4.7 Article

Variants and haplotypes in Flap endonuclease 1 and risk of gallbladder cancer and gallstones: a population-based study in China

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep18160

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [30840096, 81071984]
  2. Science Plan Foundation of Guangdong Province [2013B3014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of FEN1 genetic variants on gallstone and gallbladder cancer susceptibility is unknown. FEN1 SNPs were genotyped using the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method in blood samples from 341 gallbladder cancer patients and 339 healthy controls. The distribution of FEN1-69G > A genotypes among controls (AA, 20.6%; GA, 47.2% and GG 32.2%) was significantly different from that among gallbladder cancer cases (AA, 11.1%; GA, 48.1% and GG, 40.8%), significantly increased association with gallbladder cancer was observed for subjects with both the FEN1-69G > A GA (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.01-2.63) and the FEN1-69G > A GG (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.31-3.9). The distribution of FEN1 -4150T genotypes among controls (TT, 21.8%; GT, 49.3% and GG 28.9%) was significantly different from that among gallbladder cancer cases (TT, 12.9%; GT, 48.4% and GG 38.7%), significantly increased association with gallbladder cancer was observed for subjects with both the FEN1-4150T GT(OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.04-2.91) and the FEN1-4150T GG(OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.37-5.39). A significant trend towards increased association with gallbladder cancer was observed with potentially higher-risk FEN1-69G > A genotypes (P < 0.001, chi(2) trend test) and FEN14150G > T (P < 0.001, chi(2) trend test) in gallstone presence but not in gallstone absence (P = 0.81, P = 0.89, respectively). In conclusion, this study revealed firstly that FEN1 polymorphisms and haplotypes are associated with gallbladder cancer risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available