Next Article in Journal
Fertility Preservation in Pediatric Oncology: Results of a Single-Center Retrospective Study (2000–2018)
Previous Article in Journal
Peritoneal Cancer Index Dominates Prognosis After CRS–HIPEC for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Consecutive Single-Centre Cohort with 3-Year Follow-Up
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/cancers17223611
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees

by
Alyssa I. Clay-Gilmour
1,2,*,
Nicola J. Camp
3,
Xiaomu Wei
4,
Angel Earle
2,
Aaron Norman
1,
Jason Sinnwell
1,
Delphine Demangel
5,
Rosalie Griffin
6,7,
Charles Dumontet
5,
James McKay
8,
Ken Offit
9,
Vijai Joseph
9,
Siwei Chen
10,
Daniel O’Brien
1,
Vincent Rajkumar
11,
Robert Klein
12,
Shaji Kumar
11,
Steve Lipkin
4 and
Celine M. Vachon
1,*
1
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
2
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
3
Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
4
Weill Cornell College of Medicine, University of Cornell, New York, NY 10021, USA
5
Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon/Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, 69373 Lyon, France
6
Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences Sciences Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
7
Department of Lymphoma & Myeloma, Cancer Medicine Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
8
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 69366 Lyon, France
9
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 60637, USA
10
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, NY 60637, USA
11
Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
12
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2025, 17(22), 3611; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223611
Submission received: 19 September 2025 / Revised: 28 October 2025 / Accepted: 3 November 2025 / Published: 10 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Insights into the Etiology of Lymphoma)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

People with relatives who have multiple myeloma or its early condition, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, face higher risk. Most research has focused on common DNA changes, but these do not explain all inherited risk. We studied 79 families with two or more affected relatives and examined their protein-coding DNA to find regions that are passed down together with disease. We found strong evidence that a stretch of chromosome 6 (q22.33–q24.2) is linked to risk. Within this region, we highlighted 14 rare variants predicted to affect gene function; nine reside in areas that regulate immune cells. This work shows that family-based DNA linkage can uncover risk regions missed by previous approaches and points to new genes and pathways that may help explain—and ultimately predict—risk for multiple myeloma and its precursor.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Family history is a known risk factor for multiple myeloma (MM) and its precursor condition, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Previous genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified 35 common loci associated with MM risk and 21 associated with MGUS. The objective of this study was to identify less common and rare genetic loci predisposing to MM/MGUS through whole-exome sequencing (WES)-based linkage analysis. Methods:Multipoint linkage analysis was conducted using the Multipoint Engine for Rapid Likelihood Inference (MERLIN) with the Lander–Green algorithm on germline WES data from 79 pedigrees with 2 or more affected relatives (120 MM, 86 MGUS, and 21 unaffected). Genome-wide linkage was evaluated using 12,946 independent single-nucleotide variants (linkage disequilibrium r2 < 0.05). Results: Significant linkage was observed at chromosome 6q22.33–q24.2 by the non-parametric model (logarithm-of-odds (LOD) = 3.3) and suggestive linkage by the dominant parametric model (heterogeneity LOD (HLOD) = 2.5). Fourteen rare variants within this region were prioritized using family-specific partial LOD scores and in silico functional prediction tools. Nine of these variants, REPS1, THEMIS, TAAR6, AHI1, VNN1, VNN3, MTFR2/FAM54A, LAMA2, and PHACTR2, overlapped immune-regulatory regions in blood cell lines and were not previously identified in GWASs. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the utility of applying a linkage analysis framework to familial WES data for identifying genomic regions and candidate genes that may contribute to MM/MGUS predisposition. These findings provide new insight into the inherited risk and etiology of familial MM and MGUS.

1. Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the result of a malignant transformation of plasma cells that is preceded by the presence of an asymptomatic clonal plasma cell expansion, a condition referred to as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) [1,2,3]. Studies have reported familial clustering of MM with MGUS, other B-cell malignancies, and solid tumors, indicating a potential shared genetic predisposition [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Studies focused on family history of MM have shown a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of MM among individuals with an affected first-degree relative [4,11,14,24]. We [22] and others [15] have shown a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of MGUS among first-degree relatives of individuals with MM or MGUS.
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) conducted in populations of European ancestry (EA) have established 35 loci contributing to germline MM susceptibility [25,26,27,28,29,30], and 21 risk loci have been identified for MGUS [9,31,32]. Most of these variants identified are common (minor allele frequency > 0.05), confer relatively small increments in risk (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.10 to 1.63), and explain only a portion of the heritability [29,30,33]. Like other complex traits, identifying the missing heritability remains a priority [34,35].
Less common and rare variants may explain some of the missing heritability for complex traits [36,37,38]. Historically, family pedigrees have been used for identifying highly penetrant rare variants that contribute to diseases, including cancers [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Using linkage analysis, investigators can agnostically interrogate the genome for germline regions that co-segregate with disease among family members and count recombinations to delineate disease-harboring regions. Several sequencing studies, some within families, have already suggested rare variants contributing to MM susceptibility in genes, including KIF18A [47], USP45/ARID1A [48], CDKN2A [49], DIS3 [50], LSD1 [51], BTNL2 [52], EOMES [52], TNFRSF13B [52], IRF8 [52], ACOXL [52] and TSPAN32 [52]. Catalano et al. identified 109 rare germline MM risk variants in 21 families with 46 affected and 20 unaffected members using an in-house Familial Cancer Variant Prioritization Pipeline [53]. Several of these 109 risk variants are functionally related to previously identified MM rare variants (KMT2A/LSD1, USP28) [53]. Niazi et al. prioritized and characterized 150 variants located in upstream, 5′ untranslated region (UTR), and 3′ UTRs from 14 MM families, reaffirming biological pathways previously implicated in MM development [54]. Given the evidence to date, a polygenic model of common and rare variants likely contributes to MM/MGUS risk.
A major challenge for complex traits is mapping potential risk variants located in regulatory regions to coding regions in the genome [55,56]. Localizing chromosomal regions using linkage analysis to target the variants is an instrument used to map traits to putative candidate genes in the genome [48]. In this study, we conduct a genome-wide linkage analysis of MM/MGUS pedigrees to identify and characterize genomic regions for MM/MGUS.

