Variant Synonymizer: Platform to identify mutations defined in different ways is available now!
Over 2,000 gene–disease validation summaries are now available—no login required!
FCGRT (HGNC:3621) has recently emerged as a candidate gene in the investigation of prostate cancer (MONDO_0008315). In a familial cancer study, FCGRT was nominated alongside other genes based on exome sequencing data from patients presenting with multiple primary tumors, including prostate cancer (PMID:27900359). This observation provides a preliminary genetic signal warranting further exploration as part of broader familial cancer analyses. Although the evidence is derived largely from a single study, the inclusion of FCGRT in the candidate gene list highlights its potential biological significance. The findings underscore the need for additional case reports and segregation analyses to confirm this association. The present summary reflects both the genetic and functional data available from the current literature.
The genetic evidence supporting an association between FCGRT and prostate cancer remains limited. No FCGRT-specific pathogenic variants were reported in the study, and the candidate gene designation emerged from its co-occurrence with the disease phenotype in a small familial cohort (PMID:27900359). The familial study focused primarily on other genes with direct mutations, leaving the segregation data for FCGRT sparse. Inheritance in the reported cases appears to follow an autosomal recessive pattern; however, detailed segregation analysis beyond the index cases is currently lacking. As a result, the genetic evidence does not yet reach a threshold sufficient for a robust clinical association. This limitation calls for caution in diagnostic decision‑making and underscores the need for further investigations.
The mode of inheritance inferred from the familial context is autosomal recessive, although this has not been definitively established for FCGRT. The limited segregation data—where no additional affected relatives with segregating variants were described (PMID:27900359)—compounds the uncertainty regarding its role in disease etiology. Consequently, the current genetic evidence is categorized as limited, and clinicians should integrate this information alongside other diagnostic indicators. The absence of robust familial segregation data means that FCGRT’s contribution to the disease spectrum remains speculative at this stage. Nevertheless, its identification in the study provides a basis for ongoing research. Future studies with larger cohorts and comprehensive segregation analyses are needed to clarify the inheritance pattern.
A review of the variant spectrum reveals that no definitive coding changes have been identified for FCGRT in relation to prostate cancer. In contrast to other genes in the same familial study that harbored clearly defined missense or loss‑of‑function variants, FCGRT’s role is currently inferred from its candidate status. This absence of direct variant evidence limits the genetic scoring for FCGRT, despite its biological plausibility. The reported study did not list any HGVS‐coded variants for FCGRT; therefore, the correlation between genetic alteration and phenotype remains inconclusive. As such, the reported genetic evidence relies on its inclusion in multi‑patient exome analyses rather than on direct mutation identification. This gap highlights an important area for future clinical and genetic investigation.
In contrast, the functional evidence for FCGRT is robust and well‐documented. Multiple independent studies have interrogated the function of the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) encoded by FCGRT. Functional assays have meticulously demonstrated that FcRn plays a critical role in immunoglobulin G (IgG) binding and homeostasis (PMID:8700168, PMID:9036967, PMID:12391234). These studies illuminate the molecular mechanics of FcRn interactions, including binding affinity and transcytosis, which may indirectly influence tumor immune surveillance in prostate cancer. The strong experimental results offer convincing support for a potential pathogenic mechanism. Such functional insights enhance the biological plausibility that alterations in FcRn biology could modify immune responses within the tumor microenvironment. They also raise the possibility of translational applications in therapeutic antibody development and pharmacokinetic optimization.
In summary, while the genetic evidence for an association between FCGRT and prostate cancer is limited and primarily derived from candidate gene analyses in a familial context, the functional data provide strong mechanistic support for a role in IgG regulation and possibly in tumor immune dynamics. The combined narrative suggests that FCGRT may hold clinical utility as a diagnostic marker or therapeutic target, albeit pending more extensive genetic validation. Additional studies focusing on variant discovery, familial segregation, and larger patient cohorts will be essential to solidify the clinical relevance of FCGRT in prostate cancer. Key take‑home: FCGRT’s strong functional profile, despite limited genetic data, merits further investigation and may eventually enhance diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in prostate cancer.
Gene–Disease AssociationLimitedFCGRT was nominated in a familial cancer study involving prostate cancer cases, but supporting segregation data from unrelated probands is lacking (PMID:27900359). Genetic EvidenceLimitedNo definitive pathogenic variants in FCGRT have been reported; its implication is based on candidate gene inclusion in a single multi‑patient study (PMID:27900359). Functional EvidenceStrongMultiple functional studies demonstrate robust FcRn activity in IgG binding and homeostasis, providing strong mechanistic evidence for its role potentially influencing tumor immunosurveillance (PMID:8700168, PMID:9036967, PMID:12391234). |