4.6 Article

TP53 Gene 72 Arg/Pro (rs1042522) single nucleotide polymorphism increases the risk and the severity of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1272876

Keywords

chronic lymphocytic leukemia; TP53 gene; polymorphism 72; hematological parameters; clinical biomarkers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found a correlation between the single nucleotide polymorphism (rs1042522) in the TP53 gene and the risk susceptibility as well as severity of CLL in Tunisian patients.
Background Genetic variations in TP53 gene are known to be important in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and may cause its inactivation which is associated with an aggressive form of the disease. Single nucleotide polymorphism (rs1042522:G>C) in TP53 gene at codon 72 encodes for arginine (Arg) or proline (Pro) variant which results in amino acid substitution affecting the apoptotic potential of TP53 protein. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk susceptibility as well as severity of CLL among Tunisian patients.Materials and methods A case-control study was conducted in Tunisia from February 2019 to November 2021, 160 de novo CLL patients and 160 healthy volunteers matched in age and gender were involved. DNA was extracted from peripheral blood mononuclear cells and the rs1042522 was analyzed using PCR-RFLP.Results Pro variant was associated with higher susceptibility to CLL than Arg variant (p= 0.023). A significant association was found between Pro variant and prognostic classification of Binet stage C (p= 0.001), low hemoglobin level (p= 0.003) and low platelet count (p= 0.016).Conclusion We suggest that Pro variant may increase the risk of developing CLL in our population and could be associated with the severity of the disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available