2. Materials and Methods

Study Population
Inclusion criteria
MM/MGUS families were recruited and ascertained from four sites: Mayo Clinic, University of Utah/Huntsman Cancer Institute, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All studies were conducted in accordance and approved by an Institutional Review Board at the respective institution. Informed written consent was obtained from all subjects. Families had at least two relatives diagnosed with MM and/or MGUS, and most consisted of a proband with confirmed MM diagnosis, meeting revised criteria of the International Myeloma Working Group. Early-onset familial MM cases were defined as those <50 years old at time of diagnosis. Unrelated, or sporadic, MM cases and controls with whole-exome data were identified from dbGaP (phs000748, phs000348, phs000179, phs000276, phs000403, phs000687, and phs000806) and used for follow-up and interrogation of linkage regions.
Whole-exome sequencing
Whole-exome sequencing (WES) data were generated from germline DNA extracted from peripheral blood from the family members. Whole-exome capture was performed using Agilent SureSelect 38 Mb(version 4) paired-end sequencing and processed on Illumina HiSeq 2000/2500 platforms (Illumina, Inc.; San Diego, CA, USA); standard alignment to GRCh37 and quality control procedures were applied. Briefly, variant calling was performed using the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) HaplotypeCaller [57] in per-sample mode, followed by joint genotyping. Quality control excluded variants with <75% call rate, <8× coverage, or minor allele frequency < 0.01 (based on 1000 Genomes). Whole-exome sequencing (WES) data from all studies, including publicly available datasets, were jointly processed. Samples and variants failing QC due to sex or relationship discrepancies, low coverage, or poor quality metrics were excluded.
Linkage Analysis
Study design, workflow, and prioritization scheme are shown in Figure 1. We conducted a whole-exome sequencing (WES)-based linkage study using multipoint linkage analysis using MERLIN (Multipoint Engine for Rapid Likelihood Inference using the Lander–Green approach) [58] and evaluated both non-parametric (non-parametric linkage (NPL) analysis [59]/Kong and Cox logarithm of the odds (LOD) score [60]) and parametric (mode of inheritance: dominant/recessive-heterogeneity logarithm of the odds (HLOD) scores [61]) models to test for co-segregation of chromosomal regions with MM/MGUS. This approach leverages family-based genetic information to identify shared rare variants that may not be detectable through case–control genome-wide association studies, providing complementary insights into inherited disease risk. Pedigrees were pruned using Kinship2 v1.9.6 [62] to exclude individuals lacking phenotype or genotype data who were not essential for defining kinship among remaining members. Models were adjusted for age and sex, and MM or MGUS diagnoses were considered as affected. For the linkage analysis, variants from the WES data were filtered for independence using both PLINK’s LD-based variant pruning (r2 > 0.05) [63] and MERLIN’s pairwise r2 marker clustering approach [58]. After quality control and LD filtering, 12,946 variants remained. LOD scores >3.3 were considered to provide significant evidence for linkage [64]. Support intervals were defined as the continuous genetic region surrounding the maximum LOD score, with LOD values no less than one unit below the peak [64,65].
After linkage analysis, support regions were defined as base-pair positions > 2 LODs on either side of a segregating linkage peak ≥ 3.0. We examined all variants in this region and retained those that had a higher minor allele frequency in familial or early-onset MM cases compared to sporadic MM cases and/or controls. Prioritization was then applied to variants that met the following criteria: (1) variant must be present in all sequenced affected MM and MGUS members (2+) in at least one family, (2) variant must be rarely or less commonly seen in an in-house database of non-cancer controls (Mayo Clinic Biobank [66]), 1K Genomes, or TOPMed, and (3) variant has to be predicted to be a functionally relevant by silico models/prediction tools (described in Functional Annotation Section below) and located in coding region. We tested for overlap of known common and rare variants previously reported within the linkage results and prioritized region/variants.
Pedigree segregation
We used the ‘perFamily’ function in Merlin to identify per family contributions to log-likelihood and LOD score of the prioritized variants within the segregating region. Family pedigrees contributing a partial contribution (pLOD) of >0.10 and at least one variant within the region were interrogated individually for segregating variants and visualized using R(version 3.4.2): Kinship2 package [62].
Functional Annotation
Several in silico tools were employed to annotate plausibly functional variants within a segregating region (Figure 1). Pathogenicity of the mutation analyzer (PathoMAN) was used to further predict the functionality of the variants [67]. Briefly, PathoMAN is an automated tool for germline variant curation from clinical sequencing data, based on guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics [67]. PathoMAN integrates diverse genomic, protein, and disease-specific data from public sources, including the Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor (VEP) [68], Polymorphism Phenotyping (PolyPhen-2) [69], and Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant (SIFT) [70]. VEP was used to assess the impact of variants, including SNPs, insertions, deletions, copy number variants (CNVs), and structural variants, on genes, transcripts, protein sequences, and regulatory regions [68]. PolyPhen-2 and SIFT were used to predict the potential effects of amino acid substitutions on protein structure and function [69,70]. We also performed a cell-type specific analysis using Functional Element Overlap Analysis of the Results of Genome-Wide Association Study Experiments (FORGE)-2 (https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/ (accessed on 17 September 2021)), which identifies tissue- or cell type-specific signal by analyzing sets of variants that overlap with epigenetic data peaks compared to matched background variants (obtained with similar transcription start site (TSS) distance/MAF/Genomic Control (GC) to our region) [71]. FORGE2 integrates data from DNase I hypersensitive sites (DHSs), histone mark ChIP-seq broad peaks, and hidden Markov model (HMM)-based chromatin states. It enables users to (1) catalog regulatory elements overlapping regions of interest and (2) identify enrichment of regulatory features [71]. In this study, FORGE2 analyses focused on blood cell types to explore potential regulatory elements and immune-related loci or genes overlapping our target regions. Lastly, we performed pathway analysis for the variants identified as functionally relevant using WEB-based GEne SeT AnaLysis Toolkit (WebGestalt), leveraging the overrepresentation analysis (ORA) enrichment method considering human enrichment categories in annotated KEGG pathways [72].
Further details on the analytical workflow, variant prioritization, and functional annotation are provided in the Supplemental Materials.

