Abstract
Germline mutations of the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2, and deletions affecting the EPCAM gene adjacent to MSH2, underlie Lynch syndrome by predisposing to early-onset colorectal, endometrial and other cancers. An alternative but rare cause of Lynch syndrome is constitutional epimutation of MLH1, whereby promoter methylation and transcriptional silencing of one allele occurs throughout normal tissues. A dominantly transmitted constitutional MLH1 epimutation has been linked to an MLH1 haplotype bearing two single-nucleotide variants, NM_000249.2: c.−27C>A and c.85G>T, in a Caucasian family with Lynch syndrome from Western Australia. Subsequently, a second seemingly unrelated Caucasian Australian case with the same MLH1 haplotype and concomitant epimutation was reported. We now describe three additional, ostensibly unrelated, cancer-affected families of European heritage with this MLH1 haplotype in association with constitutional epimutation, bringing the number of index cases reported to five. Array-based genotyping in four of these families revealed shared haplotypes between individual families that extended across ≤2.6–≤6.4 megabase regions of chromosome 3p, indicating common ancestry. A minimal ≤2.6 megabase founder haplotype common to all four families was identified, which encompassed MLH1 and additional flanking genes and segregated with the MLH1 epimutation in each family. Our findings indicate that the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T variants are borne on a European ancestral haplotype and provide conclusive evidence for its pathogenicity via a mechanism of epigenetic silencing of MLH1 within normal tissues. Additional descendants bearing this founder haplotype may exist who are also at high risk of developing Lynch syndrome-related cancers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Lynch syndrome, characterized by the development of colorectal, endometrial and additional cancers below 50 years of age,1, 2 is caused by dominantly inherited heterozygous mutations within one of the DNA mismatch repair genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2.3 Germline deletions of the EPCAM gene, which give rise to dominantly inherited epimutations of MSH2, have been identified in a proportion of cases.4 An acquired functional loss of the remaining wild-type allele of the affected gene within somatic tissues gives rise to cancers exhibiting microsatellite instability (MSI).5 A diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is confirmed by the identification of a causative mutation, allowing for accurate genetic counselling of families and targeted clinical surveillance of mutation carriers with a high-risk of cancer development.2 However, a significant proportion of families with putative Lynch syndrome either have no identifiable mismatch repair mutation, or have missense ‘variants of uncertain significance’, which confounds diagnosis and genetic counselling.3 Classification of such variants as pathogenic or benign is based upon a compilation of clinical, genetic and epidemiological factors, as well as functional analyses.6 A cluster of sequence variants within the promoter regions of the mismatch repair genes has also been identified in cancer-affected families;7, 8, 9, 10 however, the pathogenic significance of most of these has remained largely uninterpreted.
A subset of mutation-negative patients has been identified with an MLH1 epimutation, characterized by soma-wide methylation of one allele of the promoter and transcriptional loss from this allele.11 These cases have tended to be sporadic due to the spontaneous origination of the epimutation in carriers and its subsequent eradication in the germline.12, 13, 14, 15 However, a handful of familial cases with an MLH1 epimutation have been reported in which transmission of the epimutation between generations has been shown to occur in both non-Mendelian14 and autosomal dominant patterns, with the latter linked to localized cis-acting genetic anomalies.16, 17
In a Caucasian family from Western Australia (WA Family 16), dominant transmission of a mosaic MLH1 epimutation was demonstrated through three successive generations linked to a particular haplotype bearing two single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in tandem; promoter substitution c.−27C>A and missense variant c.85G>T (p.A29S) (according to coding reference sequence NM_000249.2).17 The mosaic nature of the epimutation was observed as variable levels of somatic methylation and partial allelic losses of transcription among different tissues and carriers in the family.17 Two other index cases have also been reported as carriers of the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs.7, 10 In the first familial case ever reported (Family 1744),7 no methylation or allelic expression studies were performed and so this allele was not linked to constitutional epimutation at the time. Instead, that study focused on the potential role of the c.85G>T SNV as the disease-causing mutation in this family. However, comprehensive functional assays of the p.A29S protein variant encoded by this SNV showed normal protein activity, suggesting it is neutral.7 The subsequent link between the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype and MLH1 epimutation in WA Family 16,17 and thereafter the identification of another index case (Proband H) with this haplotype and concomitant MLH1 epimutation,10 strongly suggests this haplotype confers cancer susceptibility through its propensity for soma-wide epigenetic silencing. The concurrence of both SNVs in distinct cases also raises the question of whether they are borne on a founder haplotype.
