The subcellular location and function of many proteins are regulated by nuclear–cytoplasmic shuttling. BRCA1 and BARD1 provide an interesting model system for understanding the influence of protein dimerization on nuclear transport and localization. These proteins function predominantly in the nucleus to regulate cell cycle progression, DNA repair/recombination and gene transcription, and their export to the cytoplasm has been linked to apoptosis. Germ‐line mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 and BARD1 genes predispose to risk of breast/ovarian cancer, and certain mutations impair protein (...) function and nuclear accumulation. BRCA1 and BARD1 shuttle between the nucleus and cytoplasm; however heterodimerization masks the nuclear export signals located within each protein, causing nuclear retention of the BRCA1–BARD1 complex and potentially influencing its role in DNA repair, cell survival and regulation of centrosome duplication. This review discusses BRCA1, BRCA2 and BARD1 subcellular localization with emphasis on regulation of transport by protein dimerization and its functional implications. BioEssays 27:884–893, 2005. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers are frequently attributed to germline mutations in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. BRCA1/2 act to repair double‐strand breaks (DSBs) and suppress the demise of unstable replication forks. Our work elucidated a dynamic interplay between BRCA2 and the WRN DNA helicase/exonuclease defective in the premature aging disorder Werner syndrome. WRN and BRCA2 participate in complementary pathways to stabilize replication forks in cancer cells, allowing them to proliferate. Whether the functional overlap of (...) WRN and BRCA2 is relevant to replication at gaps between newly synthesized DNA fragments, protection of telomeres, and/or metabolism of secondary DNA structures remain to be determined. Advances in understanding the mechanisms elicited during replication stress have prompted the community to reconsider avenues for cancer therapy. Insights from studies of PARP or topoisomerase inhibitors provide working models for the investigation of WRN's mechanism of action. We discuss these topics, focusing on the implications of the WRN‐BRCA2 genetic interaction under conditions of replication stress. (shrink)

From the late 1980s, scientists began concentrating their search for genes presumed responsible for inherited tendencies to get ovarian and breast cancers on chromosome 17. The Berkeley group and others around the world were closing in on the sequence when Mark Skolnick, a founder of Myriad Genetics, announced successfully isolating and cloning the BRCA1 mutation. In 1994, Myriad and other cooperating parties first filed a patent for the BRCA1 mutation they isolated and then in 1995 they also filed patents for (...) what is known as BRCA2, a related mutation. By 1996, Myriad developed and began marketing “BRCAnalysis™,” their predictive test for the presence of possibly cancer‐causing mutations. Shortly after the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) filed its case against Myriad, a series of cases went up to the US Supreme Court that set the stage for its eventual decision in Myriad, and revisited the subject of Section 101 patent‐eligibility. (shrink)

Myriad Genetics holds a patent on testing for the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, and therefore has a forced monopoly on this critical genetic test. Myriad launched a Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) marketing campaign in the Northeast United States in September 2007 and plans to expand that campaign to Florida and Texas in 2008. The ethics of Myriad's patent, forced monopoly and DTC campaign will be reviewed, as well as the impact of this situation on patient access (...) and care, physician liability, and the future of DTC campaigns for genetic testing. (shrink)

In late 2021, tennis star Chris Evert learned new genetic information about her sister, who died from ovarian cancer in January 2020. As Evert has explained in posts published by ESPN, her sister had a variant in the BRCA1 gene that was reclassified—upgraded—from a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) to pathogenic. Hearing about the variant’s reclassification likely saved Evert’s life. After getting genetic testing that showed she also carried the variant, Evert underwent prophylactic surgery. Clinical testing associated with the procedure (...) revealed she already had stage 1c ovarian cancer. The Wall Street Journal reported on a different variant reclassification story in 2019. Seven female relatives had prophylactic surgeries after cascade genetic testing indicated they each carried the same pathogenic variant in BRCA2. However, there was significant distress and confusion when one of the women received notice that the variant had been downgraded from pathogenic to a VUS. As these cases illustrate, reclassification of the clinical significance of genetic variants—which ranges from pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain, likely benign and benign—can have profound impacts on individuals and families. Although genetic testing often provides valuable information, many identified variants are of uncertain significance, even in genes associated with disease. Many of these VUS will be reclassified as genomic data …. (shrink)

