From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Faulty gene[edit]

Some text in this article was originally taken from (public domain)

I altered this article by adding "faulty" into the sentence "Women and men who inherit a copy of this gene...". This is because it is not the gene which causes an increased risk of cancer, but the presence of a faulty copy of the gene. A faulty copy means the gene's tumour-suppressing abilities cannot be expressed.

It is good that at least a stub is present on the BRCA genes. However, it would be best if both of these were extensively modified. As a first pass, I'd like to see the following: 1. Differential between genetic/familial breast csncers in age of onset (BRCA mutations are far more common in early onset disease) 2. Discussion of associated risks including recurrence on the other side, risks to males carrying mutations, and risks to first degree relatives. 3. Discussion of other cancers at increased risk in BRCA mutaion carriers 4. discussion of differences in clinical presentation of BRCA1 vs BRCA2 carriers 5. Increased prevalence of mutations in Ashkenazi jews This is not my specific field, and it would be great for a specialist to edit these.

adding ProteinBoxBot content[edit]

Anyone have any thoughts on how/if we should merge the existing infobox with the one generated using the ProteinBoxBot (shown at right)?

Breast cancer 1, early onset
Protein BRCA1 PDB 1jm7.png
PDB rendering based on 1jm7.
Available structures
PDB Ortholog search: PDBe, RCSB
External IDs OMIM113705 MGI104537 HomoloGene5276 ChEMBL: 5990 GeneCards: BRCA1 Gene
RNA expression pattern
PBB GE BRCA1 204531 s at.png
PBB GE BRCA1 211851 x at.png
More reference expression data
Species Human Mouse
Entrez 672 12189
Ensembl ENSG00000012048 ENSMUSG00000017146
UniProt P38398 P48754
RefSeq (mRNA) NM_007294 NM_009764
RefSeq (protein) NP_009225 NP_033894
Location (UCSC) Chr 17:
41.2 – 41.32 Mb
Chr 11:
101.49 – 101.55 Mb
PubMed search [1] [2]

AndrewGNF 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the existing protein box with the GNF_Protein_box. The later contained all the information in the former with the exception of information domains and motifs. The the domain and motif information has been included in a new structure section. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


JAMA - Hispanics in Northern California have a lot of BRCA1. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to a forward article, those Hispanics are descendents of conversos who fled the Spanish Inquisition. Further, it refers to BCRA1 is a Jewish marker. See Mulp (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Demographic distribution[edit]

The prevalence rates in different parts of the world, and among different ethnicities, should be stated on the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


May I suggest that section be turned into a table? E.g. BRCA1 is know to interact with a number of molecules. They are: etc...Calaka (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the interactions have been controversial (BRCA1 interacting with Xist comes to mind). Perhaps going over the list is in order.--Pjlmac (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, what a mess. I second changing it to a table, and perhaps reviewing it (does each one really need 6 or 7 references?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have converted the interaction list into a bulleted list and wrapped in a {{div col}} template specifying a fixed column width such that the number of columns dynamically adjusts to the width of the browser window. Does it look OK now? Boghog (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article would be easier to read and edit if we move this list of interactions (and their many references) to a separate article (BRCA1 interactions ?) ? Rod57 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that spliting out an interaction article is a good idea. For one thing, this creates extra work in creating and maintaining the new article with little if any benefit. One of the justifications for adding lists of known protein-protein interactions to Gene Wiki pages was to reduce the number of orphan articles. BRCA1 is an extreme example that interacts with many other proteins. The interaction section is confined to its own section in the article, therefore I don't see how including this section in the BRCA1 article interferes with editing of the rest of the article. The readability problem may be a problem, especially when viewing with Internet Explorer before version 8 where the list is not displayed in columns. The reference list on the other hand is very long. This could be condensed somewhat by grouping citation and perhaps restricting the citation to review articles. Boghog (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A general discussion of this topic is found at: Portal:Gene_Wiki/Discussion#Split_out_Interactions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

breast cancer[edit]

I have a lump behind my nipple which very painful itchy, and leaking substance. I have already had 1 course of antibiotics and it hasnt cleared, could this be just an abyss or breast cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazzies123 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Create BRCA_mutations_overview?[edit]

I am contemplating creating something like that for following purposes:

  • easy entry/link point for articles such as breast cancer
  • gathering epidemiologic and treatment relevant information as much of the available publications deal with all variants or do not distinguish them
  • giving pointers to stuff like jewish ashkenazi inteligence theory that would seem somewhat offtopic in either BRCA1/2 articles

Thoughts? Richiez (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikael Häggström was quicker and created BRCA mutation :) Richiez (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Virus Regulation Help?[edit]

Frank Ryan claims in Virolution, p. 142, that endogenous retroviral sequences help in the expression of BRCA-1 (and other human genes). Supposedly demonstrated by a Roy J Britten in 1996. Not sure if this useful in this context, though.

Effect on Gene Testing Edit[edit]

I am adjusting the wording in the 3rd paragraph of the "Effect on Gene Testing" section because it is lacking depth and, more importantly, citations.

The old paragraph read:

"However, the patents have yet to be enforced in Europe, where BRCA research and testing is becoming more widely available, and several laboratories are currently offering their own BRCA testing. The UK firm NewGene offers the test at a very competitive price, to the NHS, its owner, only."

The new Paragraph will read:

"However, the patents have yet to be enforced in Europe, where BRCA research and testing is becoming more widely available, and several laboratories are currently using their own genetic tests rather than pay expensive fees to Myriad. [1][2] Controversial issues surrounding European laboratories operating in violation to Myriad’s patents are absent because it seems that Myriad is not interested in actively enforcing their patents in Europe. Peter Meldrum, CEO of Myriad Genetics, affirms his stance that Myriad has “other competitive advantages that may make such [patent] enforcement unnecessary.”[3] Jwalkfour (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


just a heads up... there are way too many primary science papers used as sources for this article. It looks like a scientific review article instead of a wikipedia article. As per WP:PSTS secondary and tertiary sources are "go to" - primary sources are "to be avoided". I am going to try to scrape together some time to properly source this doggy.Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think secondary sources are more critical for the clinical parts of this article (Mutations and cancer risk and Germ line mutations and founder effect) than the scientific (gene, function, structure, interactions) (compare WP:MEDRS with WP:SCIRS). Please keep in mind that a secondary source is not automatically better than a primary source (e.g., a superficial review article published in an obscure journal vs a highly cited primary source in a peer reviewed journal). Of course, if relevant high quality review articles published in high impact journals are available, those should be used in preference to primary sources. Boghog (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks BogHog. I will source it well - we have no need to get into a pre-fight. Quick note, though. WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The policies in WP:PSTS govern sourcing in all articles; the guidelines in WP:MEDRS are within WP:PSTS and add additional requirements to WP:PSTS. I'm guessing that one reason that WP:SCIRS only has essay status is because of the way it would promote primary sources beyond what policy allows.Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Boghog - MEDRS is relevant for the clinical aspects but much less for underlying biology or etiology and pathogenesis sections. Even for the clinical aspects we need primary sources from time to time. Secondary sources are preferred but not when they are clearly outdated or insufficient. The clinical aspects should be in BRCA mutation though. Richiez (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
This is really not the place to have a sourcing debate; nor is it time yet b/c I haven't done anything. I will apply WP:PSTS and we will see what happens!Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, it wasn't me who deleted that citation. :) Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That is clear. :-) Boghog (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)