Through a follow-up study of members from Family 1744, herein designated USA Family 1, as well as two newly identified cancer-affected families carrying the same c.-27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs, we provide definitive evidence that these variants are located on an ancestral haplotype and that it is associated with a mosaic, dominantly heritable form of MLH1 epimutation.
Materials and Methods
Patients and specimens
Patients and their family members were recruited to this study following referrals from Family Cancer Clinics due to a clinical suspicion of Lynch syndrome and the prior identification of heterozygous MLH1 SNVs c.−27C>A and c.85G>T in a family member(s) during germline screening of the mismatch repair genes for mutations. USA Family 1 was referred from the Vermont Family Cancer Clinic by WCM and MSG. The two siblings provided fresh samples of peripheral blood, but no sample was available from their deceased parents. USA Family 2 was referred from the Stanford Family Clinic by UL and NC. The four siblings and their father each provided fresh samples of saliva, buccal mucosa and hair follicles. A formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) block containing a biopsy of normal oesophageal tissue was available for the deceased mother. Netherlands Family 3 was diagnosed at the Radboud University Medical Centre by W.A.vZ-S. DNA samples from peripheral blood were obtained from members of the second and third generations of this family with help from F.H.M. from the VU University Medical Centre after counselling two siblings, but no samples were available from the deceased members of the first generation. Study approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committees from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, the University of New South Wales, the Radboud University Medical Centre, Stanford University and the University of Vermont. All subjects provided their written consent. Genomic DNA and total RNA were extracted from peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) using standard procedures. DNA was extracted from buccal mucosa and hair follicles using the Epicentre BuccalAmpTM DNA extraction kit. Genotek Oragene saliva kits were used to extract DNA and RNA from saliva samples. The Qiagen QIAamp DNA Mini Kit was used to extract genomic DNA from FFPE tissue.
Specific mutation testing
All MLH1 sequence variants are annotated according to coding reference sequence NM_000249.2. Testing for the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs was performed by PCR amplification and direct sequencing of a fragment encompassing MLH1 exon 1 as previously described, irrespective of prior genetic testing of the individuals.18
Exons 7, 13 and 14 of the MUTYH gene were PCR amplified and sequenced to detect the c.536A>G (p.Y179C), c.1187G>A (p.G396D) and c.1437_1439del (p.E480del) mutations (according to coding reference sequence NM_001128425.1), as previously described.19
Methylation analyses
For Netherlands Family 3, initial methylation testing was performed by methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) using the ME011 MS-MLPA kit (MRC Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Methylation testing was performed on DNA derived from the CRC, adjacent normal colorectal mucosa and PBL of the proband (F3-II3) and from PBL of other contributing family members.
For USA Families 1 and 2, and for confirmatory testing in four members of Netherlands Family 3, methylation detection was performed by CpG pyrosequencing across five CpG sites, as previously described.20 First, genomic DNA (1 μg) was sodium bisulphite converted using the EZ methylation Gold kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA), and 100–200 ng was used as PCR template. To determine allelic methylation patterns, fragments within the MLH1 CpG island encompassing either c.−27C>A or both SNVs were amplified using the forward primer (5′−3′) GGTATTGAGGTGATTGGTTGAAGG in combination with either reverse primer ATTCACCACTATCTCRTCCAAC (124 bp product) or CTATACATACCTCTACCCRAACAA (316 bp product), respectively (Figure 2a). Amplification products were cloned using the pGEMTeasy vector system (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) and the plasmid inserts from 24 individual bacterial colonies were sequenced.
Allelic expression analyses
The relative levels of transcripts derived from the two MLH1 alleles were quantified at the r.85g>u variant site in carriers of the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype, or at the r.655a>g site in subjects heterozygous for the benign c.655A>G SNP (both according to coding reference sequence NM_000249.2), using previously described allele quantification (AQ) pyrosequencing assays.17, 21 AQ data from mRNA was normalized to AQ data from parallel assays of genomic DNA to produce an allelic expression ratio: (allele 1mRNA/allele 2mRNA)/(allele 1DNA/allele 2DNA).