3. Results

A total of 79 pedigrees were eligible for linkage analyses: 28 consisted of only MM cases, 10 had only MGUS cases, and 41 had combined MM/MGUS cases (Table S1). Annotated pedigrees consisted of 1171 individuals, 141 MM cases, 99 MGUS, and 919 unaffected (Table S2), of which 227 individuals had jointly called WES data (120 MM (9 early onset), 86 MGUS and 21 unaffected relatives) (Table 1). Median ages of diagnosis among familial MM and MGUS cases were 63 and 66 years, respectively. MM and MGUS cases were primarily male and European American (Table 1). Among unrelated individuals, there were 1183 sporadic MM cases (63 early onset), and 6808 controls, with similar ages and sex distributions to the familial cases (Table 1).
Multipoint linkage analysis
Results from the linkage analysis are shown in Figure 2. Significant linkage was found at chromosome 6q22.33–6q24.2 (123,420,001–149,070,000, 25.6 Mb base-pair region), by the non-parametric model (LOD score = 3.3); the dominant parametric model showed suggestive evidence for linkage (HLOD = 2.5) at the same region (Figure 2). There was no evidence for linkage on any other chromosome (Figure S1).
Interrogation of region: 6q22.33–6q24.2
The 6q22.33–6q24.2 region lies outside the HLA-region and contains a total of 72 genes. We implemented the prioritization pipeline described in methods (Figure 1) and found 74 variants.
Sixteen pedigrees were identified as the strongest (partial LOD > 0.10 (range: 0.10–0.50) partial contributors to the significant linkage region; ten of those pedigrees had at least two of the seventy-four prioritized risk variants segregating within cases in a given pedigree, resulting in fourteen risk variants to further investigate (Table S3, Figure S2A–J, Table S4). These 14 variants were predicted to be functionally relevant using multiple sources (PathoMAN, VEP, Poly-Phen2, and SIFT), as either possibly/probably damaging or deleterious (Table S4). FORGE2 analysis identified regulatory elements overlapping with 9 of the 14 priority variants identified from the 6q22.33–6q24.2 region (Table S4). These nine variants (rs1044418 (REPS1), rs141326956 (THEMIS), rs17061409 (TAAR6), rs35851478 (AHI1), rs45610032 (VNN1), rs45623638 (VNN3), rs79645194 (MTFR2/FAM54A), rs112388307 (LAMA2), rs2073214 (PHACTR2)) were found to overlap with specific histone chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) peaks, histone markers in H3K36me3-transcribed regions, and H3K27me3-polycomb-repressed regions in immune/blood cell lines (Table S4).
Pathway Analysis
Pathway analysis of the genes that contained the 14 priority variants identified significant enrichment in the Pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis (hsa00770) pathway (Enrichment Ratio = 191.34, p = 0.00003, FDR-p = 0.01) for gene set consisting of VNN1 and VNN3.