Suppose that you have deeply personal information that you do not want to share. Further suppose that this information could help others, perhaps even saving their lives. Should you reveal the information or keep it secret? With the increasing prevalence of genetic testing, more and more people are finding themselves in this situation. Although a patient's genetic results are potentially relevant to all her biological family members, her first‐degree relatives—parents, children, and full siblings—are most likely to be affected. This is (...) especially true for genetic mutations—like those in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes—that are associated with a dramatically increased risk of disease. Fortunately, people are usually willing to share results with their at‐risk relatives. Occasionally, however, a patient refuses to disclose her findings to anyone outside her clinical team. Ethicists have written little on patients’ moral duties to their at‐risk relatives. Moreover, the few accounts that have been advanced are problematic. Some unnecessarily expose patients’ genetic information to relatives who are unlikely to benefit from it, and others fail to ensure that patients’ most vulnerable relatives are informed of their genetic risks. Patients’ duty to warn can be defended in a way that avoids these problems. I argue that the duty to share one's genetic results is grounded in the principle of rescue—the idea that one ought to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risk of harm to another person when the expected harm is serious and the cost or risk to oneself is sufficiently moderate. When these two criteria are satisfied, a patient will most likely have a duty to warn. (shrink)

. On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, holding that a naturally occurring DNA segment that has merely been “isolated” is not patent eligible, and effectively overturning a longstanding policy that had allowed for patents to be issued on thousands of human genes. Drawing largely on the expert testimony and arguments presented during the court proceedings, this paper provides an overview of the discovery and patenting of the BRCA1 (...) and BRCA2 genes at issue in the case, the impacts of gene patents on biomedical research and innovation and clinical practice, and the legal analysis presented by the plaintiffs throughout the case for how patents issued on genes violate the Patent Act and the U.S. Constitution. Finally, it discusses how the Court’s decision in this case marked an extraordinary victory not only for the plaintiffs directly involved, but more generally for women, patients, researchers, civil liberties, and the future of medicine. (shrink)

This study examines the representations of human gene patents in Chinese newspapers. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of news articles published between 2006 and 2017 to identify the major themes in media coverage, ethical considerations, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes towards the patentability of human genes. The results show that two key ethical concerns were expressed by journalists: that it is morally wrong to own or patent human genes and that gene patents could potentially impede patients’ access (...) to healthcare services. Nonetheless, the press coverage has tended to be largely favorable, rather than opposed to human gene patenting. There were no normative claims that human genes should not be patentable in China, which indicates a generally positive attitude towards patentability in media discourse. Most articles that expressed criticism toward gene patenting discussed challenges in other countries, with significant attention given to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Myriad case that invalidated Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Overall, the newspapers were uncritical of the Chinese gene patenting regime. News reporting on the issue was highly suggestive of a strong pro-commercialization stance, although some discussions emphasized potential risks over benefits. Our analysis highlights the need for balanced media reporting on human gene patents in China and a top-down approach to engage the public in substantive discussions on the ethical and societal implications of the existing patent regime. (shrink)

AimTo examine the relative cost-effectiveness of predictive genetic tests for familial breast and ovarian cancer provided by Genetic Services of Western Australia.MethodsThe relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using a decision analytic model.ResultsThe cost and outcomes of genetic testing was compared in first-degree relatives of known BRCA1/2 mutation-carriers who have a 50% risk of carrying the mutated gene (intervention group) to individuals with the same a priori risk but who do not undergo a genetic test (control subjects).Since genetic testing enables the restriction (...) of intensive surveillance to individuals with an identified BRCA1/2 gene mutation, net savings in the period observed (age 25-70) were $980-$1008 per woman in the ovarian intervention group and $1681-$1795 per woman in the breast intervention group, and delayed the onset of breast cancer (6mths BRCA1, 3mths BRCA2).Compared to control subjects undergoing population surveillance, it was estimated the onset of breast cancer could be delayed at a total net cost of $3055 (5.1yrs) to $3389 (3.2yrs) for women in the breast intervention group with BRCA1/2 mutations. Since population surveillance is not currently recommended for ovarian cancer, control subjects undergoing no surveillance were compared with the intervention group. The onset of ovarian cancer was delayed at a net cost of $1630 (3.5yrs) to $2509 (1.2years) for women with BRCA1/2 mutations.ConclusionsTesting allows targeted high-level surveillance for gene mutation carriers, which ensures the cost-effective use of resources and reduces cancer-related morbidity if clinical recommendations for intervention are adopted. (shrink)