Haplotyping and copy number variant analysis using the Affymetrix SNP6.0 array
Genomic DNA from five carriers of the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype (F1-II2, F2-II1, F2-II3, F3-II2 and F3-II3) was hybridized to Affymetrix SNP6.0 arrays. The data were combined with those from prior Affymetrix SNP6.0 arrays of five carriers from WA Family 16, publicly available from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databank, accession number GSE30348,17 representing a total of 10 carriers from four distinct families. Genotypes were generated using Birdseed analysis software implemented in the Affymetrix Genotyping Console version 4.0. Subsequently, regions across the entire genome that were shared by all carriers of the two MLH1 SNVs were determined by defining the longest stretches of SNP genotypes that showed concordance between one or both alleles. A linkage disequilibrium plot of the chromosome 3p22 region that exhibited haplotype sharing among carriers of the MLH1 SNVs was generated using the Haploview software.22 Copy number analysis was performed using the Nexus Copy Number 6.1 software (BioDiscovery, El Segundo, CA, USA). The Affymetrix SNP6.0 array data from the three new families has been deposited in the GEO database (accession number GSE45149).
Results
Identification of distinct cancer-affected families bearing the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T single-nucleotide substitutions
Three Caucasian families whose proband had previously undergone selective genetic screening of the mismatch repair genes due to a clinical suspicion of Lynch syndrome, and in whom the two SNVs c.−27C>A and c.85G>T had been identified within MLH1, were included in this study. Pedigrees are shown in Figure 1.
‘USA Family 1’ (Figure 1a) represents members of the family previously reported as ‘Family 1744’,7 who met the Amsterdam I criteria for Lynch syndrome.1 The female proband (F1-II2) and her older brother (F1-II1), who had both developed CRC exhibiting MSI and dual loss of MLH1 and PMS2 at the ages 36 and 51 years, respectively, were both carriers of the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs (Figure 1a). Their deceased father had also developed Lynch syndrome-related cancer, but no sample was available to confirm his carrier status.
‘USA Family 2’ had raised a clinical suspicion of Lynch syndrome (Figure 1b). The male proband (F2-II3) and his three siblings had undergone colonoscopic surveillance due to a positive family history of cancer. Their deceased mother (F2-I2) had developed CRC at the age of 59 years and the family also reported that their maternal grandmother had died of an ‘abdominal cancer’ at 47 years of age. Colonoscopies conducted on the proband had led to the identification of a 2-mm sessile adenoma at the age of 42 years and a 15 mm flat adenoma with high-grade dysplasia at the age of 44 years. Consistent with an early Lynch syndrome-related neoplastic lesion, molecular pathology testing of his second adenoma showed it had lost MLH1 and PMS2 expression but retained MSH2 and MSH6, and was negative for the BRAF NM_004333.4: c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation.23 Based on these findings, targeted germline screening of the MLH1 gene was performed, which revealed the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs. Testing of archival normal tissue from his mother showed she had also been a carrier. Clinical surveillance in his three siblings had led to the identification and removal of one adenoma in his older brother at the age of 51 years, two adenomas of <5 mm in his sister at the ages of 41 and 46 years, and two adenomas in his younger brother at 41 years of age. The MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs were found in the older brother (F2-II1), whose adenoma was not examined by immunohistochemistry, but not in the other two siblings (F2-II2 and F2-II4) who had also both developed adenomas. Immunohistochemistry of one adenoma from the youngest brother (F2-II4) showed retention of all four mismatch repair proteins. This raised concerns that an independent genetic mutation may have contributed to the phenotype in this family and so we additionally tested the four siblings and their father for the NM_001128425.1: c.536A>G (p.Y179C), c.1187G>A (p.G396D) and c.1437_1439del (p.E480del) mutations within the MUTYH gene, which have been associated with polyposis and an increased risk of CRC particularly among Caucasians.19 All were negative for these common MUTYH mutations.