4. Discussion

This linkage analysis identified 6q22.33–6q24.2 as a region harboring putative genes for MM and MGUS. We found several variants (n = 14) within genes (n = 12) that may contribute to this linkage signal and provide insight into the etiology of MM. While familial clustering and increased risk of disease among those with a family history of MM has been known for some time, to date, only a few family studies have utilized pedigrees to identify germline risk variants/genes for MM/MGUS.
While not all the 14 variants identified in our study have a clear link to MM/MGUS (REPS1, THEMIS, TAAR6, LAMA2, MTFR2/FAM54A), several (AHI1, VNN1, VNN3, PHACTR2) have had reported functional relevance in hematopoiesis and etiology of hematologic malignancies. ASNP rs2306029, in LAMA2 (Laminin Subunit Alpha 2), has been reported [73] to increase the substantial risk for Richter syndrome, a rare transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia to an aggressive type. Abelson helper integration site 1 (AHI1) is regulated at multiple stages of hematopoiesis, with significant dysregulation observed across various human leukemic cell lines, most notably in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) cell lines, where AHI1 transcript levels are elevated by up to 40-fold [74,75]. AHI1 expression has been shown to suppress autocrine production of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) [73]. TNF-α then induces myeloma cells to enter the cell cycle and supports the sustained growth of malignant plasma cell lines [76].
Vanin genes (VNN1 and VNN3; Vascular Non-Inflammatory Molecules 1 and 3) encode members of the vanin protein family, which share high sequence similarity [77]. This family includes both secreted and membrane-associated proteins, some of which have been implicated in hematopoietic cell trafficking [77]. VNN1 and VNN3 exhibit pantetheinase activity, which may contribute to the oxidative stress response [78] and influence the metabolism of proteasome inhibitor-resistant MM [79]. The Pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis (hsa00770) pathway was also found to be enriched in our study. VNN1 and VNN3 overlap with chromatin peaks in primary peripheral blood cell lines: T helper memory, T helper/CD8+ naïve, B-cells, T-cells, neutrophils, and monocytes. They also show overlap with regulatory peaks in B cells from cord blood and hematopoietic stem cells (Table S4). The phosphatase and actin regulator 2 (PHACTR2) gene has been shown to be important in the response to elevated platelet cytosolic Ca2+, which has also been demonstrated as an important potential pathway in MM [80].
To further explore the biological plausibility of the prioritized genes, we examined publicly available expression data from the GTEx project (https://gtexportal.org/ (accessed on 31 October 2025)) [81]. Expression levels varied across tissues: MTFR2 (FAM54A) showed high expression in EBV-transformed lymphocytes (median TPM ≈ 24), consistent with a role in B-cell-derived lineages. REPS1 and THEMIS exhibited measurable expression in whole blood (median TPM ≈ 3.8 and 1.5, respectively), supporting potential immune or hematopoietic relevance. In contrast, LAMA2 and TAAR6 demonstrated minimal or absent expression in blood (median TPM ≈ 0.07 and 0.0), suggesting that their involvement in MM/MGUS may occur through non-hematopoietic or regulatory mechanisms rather than direct plasma-cell expression.
Several genome-wide association studies have been conducted and identified 35 common risk variants associated with MM [29]. We did not find any of these 35 common risk variants segregating in MM/MGUS families (LOD < 3.0). However, five of these known common variants, rs3132535 (CCHCR1; 6p21.33), rs9386514 (ATG5; 6q21), rs34565965 (6p22.2), rs1050976 (6p25.3), and rs74875586 (6p22.3), are located on chromosome 6, and two were found to be in strong LD (D’ = 1.0) with our identified linkage variants. These include rs3132535 (CCHCR1; 6p21.33), rs9386514 (ATG5; 6q21), rs34565965 (6p22.2), rs1050976 (6p25.3), and rs74875586 (6p22.3), which are in LD with rs150672026 (BCLAF1; 6q22.31). Additionally, rs74875586 (6p22.3) is in LD with rs1044418 (REPS1; 6q22.32). The unexpected strong LD between variants on different arms of chromosome 6 warrants further investigation to understand the genetic and structural factors contributing to this observation. Several sequencing and/or family studies have also suggested rare variants contributing to MM susceptibility in genes: KIF18A [47], USP45/ARID1A [48], CDKN2A [49], DIS3 [50], LSD1 [51], BTNL2 [52], EOMES [52], TNFRSF13B [52], IRF8 [52], ACOXL [52] and TSPAN32 [52]. Waller et al. showed that sequencing genetically enriched MM cases, such as familial or early-onset cases, can uncover rare variants [48,52]. Using exome sequencing, they identified six recurrent, rare, and potentially deleterious variants within 5 kb of lymphoma-associated GWAS loci in 75 MM cases (BTNL2, EOMES, TNFRSF13B, IRF8, ACOXL, TSPAN32) [52]. All six genes replicated in an independent set of 255 early-onset, familial MM, or precursor cases. Expanded analysis of these gene regions revealed 39 rare deleterious variants, including 7 that segregated within MM families. IRF8 (P = 1.0 × 10−6), EOMES (P = 6.0 × 10−6), and BTNL2 (P = 2.1 × 10−3) showed significant rare variant burden in 733 sporadic MM cases versus 935 controls [52]. BTNL2 variants at 6p21.32, while residing on the same chromosome and arm as our linkage peak, did not have significant linkage (non-parametric (NP) LOD = 0.09, p = 0.26). Similarly, USP45 at 6q16 did not indicate significant linkage (NP LOD = 1.03, p = 0.01). Other studies have sought to utilize functional variant prioritization pipelines to identify familial MM risk variants. Catalano et al. identified 109 rare germline MM risk variants in 21 families with 46 affected and 20 unaffected members using an in-house Familial Cancer Variant Prioritization Pipeline [53]. Several of these 109 risk variants are functionally related to previously identified MM rare variants (KMT2A/LSD1, USP28) [53]. Niazi et al. analyzed 150 variants located in upstream, 5′ UTR, and 3′ UTRs across 14 MM families, ultimately identifying 20 prioritized variants [54]. None of these variants reside in our segregating region identified through linkage or indicate significant LOD scores in our families included in the analysis. This is not entirely unexpected given the rare nature of the variants and varying methods employed by each study. Together, all these studies and ours further support a polygenic model of common and rare variants likely contributing to MM/MGUS risk.
Linkage analysis is subject to several methodological and theoretical limitations that can substantially elevate the type I error rate and diminish the power to detect loci [82]. In our study, the large number of pedigrees with WES data and strict statistical significance cut-off minimize this limitation. Secondly, clinical and functional prediction tools should be interpreted cautiously as classifications can change based off new submissions and updates and can vary by the in silico model/tool being used. We used multiple up-to-date tools to characterize the variants within the segregating q22.33–q24.2 region on chromosome 6. Exome sequencing may miss regulatory intergenic regions, as well as variations that are captured at low coverage.
African Americans are about twice as likely to develop MM as European Americans (EA), and our study consists of primarily EA pedigrees, with only a small number of African American families included (7% of MM and 3% of MGUS cases). Due to limited sample size, we were unable to perform ancestry-specific analyses, and the findings likely reflect risk patterns most relevant to EA families. Future family-based studies in African American and other underrepresented populations are essential to determine whether similar or distinct germline risk variants contribute to MM/MGUS susceptibility.
Lastly, we considered MGUS and MM as one phenotype in these analyses. Even though MGUS is a necessary event prior to MM [83], their co-heritability is ~50%, and there are likely specific genetic mechanisms to the initiation of MGUS verse progression of MGUS to MM [9]. MM and MGUS were analyzed jointly due to limited sample size and because most pedigrees included a mixture of MM and MGUS cases, making phenotype-specific analyses underpowered. This approach is also supported by the high co-heritability and shared familial aggregation of MM and MGUS. However, we acknowledge that some genetic variants may differentially influence MGUS initiation versus MM progression. The significant linkage observed at 6q22.33–6q24.2 may reflect shared inherited risk across both conditions. Future studies with larger, phenotype-specific cohorts will be essential to disentangle loci contributing to MGUS initiation from those driving progression to MM.
Although the variants identified in this study are not immediately clinically actionable, they provide important biological insights into the inherited component of MM and MGUS risk. The linkage region on 6q22.33–q24.2 and the implicated immune-regulatory genes (e.g., VNN1, VNN3, AHI1, PHACTR2) highlight pathways involved in immune regulation and oxidative stress response that could represent future therapeutic or predictive targets. While direct assessment of neo-antigen potential was beyond the scope of this study, several of these genes participate in immune-related pathways that may influence tumor immunogenicity. Future studies integrating exome and transcriptomic data with HLA binding and peptide immunogenicity analyses will be essential to determine whether these variants contribute to immune recognition or host response. As functional validation and replication across diverse populations proceed, these findings may contribute to refining genetic risk models and identifying individuals at elevated risk who could benefit from early monitoring or prevention strategies.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we found significant evidence for a region on chromosome 6 (6q22.33–6q24.2), linked to MM/MGUS, and identified several genes worth further investigation. This study highlights the value of using a linkage analysis framework with familial WES data to identify genomic regions potentially involved in the development of MM and MGUS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers17223611/s1, Table S1. Affected status of pedigrees in linkage analysis. Table S2. Characteristics of MM/MGUS pedigrees (n = 79 families, 1171 members). Table S3. PerFamily Segregation analysis: Families with at least 2 prioritized variants with partial LOD scores > 0.10. Table S4. Priority variants identified in the chromosome 6 q22.33-q24.2 region (n = 24) and their predicted functional/regulatory impact. Figure S1. MM/MGUS Linkage Analysis HLOD Score Plots (Chromosomes: 1–5, 7–22). Figure S2. A–J. Pedigrees with segregating variants located in linkage peak within chromosome 6q22.33-6q24.2 region.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I.C.-G. and C.M.V.; methodology, C.M.V., A.I.C.-G. and N.J.C.; software, J.S., X.W., S.C. and D.O.; formal analysis, A.I.C.-G., J.S. and D.O.; resources, V.R., S.K., R.K., K.O., V.J., C.D., D.D., J.M., S.L. and C.M.V.; data curation, A.I.C.-G., D.O., X.W., S.C., J.S. and R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.C.-G. and C.M.V.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, A.I.C.-G. and A.E.; supervision, C.M.V.; project administration, A.I.C.-G., C.M.V. and A.N.; funding acquisition, C.M.V., N.J.C., J.M., K.O. and S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through grants R25 CA092049 (A.C.G., C.V.), U01 CA271014-01 (A.C.G., C.V.), U01 CA257679 (A.C.G., J.M., V.J.), F99 CA234943 (R.W., N.C.), R01 CA107476 (C.V., S.K., V.R.), R01 CA168762 (C.V., S.K., V.R.), and P50 CA186781 (Mayo Clinic Myeloma SPORE; C.V., S.K., V.R.), from the NCI and the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. This work was also supported by the French National Cancer Institute (INCA, Projet Transla 2010-077) and the Fondation Française pour la Recherche contre le Myélome et les Gammapathies (FFRMG) (D.D., C.D., J.M.). Furthermore, funding from the NIH Loan Repayment Program supported A.C.G.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (protocol ID 07-005529; initial approval 11 September 2007; expedited review). The IRB determined the research to be minimal risk and granted a waiver of specific informed consent and a waiver of HIPAA authorization for use of previously collected data/specimens under related IRB protocols.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board because the study used previously collected data and biospecimens under prior protocols that permitted future research use; the IRB determined the research to involve no more than minimal risk and met regulatory criteria for waiver of consent. Written informed consent for publication is not applicable, as no identifiable patient information is included.

