joining DNA repair. Clin Genet 68: 234–238
- 28. Ruiz de Garibay G, Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, Garre P, Bonache S, Romero A, et al. (2012) Characterization of four novel BRCA2 large genomic rearrangements in Spanish breast/ovarian cancer families: review of the literature, and reevaluation of the genetic mechanisms involved in their origin. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133: 273–283
- 29. Mattocks CJ, Morris MA, Matthijs G, Swinnen E, Corveleyn A, et al. (2010) A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests. Eur J Hum Genet 18: 1276–1288