Nonspecific structural chromosomal aberrations (CAs) are found in around 1% of circulating lymphocytes from healthy individuals but the frequency may be higher after exposure to carcinogenic chemicals or radiation. CAs have been used in the monitoring of persons exposed to genotoxic agents and radiation. Previous studies on occupationally exposed individuals have shown associations between the frequency of CAs in peripheral blood lymphocytes and subsequent cancer risk. The cause for CA formation is believed to be unrepaired or insufficiently repaired DNA double-strand breaks or other DNA damage, and additionally telomere shortening. CAs include chromosome (CSAs) and chromatid type aberrations (CTAs). In the present review, we first describe the types of CAs, the conventional techniques used for their detection and some aspects of interpreting the results. We then focus on germline genetic variation in the frequency and type of CAs measured in a genome-wide association study in healthy individuals in relation to occupational and smoking-related exposure compared to nonexposed referents. The associations (at P < 10-5) on 1473 healthy individuals were broadly classified in candidate genes from functional pathways related to DNA damage response/repair, including PSMA1, UBR5, RRM2B, PMS2P4, STAG3L4, BOD1, COPRS, and FTO; another group included genes related to apoptosis, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and tumorigenesis, COPB1, NR2C1, COPRS, RHOT1, ITGB3, SYK, and SEMA6A; a third small group mapped to genes KLF7, SEMA5A and ITGB3 which were related to autistic traits, known to manifest frequent CAs. Dedicated studies on 153 DNA repair genes showed associations for some 30 genes, the expression of which could be modified by the implicated variants. We finally point out that monitoring of CAs is so far the only method of assessing cancer risk in healthy human populations, and the use of the technology should be made more attractive by developing automated performance steps and incorporating artificial intelligence methods into the scoring.

Department of Molecular Biology of Cancer Institute of Experimental Medicine of the Czech Academy of Sciences Videnska 1083 Prague 14200 Czech Republic

Division of Cancer Epidemiology German Cancer Research Centre Heidelberg 69120 Germany

Division of Pediatric Neurooncology German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg Germany

Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Center in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen 32300 Czech Republic

Hopp Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg Germany

Institute of Biology and Medical Genetics Charles University Albertov 4 Prague 12800 Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Hanahan D, Weinberg RA.. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011;144:646–74. PubMed

Bonassi S, Norppa H, Ceppi M, et al.Chromosomal aberration frequency in lymphocytes predicts the risk of cancer: results from a pooled cohort study of 22 358 subjects in 11 countries. Carcinogenesis 2008;29:1178–83. PubMed PMC

Mitelman F, Johansson B, Mertens F.. The impact of translocations and gene fusions on cancer causation. Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7:233–45. PubMed

Mertens F, Johansson B, Fioretos T, et al.The emerging complexity of gene fusions in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2015;15:371–81. PubMed

Carrano AV, Natarajan AT.. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC publication no. 14. Considerations for population monitoring using cytogenetic techniques. Mutat Res 1988;204:379–406. PubMed

Ford CE, Hamerton JL.. The chromosomes of man. Nature 1956;178:1020–3. PubMed

Arnason U. 50 years after—examination of some circumstances around the establishment of the correct chromosome number of man. Hereditas 2006;143:202–11. PubMed

Nowell PC. Discovery of the Philadelphia chromosome: a personal perspective. J Clin Invest 2007;117:2033–5. PubMed PMC

Trask BJ. Human cytogenetics: 46 chromosomes, 46 years and counting. Nat Rev Genet 2002;3:769–78. PubMed

Ashby J. Comparison of techniques for monitoring human exposure to genotoxic chemicals. Mutat Res 1988;204:543–51. PubMed

Hagmar L, Strömberg U, Tinnerberg H, et al.Epidemiological evaluation of cytogenetic biomarkers as potential surrogate end-points for cancer. IARC Sci Publ 2004:207–15. PubMed

Albertini RJ, Anderson D, Douglas GR, et al.IPCS guidelines for the monitoring of genotoxic effects of carcinogens in humans. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Mutat Res 2000;463:111–72. PubMed

Ceppi M, Smolkova B, Staruchova M, et al.Genotoxic effects of occupational exposure to glass fibres—a human biomonitoring study. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 2023;885:503572. PubMed

Farkas G, Kocsis ZS, Székely G, et al.Spontaneous chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes and development of tumor in hospital workers. Anticancer Res 2022;42:1059–64. PubMed

Kadlcikova D, Musilova P, Hradska H, et al.Chromosomal damage in occupationally exposed health professionals assessed by two cytogenetic methods. Arch Environ Occup Health 2023;78:158–69. PubMed

Anderson RM. Cytogenetic biomarkers of radiation exposure. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2019;31:311–8. PubMed

Vinnikov VA, Belyakov O.. Radiation exposure biomarkers in the practice of medical radiology: cooperative research and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Biodosimetry/Radiobiology Laboratory. Health Phys 2020;119:83–94. PubMed

Balajee AS, Livingston GK, Escalona MB, et al.Cytogenetic follow-up studies on humans with internal and external exposure to ionizing radiation. J Radiol Prot 2021;41. PubMed

Niazi Y, Thomsen H, Smolkova B, et al.Distinct pathways associated with chromosomal aberration frequency in a cohort exposed to genotoxic compounds compared to general population. Mutagenesis 2019;34:323–30. PubMed

Cleal K, Baird DM.. Catastrophic endgames: emerging mechanisms of telomere-driven genomic instability. Trends Genet 2020;36:347–59. PubMed

Mammel AE, Hatch EM.. Genome instability from nuclear catastrophe and DNA damage. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2022;123:131–9. PubMed PMC

