4.6 Article

Association of Sequence Variants on Chromosomes 20, 11, and 5 (20q13.33, 11q23.3, and 5p15.33) With Glioma Susceptibility in a Chinese Population

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 173, Issue 8, Pages 915-922

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq457

Keywords

Asian continental ancestry group; association; genetics; genetic variation; genome-wide association study; glioma; polymorphism; single nucleotide

Funding

  1. Shanghai Science and Technology Research Program [09JC1402200, 10410709100]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [30800622, 81001114]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (State Education Ministry)
  4. Ministry of Education of China
  5. Shanghai Key Subject Project for Public Health [08GWZX0301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two genome-wide association studies of glioma in European populations identified 14 genetic variants strongly associated with risk of glioma, but it is unknown whether these variants are associated with glioma risk in Asian populations. The authors genotyped these 14 variants in 976 glioma patients and 1,057 control subjects to evaluate their associations with risk of glioma, particularly high-grade glioma (glioblastoma; n = 312), in a Chinese population (2004-2009). Overall, the authors identified 3 susceptibility loci for glioma risk at 20q13.33 (RTEL1 rs6010620 (P = 2.79 x 10(-6))), 11q23.3 (PHLDB1 rs498872 (P = 3.8 x 10(-6))), and 5p15.33 (TERT rs2736100 (P = 3.69 x 10(-4))) in this study population; these loci were also associated with glioblastoma risk (20q13.33: RTEL1 rs6010620 (P = 3.57 x 10(-7)); 11q23.3: PHLDB1 rs498872 (P = 7.24 x 10(-3)); 5p15.33: TERT rs2736100 and TERT rs2736098 (P = 1.21 x 10(-4) and P = 2.84 x 10(-4), respectively)). This study provides further evidence for 3 glioma susceptibility regions at 20q13.33, 11q23.3, and 5p15.33 in Chinese populations.

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