4.1 Article

Genotypic analysis of XRCC4 and susceptibility to cervical cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 77, Issue 1, Pages 7-12

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1080/09674845.2019.1637573

Keywords

Cervical cancer; disease susceptibility; DNA repair; genotyping; SNPs; XRCC4

Funding

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India
  2. Centre of Excellence, Higher Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, India
  3. Indian Council of Medical Research [3/1/3/WL/JRF-2011/HRD]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: XRCC4 encodes a DNA repair protein which maintains genome stability by repairing double-strand breaks by the error-prone method. Defects in the protein-encoding gene lead to impairment of DNA repair process and accumulation of DNA damage, a hallmark of cancer development. We hypothesised that variants in XRCC4 are linked to cervical cancer. Material and methods: Genotyping of XRCC4 variants viz. intron3 DIP (rs28360071), intron7 DIP (rs28360017), G-1394T(rs6869366) and G-652T (rs2075685) was carried out in 246 women with cervical cancer cases and 246 control women. Results: There were several links to cervical cancer: intron3 DIP (rs28360071) II genotype (p = 0.002) and I allele (odds ratio is 0.54-0.89) (p = 0.004), intron7 DIP (rs28360017) II genotype (p = 0.003) and I allele (odds ratio 0.68 [0.53-0.88]) (p = 0.004), and G-652T (rs2075685) genotype (p = 0.044) and the T allele (odds ratio 1.35 [1.03-1.77]) (p = 0.032). In combining data into haploviews, the DDGG allele combination had an odds ratio of 0.12 (0.04-0.39) (p= 0.029) and the IIGT combination an odds ratio of 3.08 (1.25-7.55) (p = 0.01) for cervical cancer. Conclusion: Our results suggested that homozygous 'I' and 'T' genotypes in certain XRCC4 sequences may be associated with the development of cervical cancer and so may be a useful biomarker to predict cervical cancer susceptibility

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available