Possession of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation puts a woman at very high risk of developing breast and ovarian carcinoma at an early age. One treatment option is surgical removal of the target organs—breasts, ovaries, and fallopian tubes—before the malignancy develops. This risk-reduction surgery has been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood that a woman will develop one of these cancers. This paper argues that such surgeries do not violate Catholic moral principles, but can be justified using the (...) principles of double effect and totality and integrity. The paper does not recommend or endorse any specific treatment option. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 15.1 : 75–89. (shrink)

Background Genetic testing is moving from targeted investigations of monogenetic diseases to broader testing that may provide more information. For example, recent health economic studies of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer suggest that it is associated with higher cost-effectiveness to screen for pathogenic variants in a seven gene panel rather than the usual two gene test for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, irrespective of the extent to which the screening of the panel is cost-effective, (...) there may be ethical reasons to not screen for pathogenic variants in a panel, or to revise the way in which testing and disclosing of results are carried out. Main text In this paper we discuss the ethical aspects of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer with a special focus on the ethical differences between screening for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and a seven gene panel. The paper identifies that the panel increases the number of secondary findings as well as the number of variants of uncertain significance as two specific issues that call for ethical reflection. Conclusions We conclude that while the problem of handling secondary findings should not be overstated with regard to the panel, the fact that the panel also generate more variants of uncertain significance, give rise to a more complex set of problems that relate to the value of health as well as the value of autonomy. Therefore, it is insufficient to claim that the seven gene panel is preferable by only referring to the higher cost effectiveness of the panel. (shrink)

Fanconi anaemia (FA) is a cancer‐prone genetic disorder that is characterised by cytogenetic instability and redox abnormalities. Although rare subtypes of FA (B, D1 and D2) have been implicated in DNA repair through links with BRCA1 and BRCA2, such a role has yet to be demonstrated for gene products of the common subtypes. Instead, these products have been strongly implicated in xenobiotic metabolism and redox homeostasis through interactions of FANCC with cytochrome P‐450 reductase and with glutathione S‐transferase, and of (...) FANCG with cytochrome P‐450 2E1, as well as redox‐dependent signalling through an interaction between FANCA and Akt kinase. We hypothesise that FA proteins act directly (via FANCC and FANCG) and indirectly (via FANCA, BRCA2 and FANCD2) with the machinery of cellular defence to modulate oxidative stress. The latter interactions may co‐ordinate the link between the response to DNA damage and oxidative stress parameters (3, 6–12). BioEssays 25:589–595, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Mitnovetski and Nicol provide a stimulating and thorough discussion of patenting of medical methods of treatment— an area of law that interests patent lawyers, medical practitioners, and the public. However, a consideration of alternative perspectives to their account of the exclusion of medical methods of treatment from patentability undermines the rhetorical force of their conclusion that there are “strong ordre public and morality reasons and “generally convenient” reasons to justify the existence of such patents”. I set out below four counter (...) arguments to their claims that could lead to a more balanced consideration of whether medical methods should be patented.TWO EXAMPLESFirstly, the patentability of medical methods of treatment cannot be discussed in isolation from the larger current normative debate about the justice of patenting medical technologies. Although much of what the authors discuss is necessarily speculative because it involves patenting inventions that have not previously been patentable, two cases present concrete instances of the impact of granting patent rights on healthcare. The first is the example of Myriad Genetics Inc, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, which has patented the genetic diagnostic test for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer mutations in the US and, to a lesser extent, in Europe. It is enforcing its patent rights to require national healthcare systems to pay its highly increased fee to conduct the test in Atlanta, when hospitals can perform the test locally much more cheaply and efficiently. Many, including the Curie Institute, which is spearheading opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office, argue that allowing such technologies to be patented undermines socialised healthcare regimes, inadvertently leading to privatisation and diminished access to healthcare. Many women have not been able to access the test due to its high cost.A second well known example concerns access in developing countries to life saving drugs …. (shrink)