‘Netherlands Family 3’ met the Amsterdam I criteria for Lynch syndrome (Figure 1c). The male proband (F3-II3) had presented with colorectal and kidney cancers at the age of 41 years. Molecular pathology testing of his CRC revealed MSI and dual absence of MLH1 and PMS2 expression. Selective germline screening of MLH1 and PMS2 for mutations uncovered the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs and his CRC demonstrated loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH) of the wild-type allele (Figure 2). Targeted screening for the two SNVs in family members identified them in both of his cancer-affected brothers, including a non-identical twin. The twin sisters were not carriers. Although one (F3-II4) had developed melanoma at a young age, this is likely to represent a sporadic cancer unrelated to Lynch syndrome. Both parents, now deceased, had developed CRC, which could have been Lynch syndrome-related in either parent. However, no samples were available to test their carrier status. One family member in the third generation (F3-III1), who was asymptomatic at 19 years of age, also carried the MLH1 SNVs (Figure 1c).
Absence of MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T among healthy individuals suggests they are rare variants
In a previous study, we did not find either the MLH1 c.−27C>A or the c.85G>T SNV in a screen of 304 Australian healthy control subjects.17 To determine if these variants are represented on a wider population basis, we mined the genetic variation database generated from the 1092 subjects enrolled in the ‘1000 Genomes Project’, which included 379 individuals of European ancestry.24 The power to detect SNVs present at a frequency of 1% in this study population was estimated to be at least 99.3%.24 Neither variant was found, suggesting they occur in <1% of the general population.
The haplotype bearing the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T variants is linked to constitutional methylation and transcriptional repression in all three families
The variant MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T alleles were linked as a haplotype in each family (Supplementary Figure 1). Members from the three additional families were then tested for the presence of MLH1 methylation within normal tissues (n=15 subjects) and tumour tissue (n=1 proband) by MS-MLPA and/or CpG pyrosequencing. MLH1 methylation levels ranged from 17–32% within the normal tissues from all testable carriers of the variant MLH1 haplotype, whereas all family members with the wild-type sequence were negative for MLH1 methylation (Table 1; Supplementary Figure 2). Thus, substantial methylation of the MLH1 promoter in normal somatic tissues segregated with the MLH1 c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype in all three families (Figure 1). In Netherlands Family 3, high levels of MLH1 methylation were first found by MS-MLPA in the CRC of the proband (F3-II3), consistent with the finding of LOH of the wild-type MLH1 allele, and subsequently in his normal colorectal mucosa and PBL (Table 1). Notably, constitutional MLH1 methylation was found in two generations of this family, with passage from the proband’s twin brother (F3-II2) to his daughter (F3-III1), consistent with dominant transmission of the epimutation linked to this haplotype.
Allelic bisulphite sequencing across the c.−27C>A or both SNVs was performed in each proband and an additional methylation-positive subject from each family (Figure 3a). This showed that methylation was linked specifically to the haplotype bearing the variant c.−27C>A and c.85G>T alleles. Furthermore, the methylation patterns showed some copies of this haplotype were completely or partially methylated, while others were entirely unmethylated, consistent with a mosaic epimutation (Figure 3b; Supplementary Figure 3).
Quantitative allelic expression analyses were performed at the r.85g>u site in carriers of the c[.−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype (n=5) to determine if the epimutation was associated with the loss of expression from the affected allele within normal tissues (Figure 3a). A partial, but significant reduction in the levels of mRNA transcripts derived from the variant allele was observed in each of the carriers tested, ranging from 19 to 63% relative to the wild-type allele (Figure 3c; Table 1; Supplementary Figure 3). By contrast, near equivalent levels of expression from each MLH1 allele were observed at the r.655a>g site in a member of USA Family 2 (F2-II4) who was informative for the benign c.655A>G SNP but did not carry the variant c[.−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype and was methylation-negative (Table 1; Supplementary Figure 4).
Genotyping reveals an extensive shared ancestral haplotype across chromosome 3p22 between four families bearing the MLH1 c.-27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs
USA Families 1 and 2 had immigrated to the USA, but were self-reported to be of Scottish descent and mixed German and UK heritage, respectively. Netherlands Family 3 was of mixed Dutch and Australian heritage. Thus these three families and the two previously reported Australian cases were of European origin.10, 17 The occurrence of two distinct SNVs on the same MLH1 haplotype in association with MLH1 epimutation in five ostensibly unrelated cancer-affected European families raised the question of whether they share common ancestry. If so, the carriers in each family would be predicted to share a larger founder haplotype on chromosome 3 extending beyond MLH1 itself.