Guo X, Dai X, Wu X, et al.Small but strong: mutational and functional landscapes of micronuclei in cancer genomes. Int J Cancer 2021;148:812–24. PubMed

Janssen A, van der Burg M, Szuhai K, et al.Chromosome segregation errors as a cause of DNA damage and structural chromosome aberrations. Science 2011;333:1895–8. PubMed

Urakami K, Shimoda Y, Ohshima K, et al.Next generation sequencing approach for detecting 491 fusion genes from human cancer. Biomed Res 2016;37:51–62. PubMed

Heng HH, Regan SM, Liu G, et al.Why it is crucial to analyze non clonal chromosome aberrations or NCCAs? Mol Cytogenet 2016;9:15. PubMed PMC

Johansson B, Mertens F, Schyman T, et al.Most gene fusions in cancer are stochastic events. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2019;58:607–11. PubMed

Greaves M. A causal mechanism for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer 2018;18:471–84. PubMed PMC

Ni H, Wang XT, Fang R, et al.Gene fusions in human cancers: a review focused on diagnostic biomarkers, method selections, and treatments. Crit Rev Oncog 2017;22:403–10. PubMed

Weinhold N, Johnson DC, Chubb D, et al.The CCND1 G870A polymorphism is a risk factor for t(11;14)(q13;q32) multiple myeloma. Nature Genet 2013;45:522–5. PubMed PMC

Pfeiffer P, Goedecke W, Obe G.. Mechanisms of DNA double-strand break repair and their potential to induce chromosomal aberrations. Mutagenesis 2000;15:289–302. PubMed

Dolan M. Conventional and molecular cytogenetics in cancer. In: Yousef GM, Jothy S (eds.), Molecular Testing in Cancer. New York: SpringerLink, 2014.

Smith K. Chapter 38—basic cytogenetic techniques: culturing, slide making, and G banding. In: Celis JE (ed.), Cell Biology (Third Edition). Burlington: Academic Press, 2006, 381–5.

Stevens-Kroef M, Simons A, Rack K, Hastings RJ.. Cytogenetic nomenclature and reporting. In: Wan TSK (ed.), Cancer Cytogenetics: Methods and Protocols. New York: Springer, 2017, 303–9. PubMed

Tian C, Gregersen PK, Seldin MF.. Accounting for ancestry: population substructure and genome-wide association studies. Hum Mol Genet 2008;17:R143–50. PubMed PMC

Frazer KA, Ballinger DG, Cox DR, et al.; International HapMap Consortium. A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs. Nature 2007;449:851–61. PubMed PMC

Niazi Y, Thomsen H, Smolkova B, et al.DNA repair gene polymorphisms and chromosomal aberrations in healthy, nonsmoking population. DNA Repair (Amst) 2021;101:103079. PubMed

Niazi Y, Thomsen H, Smolkova B, et al.DNA repair gene polymorphisms and chromosomal aberrations in exposed populations. Front Genet 2021;12:691947. PubMed PMC

Rosenbloom KR, Armstrong J, Barber GP, et al.The UCSC genome browser database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:D670–81. PubMed PMC

Forsti A, Frank C, Smolkova B, et al.Genetic variation in the major mitotic checkpoint genes associated with chromosomal aberrations in healthy humans. Cancer Lett 2016;380:442–6. PubMed

Vodicka P, Musak L, Frank C, et al.Interactions of DNA repair gene variants modulate chromosomal aberrations in healthy subjects. Carcinogenesis 2015;36:1299–306. PubMed

Vodicka P, Naccarati A, Vodickova L, et al.Do GST polymorphisms modulate the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in healthy subjects? Environ Health Perspect 2009;117:A384–5. PubMed PMC

Hemminki K, Frank C, Forsti A, et al.Metabolic gene variants associated with chromosomal aberrations in healthy humans. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2015;54:260–6. PubMed

Hemminki K, Musak L, Vymetalkova V, et al.Cyclin D1 splice site variant triggers chromosomal aberrations in healthy humans. Leukemia 2014;28:721–2. PubMed

Niazi Y, Thomsen H, Smolkova B, et al.Genetic variation associated with chromosomal aberration frequency: a genome-wide association study. Environ Mol Mutagen 2019;60:17–28. PubMed

Niazi Y, Thomsen H, Smolkova B, et al.Impact of genetic polymorphisms in kinetochore and spindle assembly genes on chromosomal aberration frequency in healthy humans. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 2020;858–860:503253. PubMed

Kimura K, Ai T, Horiuchi Y, et al.Automated diagnostic support system with deep learning algorithms for distinction of Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms using peripheral blood specimen. Sci Rep 2021;11:3367. PubMed PMC

Shen X, Chen Y, Li C, et al.Rapid and automatic detection of micronuclei in binucleated lymphocytes image. Sci Rep 2022;12:3913. PubMed PMC

Shen X, Ma T, Li C, et al.High-precision automatic identification method for dicentric chromosome images using two-stage convolutional neural network. Sci Rep 2023;13:2124. PubMed PMC

Lichtenstein P, Holm N, Verkasalo P, et al.Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:78–85. PubMed

Mucci LA, Hjelmborg JB, Harris JR, et al.; Nordic Twin Study of Cancer (NorTwinCan) Collaboration. Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic countries. JAMA 2016;315:68–76. PubMed PMC

Zheng SL, Sun J, Wiklund F, et al.Cumulative association of five genetic variants with prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:910–9. PubMed

Sud A, Horton RH, Hingorani AD, et al.Realistic expectations are key to realising the benefits of polygenic scores. BMJ 2023;380:e073149. PubMed PMC

Search for germline gene variants in colorectal cancer families presenting with multiple primary colorectal cancers

Commentary: Special Issue: Current Understanding of Colorectal and Pancreatic Cancers