Data Availability Statement

An overview of the data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting information of this article. The full data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality concerns. Human subjects data were obtained from multiple centers with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at each site. The data contain sensitive, identifiable information and are subject to compliance with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in the United States and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in European centers, as detailed in the study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the many MM/MGUS patients and their families who contributed to this research. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through grants R25 CA092049, U01 CA271014-01, U01 CA257679, F99 CA234943, R01 CA107476, R01 CA168762, and P50 CA186781 (Mayo Clinic Myeloma SPORE), as well as by the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Additional support was provided by the French National Cancer Institute (INCA, Projet Transla 2010-077) and the Fondation Française pour la Recherche contre le Myélome et les Gammapathies (FFRMG). Funding from the NIH Loan Repayment Program also supported A. Clay-Gilmour.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CNVCopy Number Variant
CTCLCutaneous T-cell Lymphoma
DHSDNase I Hypersensitive Site
EAEuropean Ancestry/European American
GCGenomic Control
GDPRGeneral Data Protection Regulation
GATKGenome Analysis Toolkit
GWASGenome-Wide Association Study
HLODHeterogeneity Logarithm of the Odds
HMMHidden Markov Model
ILInterleukin
KEGGKyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
LDLinkage Disequilibrium
LODLogarithm of the Odds
MGUSMonoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance
MMMultiple Myeloma
NPLNon-Parametric Linkage
OROdds Ratio
ORAOver Representation Analysis
PathoMANPathogenicity of Mutation Analyzer
PLINKWhole-Genome Association Toolset
PolyPhen-2Polymorphism Phenotyping v2
QCQuality Control
SNPSingle-Nucleotide Polymorphism
SIFTSorting Intolerant From Tolerant
TNF-αTumor Necrosis Factor Alpha
TOPMedTrans-Omics for Precision Medicine
TSSTranscription Start Site
UTRUntranslated Region
VEPVariant Effect Predictor
WESWhole-Exome Sequencing
WebGestaltWEB-based Gene Set Analysis Toolkit