Genome-wide array-based genotyping performed in 10 carriers of the MLH1 c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype from among the three families and WA Family 1617 revealed shared genotypes among 883 consecutive SNPs across chromosome 3p22. The shared genotypes spanned nearly 2.6 Mb and encompassed the ARPP21, miRNA128-2, STAC, DCLK3, TRANK1, EPM2AIP1, MLH1, LRRFIP2, GOLGA4 and ITGA9 genes (Supplementary Figure 5; Figure 4a). This region stretched across 89 consecutive haplotype blocks (Figure 4b), indicating a very high likelihood that the degree of genotype concordance in these families did not occur by chance. Additional shared haplotypes spanning large genomic regions were found on other chromosomes as well (data not shown). These findings strongly support our hypothesis that the four families share a common genetic lineage and that the c.-27C>A and c.85G>T MLH1 variants are indeed borne on a founder haplotype.
Using WA Family 16 as the reference, pair-wise genotype comparisons were made between the carriers from each of the other three families individually, to determine the degree of haplotype sharing between them. This revealed even more extensive regions of genetic overlap spanning 5.5–6.3 Mb between USA Families 1 and 2 and the WA Family 16, whereas the WA and Dutch families shared the same minimal ≤2.6 Mb region of overlap that was common to all four families (Figure 4a).
To confirm the extended ancestral haplotype segregated with the variant MLH1 c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype and the epimutation itself, the same 3p22 SNP and STS microsatellite markers previously used to identify the epimutation-associated haplotype in WA Family 16,17 were genotyped in both carrier and non-carrier members from the three families. Alleles segregating with the presence of constitutional methylation within each pedigree were compiled into haplotypes and compared with the ‘reference’ haplotype from WA Family 16 (Table 2). The epimutation-associated haplotypes were identical between the four families within the minimally shared 2.6 Mb region, and were also consistent with the distinct larger regions of overlap found between individual families (Table 2). The Dutch family and WA Family 16 were found to share an allelotype at one STS marker (D3S1277) located upstream of the ≤2.6 Mb region they both shared. However, this may simply reflect chance allelotype sharing at this particular marker, or a double-recombination event between this upstream locus and the proximal end of their shared region.
Dominant inheritance of the MLH1 epimutation with the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype strongly implicates a cis-acting genetic basis to this epimutation. To investigate whether any large deletions or duplications are present within the minimally shared 2.6 Mb region of chromosome 3p22, copy number variation analysis was performed in the five carriers from the three families. Similar to previous findings in WA Family 16,17 no copy number changes within this region were consistently detected among the carriers (data not shown).
Discussion
We have shown in three cancer-affected families that the MLH1 haplotype bearing the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs is linked to a mosaic form of constitutional epimutation, which manifested as variable levels of promoter methylation accompanied by significant transcriptional loss from this haplotype within normal tissues. This study brings the number of independent cases harbouring this MLH1 haplotype with a concomitant epimutation to five. Vertical transmission of the epimutation with this haplotype was observed in one of our families (Netherlands Family 3), consistent with the prior finding of its dominant inheritance of in WA Family 16.17 In the other two families, sample availability from the parental generation was restricted, but segregation of the MLH1 epimutation with the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype was nevertheless clearly demonstrated among siblings.
These families provide collective evidence that the c.−[27C>A; 85G>T] MLH1 haplotype is associated with a heritable MLH1 epimutation, which in turn, confers a high risk of development of Lynch syndrome-related cancers. Four of the cases reported to date (USA Family 1, Netherlands Family 3, WA Family 16 and Proband H) met the Amsterdam I criteria due to a significant family history of syndromal cancers that included CRC below 50 years of age in at least one member. Of the cancers tested, both herein and previously,10, 17 MSI and MLH1 loss were consistently observed. Furthermore, the finding of LOH as the ‘second hit’ in the CRCs from the Dutch and WA probands17 is consistent with the c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] germline haplotype serving as the ‘first hit’. The role of this haplotype in disease causation in USA Family 2 is less clear. Although this family did not meet formal clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome,2 this was likely precluded by the lack of histopathology testing in the mother’s CRC and clinical intervention in the proband and siblings that may have altered their disease course. Nevertheless, absence of MLH1 was observed in the tested large adenoma from the proband, consistent with a precursor lesion with the potential to progress to Lynch-type adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, the cancer-affected mother was also a carrier. Nevertheless, the detection of adenomas in the two siblings who did not carry the variant MLH1 haplotype is of concern. A second genetic mutation may be present in this family that has contributed to their phenotype. Immunohistochemistry of one adenoma from the younger brother showed normal mismatch repair status and hence we screened for common mutations within the MUTYH gene, but did not find them. Genetic studies in this family are ongoing.
