Search for associations of polymorphic variants of the MTHFR, MET, CHEK2 genes, identified through next-generation sequencing, with cervical cancer

Introduction. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the 4th most common cancer in women, and morbidity continues to grow. Supposedly, development of human papilloma virus-associated cervical cancer depends on genetic and epigenetic factors, but molecular pathogenesis of this pathology has not yet been established. Recently obtained data show that germline substitutions not only increase the risk of cancer but also affect tumor progression and form the picture of somatic changes in this malignant neoplasm.
Aim. To investigate germline variants of the MTHFR, MET and CHEK2 genes and evaluate their significance in development of genetic predisposition towards cervical cancer.
Materials and methods. DNA of 108 women with cervical cancer was analyzed. The comparison group included 51 patients with human papilloma virus elimination and 333 relatively healthy women. In the patient cohort, an analysis was performed using next-generation sequencing (NGS) and a custom panel aimed at genes participating in tumor designed by us. Additionally, clinical significance of the identified substitutions was evaluated using literature data, databases and bioinformatics methods. Additional association studies were performed for с.677С>Т and с.1298A>C variants of the MTHFR gene, c.2962C>T variant of the MET gene, с.972G>C variant of the CHEK2 gene.
Results. It was observed that polymorphic variants с.972G>C and c.1312С>A of the CHEK2 gene have pathogenic potential. Among 11 substitutions in the MET gene identified during the study, variants c.2962C>T, c.2975C>T and c.3895G>C are liable to be pathogenic. Correlations between T locus allele c.2962C>T of the MET gene (p = 0.002; χ2 = 9.8) and C locus allele с.972G>C of the CHEK2 gene (p = 0.05; χ2 = 3.8) with the risk of cervical cancer development were found.
Conclusion. During the study, a group of germline substitutions in the MTHFR, MET and CHEK2 genes with unclear clinical significance was identified. It was shown that substitutions с.972G>C and c.1312С>A in the CHEK2 gene and c.2962C>T, c.2975C>T, c.3895G>C in the MET gene have pathogenic potential in the context of cervical cancer. Additionally, previously unknown associations between loci c.2962C>T of the MET gene and с.972G>C of the CHEK2 gene with this pathology were described.

1. World Health Organization. Human papillomavirus and cancer Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papilloma-virus-and-cancer.

2. Beglyarzade S.A., Mukhametova R.R., Zhao B. Prospects for comprehensive screening and treatment of cervical cancer. Kreativnaya hirurgiya i onkologiya = Creative Surgery and Oncology 2024;14(1):60–8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24060/2076-3093-2024-14-1-60-68

3. Okunade K.S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol 2020;40(5):602–8. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1634030

4. Bril Yu.A., Raevskaya O.A. “Higgs bosons” of cervical neoplasia. Ginekologiya, akusherstvo, besplodnyi brak = Gynecology, Obstetrics, Infertile marriage 2019;3:74–81. (In Russ.).

5. Lenkova K.V., Khusainova R.I., Minniakhmetov I.R. Molecular and genetic bases of cervical cancer. Molekulyarnaya meditsina = Molecular Medicine 2023;4:25–33. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.29296/24999490-2023-04-04

6. Chanock S.J. How the germline informs the somatic landscape. Nat Genet 2021;53(11):1523–5. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-021-00960-6

7. Srinivasan P., Bandlamudi C., Jonsson P. et al. The context-specific role of germline pathogenicity in tumorigenesis. Nat Genet 2021;53(11):1577–85. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-021-00949-1

8. Hajiesmaeil M., Tafvizi F., Sarmadi S. The effect of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms on susceptibility to human papilloma virus infection and cervical cancer. Infect Genet Evol 2016;46:1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2016.10.012

9. Yi K., Yang L., Lan Z. et al. The association between MTHFR polymorphisms and cervical cancer risk: a system review and meta analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294(3):579–88. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4037-6