Persons exhibiting mutations in two tumor suppressor genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, have a greatly increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. The incidence of BRCA gene mutation is very high in Ashkenazi Jewish women of European descent, and many issues can arise, particularly for observant Orthodox women, because of their genetic status. Their obligations under the Jewish code of ethics, referred to as Jewish law, with respect to the acceptability of various risk-reducing strategies, may be poorly understood. In (...) this article the moral direction that Jewish law gives to women regarding testing, confidentiality, and other issues is explored. The intent is to broaden nurses' knowledge of how a particular religious tradition could impact on decision making around genetics testing, with the aim of enhancing their understanding of culturally sensitive ethical care. (shrink)

The concept ‘hereditary breast cancer’ is commonly used to delineate a group of people genetically at risk for breast cancer—all of whom also having risk for other cancers. People carrying pathogenic variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are often referred to as those having predisposition for ‘hereditary breast cancer’. The two genes, however, are when altered, associated with different risks for and dying from breast cancer. The main risk for dying for carriers of both genes is from ovarian (...) cancer. These biological facts are of philosophical interest, because they are the facts underlying the public debate on BRCA1/2 genetic testing as a model for the discussion of how to implement genetic knowledge and technologies in personalized medicine. A contribution to this public debate describing inherited breast cancer as ‘biological citizenship’ recently printed in Med Health Care and Philos illustrated how fragmented and detached from the biological and socio-political facts this debate sometimes is. We here briefly summarize some of the biological facts and how they are implemented in today’s healthcare based on agreed philosophical, ethical and moral principles. The suggestion of a ‘biological citizenship’ defined by hereditary breast cancer is incorrect and ill-advised. ‘Identity politics’ focusing hereditary breast cancer patients as a group based on a bundle of ill-defined negative arguments is well known, but is supported neither by scientific nor philosophical arguments. To those born with the genetic variants described, the philosophical rule of not doing harm is violated by unbalanced negative arguments. (shrink)

In November 2003, researchers at Cambridge University announced they had identified a gene associated with an elevated risk of breast and related ovarian cancers. The gene—christened EMSY in honor of a breast-cancer nurse who is the sister of the study's lead author—is particularly significant because it is linked to so-called sporadic cancers. Such cancers do not arise from hereditary mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, in which genes that ordinarily prevent breast and ovarian cancers are altered, often giving (...) rise to multiple cases of cancer within a family as the mutation is passed along. The Cambridge researchers determined that the presence of extra copies of EMSY in an individual may instead switch off a healthy BRCA2 gene. (shrink)

This article presents the results of a study that investigates the way in which carriers of a mutation on the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene, associated with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer, make their reproductive decisions. Using semi-structured interviews, the study explored the way in which these persons reflected on the acceptability of taking the risk of transmitting this mutation to the next generation, the arguments they used in favor or against taking that risk, and in (...) the light of these arguments, their opinion on the acceptability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) as a reproductive option. The findings suggest that when carriers are planning to have a(nother) child, they are mainly concerned by the risk of transmitting ‘much more than a gene’: essentially painful experiences not only with respect to health, such as undergoing cancer surveillance or combatting one’s own illness, but also with regards to family life, such as witnessing the illness and death of a close relative, encountering difficulties in finding a partner or reconsidering one’s plans to have a family. As for opinions concerning the acceptability of PGD as a reproductive option, opinions about personal recourse were varied but all expressed the understanding that PGD should be made available to those persons who consider it their best option. (shrink)

This paper examines the legal and ethical aspects of traceback testing, a process in which patients who have been previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer are identified and offered genetic testing so that their family members can be informed of their genetic risk and can also choose to undergo testing. Specifically, this analysis examines the ethical and legal limits in implementing traceback testing in cases when the patient is deceased and can no longer consent to genetic testing.