The lack of representation of the MLH1 c.−27C>A and c.85G>T variants among healthy subjects from the general population, most pertinently among Europeans, suggests they are rare and provides further epidemiological support for the pathogenicity of this haplotype. These two nucleotide substitutions most likely comprise ‘private’ disease-linked variants, as opposed to ‘polymorphisms’.
The five families identified with the MLH1 c.[−27C>A; 85G>T] haplotype are all of European ethnicity. We showed that carriers from four of these families share a large common haplotype that extends well beyond the two SNVs, spanning ≤2.6 Mb of chromosome 3p22 and encompassing the MLH1 gene neighbourhood. These findings provide strong evidence that these families are descended from a common ancestor. Indeed, paired comparisons between WA Family 16 from and each of the other three families individually showed haplotype sharing across even larger regions of chromosome 3 between the Australian and USA families, suggesting they are more closely related to one-another than the Dutch family.
We confirmed that the extended founder haplotype segregated with the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs and the MLH1 epimutation. This finding has two important implications. The first relates to the identification and diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in other carriers. The existence of additional descendants of the ancestor in whom these SNVs arose seems likely and they may be disseminated across the globe through migration. We proffer that the identification of these germline SNVs during standard mutation screening provides a firm molecular diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. In addition, any Lynch syndrome-like cases identified as carriers of a constitutional MLH1 epimutation should be investigated for these two SNVs, since their presence indicates a 50% risk of transmission of the epimutation to offspring. The second implication is in discerning the mechanism by which this particular genetic haplotype underlies the high-penetrance epigenetic inactivation of MLH1 throughout the soma. Faithful dominant inheritance of the MLH1 epimutation with this genetic haplotype provides clear evidence that its epigenetic manifestations are caused by a genetic defect located on this haplotype. However, the candidate region within which the causative genetic defect is presumably located, is now defined by the ≤2.6 Mb minimal region of haplotype overlap between the four families. We found no evidence for large copy number changes within this region; however, this does not rule out more subtle alterations. The c.−27C>A variant remains the prime candidate underlying the MLH1 epimutation on this haplotype. In support of this, artificial promoter reporter assays have shown this substitution results in significantly diminished transcriptional output.10, 17 However, a clear mechanistic link between this SNV and epigenetic modification of the MLH1 promoter remains to be demonstrated. Irrespective of the precise molecular mechanism via which the MLH1 epimutation is induced on this founder haplotype, or whether the c.−27C>A variant is indeed responsible, the c.−27C>A and c.85G>T SNVs can serve as markers for this disease-causing genetic haplotype.
References
Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM et al: The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34: 424–425.
Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP et al: Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Ntl Cancer Instit 2004; 96: 261–268.
Peltomaki P, Vasen H : Mutations associated with HNPCC predisposition − update of ICG-HNPCC/INSiGHT mutation database. Dis Markers 2004; 20: 269–276.
Ligtenberg MJ, Kuiper RP, Chan TL et al: Heritable somatic methylation and inactivation of MSH2 in families with Lynch syndrome due to deletion of the 3' exons of TACSTD1. Nat Genet 2009; 41: 112–117.
Kolodner RD : Mismatch repair: mechanisms and relationship to cancer susceptibility. Trends Biochem Sci 1995; 20: 397–401.
Rasmussen LJ, Heinen CD, Royer-Pokora B et al: Pathological assessment of mismatch repair gene variants in Lynch syndrome: past present, and future. Hum Mutat 2012; 33: 1617–1625.
Raevaara TE, Korhonen MK, Lohi H et al: Functional significance and clinical phenotype of nontruncating mismatch repair variants of MLH1. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 537–549.