10. Wang Z., Li K., Ouyang L. et al. Effects of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase single-nucleotide polymorphisms on breast, cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer susceptibilities. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2021;12;7(3):169–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdtm.2021.06.003

11. Stolarova L., Kleiblova P., Janatova M. et al. CHEK2 germline variantsin cancer predisposition: stalemate rather than checkmate. Cells 2020;12;9(12):2675. DOI: 10.3390/cells9122675

12. Yang X., Liao H.Y., Zhang H.H. Roles of MET in human cancer. Clin Chim Acta 2022;15;525:69–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.12.017

13. Minniakhmetov I.R., Zabelin M.V., Olkov I.G. A pilot project for cervical cancer screening using HPV testing. Voprosy onkologii - Oncology Issues 2020;66(6):618–24. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37469/0507-3758-2020-66-6-618-624

14. Richards S., Aziz N., Bale S. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 2015;17(5):405–24. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30

15. Abou Tayoun A.N., Pesaran T., DiStefano M.T. et al. Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion. Hum Mutat 2018;39(11):1517–24. DOI: 10.1002/humu.23626

16. Brnich S.E., Abou Tayoun A.N., Couch F.J. et al. Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework. Genome Med 2019;12:3. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-019-0690-2

17. Rodrigues C.H.M., Pires D.E.V., Ascher D.B. DynaMut2: assessing changes in stability and flexibility upon single and multiple point missense mutations. Protein Sci 2021;30(1):60–9. DOI: 10.1002/pro.3942

18. Fleiss J.L., Levin B., Paik M.C. Statistical methods for rates and proportions 3rd edn. Hoboken, New Jersey John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2003. 200 p.

19. Mo H.N., Liu P. Targeting MET in cancer therapy. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2017;19;3(3):148–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdtm.2017.06.002

20. Qiu L., Feng H., Yu H. et al. Characterization of the genomic landscape in cervical cancer by next generation sequencing. Genes (Basel) 2022;13(2):287. DOI: 10.3390/genes13020287

21. Wen H., Xu Q., Sheng X. et al. Prevalence and landscape of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and their association with somatic phenotype in unselected chinese patients with gynecologic cancers. JAMA Netw Open 2023;3;6(7):e2326437. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26437

22. Lenkova K., Khusainova R., Minyazeva R. et al. Germline variants in proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in women with cervical cancer. Biomedicines 2024;12(11):2454. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12112454

23. Kumpula T.A., Koivuluoma S., Soikkonen L. et al. Evaluating the role of CHEK2 p.(Asp438Tyr) allele in inherited breast cancer predisposition. Fam Cancer 2023;22(3):291–4. DOI: 10.1007/s10689-023-00327-2

24. Tyner J.W., Fletcher L.B., Wang E.Q. et al. MET receptor sequence variants R970C and T992I lack transforming capacity. Cancer Res 2010;1;70(15):6233–7. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0429

25. Agarwal D., Hatzis C., Pusztai L. Functional polymorphisms in cancer. Oncoscience 2015;20;2(2):73–4. DOI: 10.18632/oncoscience.129

26. Guyard A., Danel C., Théou-Anton N. et al. Morphologic and molecular study of lung cancers associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other pulmonary fibroses. Respir Res 2017;15;18(1):120. DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0605-y

27. MTjin E.P., Groen R.W., Vogelzang I. et al. Functional analysis of HGF/MET signaling and aberrant HGF-activator expression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2006;15;107(2):760–8. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-1929

28. Ma P.C., Kijima T., Maulik G. et al. c-MET mutational analysis in small cell lung cancer: novel juxtamembrane domain mutations regulating cytoskeletal functions. Cancer Res 2003;1;63(19):6272–81.

29. Liu S., Meric-Bernstam F., Parinyanitikul N. et al. Functional consequence of the MET-T1010I polymorphism in breast cancer. Oncotarget 2015;20;6(5):2604–14. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.309