References

  1. Dhodapkar, M.V. MGUS to myeloma: A mysterious gammopathy of underexplored significance. Blood 2016, 128, 2599–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Laubach, J.P. Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Features, Laboratory Manifestations, and Diagnosis; UpToDate: Waltham, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rajkumar, S.V. Multiple myeloma. Curr. Probl. Cancer 2009, 33, 7–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alexander, D.D.; Mink, P.J.; Adami, H.O.; Cole, P.; Mandel, J.S.; Oken, M.M.; Trichopoulos, D. Multiple myeloma: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Int. J. Cancer 2007, 120 (Suppl. 12), 40–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bizzaro, N.; Pasini, P. Familial occurrence of multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 5 siblings. Haematologica 1990, 75, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourguet, C.C.; Grufferman, S.; Delzell, E.; DeLong, E.R.; Cohen, H.J. Multiple myeloma and family history of cancer. A case-control study. Cancer 1985, 56, 2133–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brown, L.M.; Linet, M.S.; Greenberg, R.S.; Silverman, D.T.; Hayes, R.B.; Swanson, G.M.; Schwartz, A.G.; Schoenberg, J.B.; Pottern, L.M.; Fraumeni, J.F., Jr. Multiple myeloma and family history of cancer among blacks and whites in the U.S. Cancer 1999, 85, 2385–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Camp, N.J.; Werner, T.L.; Cannon-Albright, L.A. Familial myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 1734–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clay-Gilmour, A.I.; Kumar, S.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Rishi, A.; Kyle, R.A.; Katzmann, J.A.; Murray, D.L.; Norman, A.D.; Greenberg, A.J.; Larson, D.R.; et al. Risk of MGUS in relatives of multiple myeloma cases by clinical and tumor characteristics. Leukemia 2019, 33, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eriksson, M.; Hallberg, B. Familial occurrence of hematologic malignancies and other diseases in multiple myeloma: A case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 1992, 3, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Frank, C.; Fallah, M.; Chen, T.; Mai, E.K.; Sundquist, J.; Forsti, A.; Hemminki, K. Search for familial clustering of multiple myeloma with any cancer. Leukemia 2016, 30, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goldgar, D.E.; Easton, D.F.; Cannon-Albright, L.A.; Skolnick, M.H. Systematic population-based assessment of cancer risk in first-degree relatives of cancer probands. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1994, 86, 1600–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Judson, I.R.; Wiltshaw, E.; Newland, A.C. Multiple myeloma in a pair of monozygotic twins: The first reported case. Br. J. Haematol. 1985, 60, 551–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kristinsson, S.Y.; Bjorkholm, M.; Goldin, L.R.; Blimark, C.; Mellqvist, U.H.; Wahlin, A.; Turesson, I.; Landgren, O. Patterns of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors among 37,838 first-degree relatives of 13,896 patients with multiple myeloma in Sweden. Int. J. Cancer 2009, 125, 2147–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Landgren, O.; Kristinsson, S.Y.; Goldin, L.R.; Caporaso, N.E.; Blimark, C.; Mellqvist, U.H.; Wahlin, A.; Bjorkholm, M.; Turesson, I. Risk of plasma cell and lymphoproliferative disorders among 14621 first-degree relatives of 4458 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in Sweden. Blood 2009, 114, 791–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Landgren, O.; Linet, M.S.; McMaster, M.L.; Gridley, G.; Hemminki, K.; Goldin, L.R. Familial characteristics of autoimmune and hematologic disorders in 8,406 multiple myeloma patients: A population-based case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 2006, 118, 3095–3098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lynch, H.T.; Ferrara, K.; Barlogie, B.; Coleman, E.A.; Lynch, J.F.; Weisenburger, D.; Sanger, W.; Watson, P.; Nipper, H.; Witt, V.; et al. Familial myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lynch, H.T.; Sanger, W.G.; Pirruccello, S.; Quinn-Laquer, B.; Weisenburger, D.D. Familial multiple myeloma: A family study and review of the literature. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2001, 93, 1479–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lynch, H.T.; Watson, P.; Tarantolo, S.; Wiernik, P.H.; Quinn-Laquer, B.; Isgur Bergsagel, K.; Huiart, L.; Olopade, O.I.; Sobol, H.; Sanger, W.; et al. Phenotypic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma families. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ogmundsdottir, H.M.; Einarsdottir, H.K.; Steingrimsdottir, H.; Haraldsdottir, V. Familial predisposition to monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, and multiple myeloma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma 2009, 9, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ogmundsdottir, H.M.; Haraldsdottirm, V.; Johannesson, G.M.; Olafsdottir, G.; Bjarnadottir, K.; Sigvaldason, H.; Tulinius, H. Familiality of benign and malignant paraproteinemias. A population-based cancer-registry study of multiple myeloma families. Haematologica 2005, 90, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  22. Vachon, C.M.; Kyle, R.A.; Therneau, T.M.; Foreman, B.J.; Larson, D.R.; Colby, C.L.; Phelps, T.K.; Dispenzieri, A.; Kumar, S.K.; Katzmann, J.A.; et al. Increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy in first-degree relatives of patients with multiple myeloma or monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Blood 2009, 114, 785–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zawadzki, Z.A.; Aizawa, Y.; Kraj, M.A.; Haradin, A.R.; Fisher, B. Familial immunopathies: Report of nine families and survey of literature. Cancer 1977, 40, 2094–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Greenberg, A.J.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Vachon, C.M. Familial monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma: Epidemiology, risk factors, and biological characteristics. Blood 2012, 119, 5359–5366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Broderick, P.; Chubb, D.; Johnson, D.C.; Weinhold, N.; Forsti, A.; Lloyd, A.; Olver, B.; Ma, Y.; Dobbins, S.E.; Walker, B.A.; et al. Common variation at 3p22.1 and 7p15.3 influences multiple myeloma risk. Nat. Genet. 2011, 44, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chubb, D.; Weinhold, N.; Broderick, P.; Chen, B.; Johnson, D.C.; Forsti, A.; Vijayakrishnan, J.; Migliorini, G.; Dobbins, S.E.; Holroyd, A.; et al. Common variation at 3q26.2, 6p21.33, 17p11.2 and 22q13.1 influences multiple myeloma risk. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 1221–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mitchell, J.S.; Li, N.; Weinhold, N.; Forsti, A.; Ali, M.; van Duin, M.; Thorleifsson, G.; Johnson, D.C.; Chen, B.; Halvarsson, B.M.; et al. Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Swaminathan, B.; Thorleifsson, G.; Joud, M.; Ali, M.; Johnsson, E.; Ajore, R.; Sulem, P.; Halvarsson, B.M.; Eyjolfsson, G.; Haraldsdottir, V.; et al. Variants in ELL2 influencing immunoglobulin levels associate with multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Went, M.; Duran-Lozano, L.; Halldorsson, G.H.; Gunnell, A.; Ugidos-Damboriena, N.; Law, P.; Ekdahl, L.; Sud, A.; Thorleifsson, G.; Thodberg, M.; et al. Deciphering the genetics and mechanisms of predisposition to multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 6644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Went, M.; Sud, A.; Forsti, A.; Halvarsson, B.M.; Weinhold, N.; Kimber, S.; van Duin, M.; Thorleifsson, G.; Holroyd, A.; Johnson, D.C.; et al. Identification of multiple risk loci and regulatory mechanisms influencing susceptibility to multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thomsen, H.; Campo, C.; Weinhold, N.; da Silva Filho, M.I.; Pour, L.; Gregora, E.; Vodicka, P.; Vodickova, L.; Hoffmann, P.; Nothen, M.M.; et al. Genomewide association study on monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS). Eur. J. Haematol. 2017, 99, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Thomsen, H.