Muller-Koch Y, Kopp R, Lohse P et al: Sixteen rare sequence variants of the hMLH1 and hMSH2 genes found in a cohort of 254 suspected HNPCC (hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer) patients: mutations or polymorphisms? Eur J Med Res 2001; 6: 473–482.
Green RC, Green AG, Simms M et al: Germline hMLH1 promoter mutation in a Newfoundland HNPCC kindred. Clin Genet 2003; 64: 220–227.
Ward RL, Dobbins T, Lindor NM et al: Identification of constitutional MLH1 epimutations and promoter variants in colorectal cancer patients from the Colon Cancer Family Registry. Genet Med 2013; 15: 25–35.
Gazzoli I, Loda M, Garber J et al: A hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma case associated with hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene in normal tissue and loss of heterozygosity of the unmethylated allele in the resulting microsatellite instability-high tumor. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 3925–3928.
Hitchins M, Williams R, Cheong K et al: MLH1 germline epimutations as a factor in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1392–1399.
Hitchins MP, Ward RL : Erasure of MLH1 methylation in spermatozoa-implications for epigenetic inheritance. Nat Genet 2007; 39: 1289.
Hitchins MP, Wong JJ, Suthers G et al: Inheritance of a cancer-associated MLH1 germ-line epimutation. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 697–705.
Pineda M, Mur P, Iniesta MD et al: MLH1 methylation screening is effective in identifying epimutation carriers. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20: 1256–1264.
Morak M, Koehler U, Schackert HK et al: Biallelic MLH1 SNP cDNA expression or constitutional promoter methylation can hide genomic rearrangements causing Lynch syndrome. J Med Genet 2011; 48: 513–519.
Hitchins MP, Rapkins RW, Kwok CT et al: Dominantly inherited constitutional epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in a cancer-affected family is linked to a single nucleotide variant within the 5'UTR. Cancer Cell 2011; 20: 200–213.
Hitchins M, Owens S, Kwok CT et al: Identification of new cases of early-onset colorectal cancer with an MLH1 epimutation in an ethnically diverse South African cohort(dagger). Clin Genet 2011; 80: 428–434.
Wang L, Baudhuin LM, Boardman LA et al: MYH mutations in patients with attenuated and classic polyposis and with young-onset colorectal cancer without polyps. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 9–16.
Goel A, Nguyen TP, Leung HC et al: De novo constitutional MLH1 epimutations confer early-onset colorectal cancer in two new sporadic Lynch syndrome cases, with derivation of the epimutation on the paternal allele in one. Int J Cancer 2011; 128: 869–878.
Kwok CT, Ward RL, Hawkins NJ et al: Detection of allelic imbalance in MLH1 expression by pyrosequencing serves as a tool for the identification of germline defects in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 2010; 9: 345–356.
Barrett JC, Fry B, Maller J et al: Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 263–265.
Domingo E, Laiho P, Ollikainen M et al: BRAF screening as a low-cost effective strategy for simplifying HNPCC genetic testing. J Med Genet 2004; 41: 664–668.
Abecasis GR, Auton A, Brooks LD et al: An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature 2012; 491: 56–65.
Acknowledgements
MPH was supported by Fellowships from the Australian NHMRC and Cancer Institute NSW. This project was funded by the NHMRC and Cancer Council NSW. Our thanks go to Professor Henry T Lynch for helpful comments regarding these cases, Dr Fred H Menko from the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam for assistance with genetic counselling of Netherlands Family 3 and Eugene TP Verwiel for assistance with bioinformatics analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on European Journal of Human Genetics website
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwok, CT., Vogelaar, I., van Zelst-Stams, W. et al. The MLH1 c.-27C>A and c.85G>T variants are linked to dominantly inherited MLH1 epimutation and are borne on a European ancestral haplotype. Eur J Hum Genet 22, 617–624 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.200
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.200
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome
Journal of Translational Medicine (2023)
-
Highly sensitive MLH1 methylation analysis in blood identifies a cancer patient with low-level mosaic MLH1 epimutation
Clinical Epigenetics (2019)
-
Primary constitutional MLH1 epimutations: a focal epigenetic event
British Journal of Cancer (2018)
-
Finding the needle in a haystack: identification of cases of Lynch syndrome with MLH1 epimutation
Familial Cancer (2016)
-
Update on Lynch syndrome genomics
Familial Cancer (2016)