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Weinhold, N.; Vodicka, P.; Vodickova, L.; Hoffmann, P.; Nothen, M.M.; Jockel, K.H.; Langer, C.; Hajek, R.; et al. Genome-wide association study of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS): Comparison with multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2019, 33, 1817–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Clay-Gilmour, A.I.; Hildebrandt, M.A.T.; Brown, E.E.; Hofmann, J.N.; Spinelli, J.J.; Giles, G.G.; Cozen, W.; Bhatti, P.; Wu, X.; Waller, R.G.; et al. Co-inherited genetics of multiple myeloma and its precursor, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Blood Adv. 2020, 4, 2789–2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McClellan, J.; King, M.C. Genetic heterogeneity in human disease. Cell 2010, 141, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mitchell, K.J. What is complex about complex disorders? Genome Biol. 2012, 13, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Eichler, E.E.; Flint, J.; Gibson, G.; Kong, A.; Leal, S.M.; Moore, J.H.; Nadeau, J.H. Missing heritability and strategies for finding the underlying causes of complex disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Maher, B. Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability. Nature 2008, 456, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Manolio, T.A.; Collins, F.S.; Cox, N.J.; Goldstein, D.B.; Hindorff, L.A.; Hunter, D.J.; McCarthy, M.I.; Ramos, E.M.; Cardon, L.R.; Chakravarti, A.; et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009, 461, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cannon-Albright, L.A.; Goldgar, D.E.; Meyer, L.J.; Lewis, C.M.; Anderson, D.E.; Fountain, J.W.; Hegi, M.E.; Wiseman, R.W.; Petty, E.M.; Bale, A.E.; et al. Assignment of a locus for familial melanoma, MLM, to chromosome 9p13-p22. Science 1992, 258, 1148–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Leppert, M.; Dobbs, M.; Scambler, P.; O’Connell, P.; Nakamura, Y.; Stauffer, D.; Woodward, S.; Burt, R.; Hughes, J.; Gardner, E.; et al. The gene for familial polyposis coli maps to the long arm of chromosome 5. Science 1987, 238, 1411–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Miki, Y.; Swensen, J.; Shattuck-Eidens, D.; Futreal, P.A.; Harshman, K.; Tavtigian, S.; Liu, Q.; Cochran, C.; Bennett, L.M.; Ding, W.; et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994, 266, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ng, S.B.; Bigham, A.W.; Buckingham, K.J.; Hannibal, M.C.; McMillin, M.J.; Gildersleeve, H.I.; Beck, A.E.; Tabor, H.K.; Cooper, G.M.; Mefford, H.C.; et al. Exome sequencing identifies MLL2 mutations as a cause of Kabuki syndrome. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42, 790–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ng, S.B.; Buckingham, K.J.; Lee, C.; Bigham, A.W.; Tabor, H.K.; Dent, K.M.; Huff, C.D.; Shannon, P.T.; Jabs, E.W.; Nickerson, D.A.; et al. Exome sequencing identifies the cause of a mendelian disorder. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nishisho, I.; Nakamura, Y.; Miyoshi, Y.; Miki, Y.; Ando, H.; Horii, A.; Koyama, K.; Utsunomiya, J.; Baba, S.; Hedge, P. Mutations of chromosome 5q21 genes in FAP and colorectal cancer patients. Science 1991, 253, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vance, J.M.; Pericak-Vance, M.A.; Yamaoka, L.H.; Speer, M.C.; Rosenwasser, G.O.; Small, K.; Gaskell, P.C., Jr.; Hung, W.Y.; Alberts, M.J.; Haynes, C.S.; et al. Genetic linkage mapping of chromosome 17 markers and neurofibromatosis type I. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1989, 44, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Wooster, R.; Neuhausen, S.L.; Mangion, J.; Quirk, Y.; Ford, D.; Collins, N.; Nguyen, K.; Seal, S.; Tran, T.; Averill, D.; et al. Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12-13. Science 1994, 265, 2088–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Scales, M.; Chubb, D.; Dobbins, S.E.; Johnson, D.C.; Li, N.; Sternberg, M.J.; Weinhold, N.; Stein, C.; Jackson, G.; Davies, F.E.; et al. Search for rare protein altering variants influencing susceptibility to multiple myeloma. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 36203–36210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Waller, R.G.; Darlington, T.M.; Wei, X.; Madsen, M.J.; Thomas, A.; Curtin, K.; Coon, H.; Rajamanickam, V.; Musinsky, J.; Jayabalan, D.; et al. Novel pedigree analysis implicates DNA repair and chromatin remodeling in multiple myeloma risk. PLoS Genet. 2018, 14, e1007111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dilworth, D.; Liu, L.; Stewart, A.K.; Berenson, J.R.; Lassam, N.; Hogg, D. Germline CDKN2A mutation implicated in predisposition to multiple myeloma. Blood 2000, 95, 1869–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pertesi, M.; Vallee, M.; Wei, X.; Revuelta, M.V.; Galia, P.; Demangel, D.; Oliver, J.; Foll, M.; Chen, S.; Perrial, E.; et al. Exome sequencing identifies germline variants in DIS3 in familial multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2019, 33, 2324–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wei, X.; Calvo-Vidal, M.N.; Chen, S.; Wu, G.; Revuelta, M.V.; Sun, J.; Zhang, J.; Walsh, M.F.; Nichols, K.E.; Joseph, V.; et al. Germline Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1/KDM1A) Mutations Confer Susceptibility to Multiple Myeloma. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 2747–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Waller, R.G.; Klein, R.J.; Vijai, J.; McKay, J.D.; Clay-Gilmour, A.; Wei, X.; Madsen, M.J.; Sborov, D.W.; Curtin, K.; Slager, S.L.; et al. Sequencing at lymphoid neoplasm susceptibility loci maps six myeloma risk genes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2021, 30, 1142–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Catalano, C.; Paramasivam, N.; Blocka, J.; Giangiobbe, S.; Huhn, S.; Schlesner, M.; Weinhold, N.; Sijmons, R.; de Jong, M.; Langer, C.; et al. Characterization of rare germline variants in familial multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2021, 11, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Niazi, Y.; Paramasivam, N.; Blocka, J.; Kumar, A.; Huhn, S.; Schlesner, M.; Weinhold, N.; Sijmons, R.; De Jong, M.; Durie, B.; et al. Investigation of Rare Non-Coding Variants in Familial Multiple Myeloma. Cells 2022, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Albert, F.W.; Kruglyak, L. The role of regulatory variation in complex traits and disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Li, X.; Montgomery, S.B. Detection and impact of rare regulatory variants in human disease. Front. Genet. 2013, 4, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Van der Auwera, G.A.; Carneiro, M.O.; Hartl, C.; Poplin, R.; Del Angel, G.; Levy-Moonshine, A.; Jordan, T.; Shakir, K.; Roazen, D.; Thibault, J.; et al. From FastQ data to high confidence variant calls: The Genome Analysis Toolkit best practices pipeline. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2013, 43, 11.10.11–11.10.33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abecasis, G.R.; Cherny, S.S.; Cookson, W.O.; Cardon, L.R. Merlin—Rapid analysis of dense genetic maps using sparse gene flow trees. Nat. Genet. 2002, 30, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kruglyak, L.; Daly, M.J.; Reeve-Daly, M.P.; Lander, E.S. Parametric and nonparametric linkage analysis: A unified multipoint approach. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1996, 58, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kong, A.; Cox, N.J. Allele-sharing models: LOD scores and accurate linkage tests. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1997, 61, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barnard, G.A. Statistical inference. J. R. Stat. Society Ser. B 1949, 11, 115–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sinnwell, J.P.; Therneau, T.M.; Schaid, D.J. The kinship2 R package for pedigree data. Hum. Hered. 2014, 78, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Purcell, S.; Neale, B.; Todd-Brown, K.; Thomas, L.; Ferreira, M.A.; Bender, D.; Maller, J.; Sklar, P.; de Bakker, P.I.; Daly, M.J.; et al. PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 81, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lander, E.; Kruglyak, L. Genetic dissection of complex traits: Guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat. Genet. 1995, 11, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vachon, C.M.; Sellers, T.A.; Carlson, E.E.; Cunningham, J.M.; Hilker, C.A.; Smalley, R.L.; Schaid, D.J.; Kelemen, L.E.; Couch, F.J.; Pankratz, V.S. Strong evidence of a genetic determinant for mammographic density, a major risk factor for breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 8412–8418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Olson, J.E.; Ryu, E.; Johnson, K.J.; Koenig, B.A.; Maschke, K.J.; Morrisette, J.A.; Liebow, M.; Takahashi, P.Y.; Fredericksen, Z.S.; Sharma, R.G.; et al. The Mayo Clinic Biobank: A building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2013, 88, 952–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ravichandran, V.; Shameer, Z.; Kemel, Y.; Walsh, M.; Cadoo, K.; Lipkin, S.; Mandelker, D.; Zhang, L.; Stadler, Z.; Robson, M.; et al. Toward automation of germline variant curation in clinical cancer genetics. Genet. Med. 2019, 21, 2116–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. McLaren, W.; Gil, L.; Hunt, S.E.; Riat, H.S.; Ritchie, G.R.; Thormann, A.; Flicek, P.; Cunningham, F. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Adzhubei, I.A.; Schmidt, S.; Peshkin, L.; Ramensky, V.E.; Gerasimova, A.; Bork, P.; Kondrashov, A.S.; Sunyaev, S.R. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat. Methods 2010, 7, 248–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ng, P.C.; Henikoff, S. SIFT: Predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31, 3812–3814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Breeze, C.E.; Haugen, E.; Reynolds, A.; Teschendorff, A.; van Dongen, J.; Lan, Q.; Rothman, N.; Bourque, G.; Dunham, I.; Beck, S.; et al. Integrative analysis of 3604 GWAS reveals multiple novel cell type-specific regulatory associations. Genome Biol. 2022, 23, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, B.; Kirov, S.A.; Snoddy, J.R. WebGestalt: An integrated system for exploring gene sets in various biological contexts. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, W741–W748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rasi, S.; Spina, V.; Bruscaggin, A.; Vaisitti, T.; Tripodo, C.; Forconi, F.; De Paoli, L.; Fangazio, M.; Sozzi, E.; Cencini, E.; et al. A variant of the LRP4 gene affects the risk of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia transformation to Richter syndrome. Br. J. Haematol. 2011, 152, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Jiang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Chan, W.Y.; Vercauteren, S.; Pang, E.; Kennedy, S.; Nicolini, F.; Eaves, A.; Eaves, C. Deregulated expression in Ph+ human leukemias of AHI-1, a gene activated by insertional mutagenesis in mouse models of leukemia. Blood 2004, 103, 3897–3904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ringrose, A.; Zhou, Y.; Pang, E.; Zhou, L.; Lin, A.E.; Sheng, G.; Li, X.J.; Weng, A.; Su, M.W.; Pittelkow, M.R.; et al. Evidence for an oncogenic role of AHI-1 in Sezary syndrome, a leukemic variant of human cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Leukemia 2006, 20, 1593–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Jourdan, M.; Tarte, K.; Legouffe, E.; Brochier, J.; Rossi, J.F.; Klein, B. Tumor necrosis factor is a survival and proliferation factor for human myeloma cells. Eur. Cytokine Netw. 1999, 10, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  77. O’Leary, N.A.; Wright, M.W.; Brister, J.R.; Ciufo, S.; Haddad, D.; McVeigh, R.; Rajput, B.; Robbertse, B.; Smith-White, B.; Ako-Adjei, D.; et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: Current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, D733–D745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bartucci, R.; Salvati, A.; Olinga, P.; Boersma, Y.L. Vanin 1: Its Physiological Function and Role in Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Besse, L.; Besse, A.; Mendez-Lopez, M.; Vasickova, K.; Sedlackova, M.; Vanhara, P.; Kraus, M.; Bader, J.; Ferreira, R.B.; Castellano, R.K.; et al. A metabolic switch in proteasome inhibitor-resistant multiple myeloma ensures higher mitochondrial metabolism, protein folding and sphingomyelin synthesis. Haematologica 2019, 104, e415–e419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yan, H.; Zheng, G.; Qu, J.; Liu, Y.; Huang, X.; Zhang, E.; Cai, Z. Identification of key candidate genes and pathways in multiple myeloma by integrated bioinformatics analysis. J. Cell Physiol. 2019, 234, 23785–23797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Consortium, G.T. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 580–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ferreira, M.A. Linkage analysis: Principles and methods for the analysis of human quantitative traits. Twin Res. 2004, 7, 513–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Landgren, O.; Kyle, R.A.; Pfeiffer, R.M.; Katzmann, J.A.; Caporaso, N.E.; Hayes, R.B.; Dispenzieri, A.; Kumar, S.; Clark, R.J.; Baris, D.; et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: A prospective study. Blood 2009, 113, 5412–5417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 17 03611 g001
Figure 1. Study diagram: Linkage analysis, prioritization pipeline, and functional annotation.
Figure 1. Study diagram: Linkage analysis, prioritization pipeline, and functional annotation.
Cancers 17 03611 g001
Cancers 17 03611 g002
Figure 2. Chromosome 6 linkage (logarithm base 10 of odds) score plot of 79 MM/MGUS families.
Figure 2. Chromosome 6 linkage (logarithm base 10 of odds) score plot of 79 MM/MGUS families.
Cancers 17 03611 g002
Table 1. Characteristics of MM/MGUS cases and unaffected (related and unrelated) individuals with whole-exome sequencing data available: Cases and unaffected controls from familial and sporadic populations.
Table 1. Characteristics of MM/MGUS cases and unaffected (related and unrelated) individuals with whole-exome sequencing data available: Cases and unaffected controls from familial and sporadic populations.
Familial (N = 227)Sporadic (N = 7991)
MMEarly-Onset 1
MM		MGUSEarly-Onset 1
MGUS		UnaffectedMMEarly-Onset 1
MM		Controls
Count (n, %)120 (53)9 (7)86 (38)9 (10)21 (9)1183 (15)63 (5)6808 (85)
Age at diagnosis/consent         
Median years (range)63 (39–91)43 (39–49)66 (36–88)44 (36–49)66 (35–98)64 (27–91)46 (27–47)-
missing3 (2)-4 (5)-6 (29)547 (46)0-
Sex (n, %)        
Male64 (53)4 (44)44 (51)4 (44)12 (57)---
Female55 (46)5 (56)42 (49)5 (56)9 (43)---
missing1 (<1)-0-0---
Ethnicity (n, %)        
European American112 (93)6 (67)83 (97)9 (100)20 (95)---
African American8 (7)2 (33)3 (3)01 (5)---
missing0-0-0---
1 Early-onset MM/MGUS cases defined as MM/MGUS case < 50 years (included in MM/MGUS case counts).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Clay-Gilmour, A.I.; Camp, N.J.; Wei, X.; Earle, A.; Norman, A.; Sinnwell, J.; Demangel, D.; Griffin, R.; Dumontet, C.; McKay, J.; et al. Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees. Cancers 2025, 17, 3611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223611

AMA Style

Clay-Gilmour AI, Camp NJ, Wei X, Earle A, Norman A, Sinnwell J, Demangel D, Griffin R, Dumontet C, McKay J, et al. Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees. Cancers. 2025; 17(22):3611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223611

Chicago/Turabian Style

Clay-Gilmour, Alyssa I., Nicola J. Camp, Xiaomu Wei, Angel Earle, Aaron Norman, Jason Sinnwell, Delphine Demangel, Rosalie Griffin, Charles Dumontet, James McKay, and et al. 2025. "Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees" Cancers 17, no. 22: 3611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223611

APA Style

Clay-Gilmour, A. I., Camp, N. J., Wei, X., Earle, A., Norman, A., Sinnwell, J., Demangel, D., Griffin, R., Dumontet, C., McKay, J., Offit, K., Joseph, V., Chen, S., O’Brien, D., Rajkumar, V., Klein, R., Kumar, S., Lipkin, S., & Vachon, C. M. (2025). Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees. Cancers, 17(22), 3611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223611

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop