4.7 Article

XRCC3 genetic polymorphism, smoking, and lung carcinoma risk in minority populations

Journal

CANCER
Volume 98, Issue 8, Pages 1701-1706

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11692

Keywords

XRCC3; polymorphism; lung carcinoma; DNA double-strand break repair; DNA recombinational repair

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 68437, CA 55769] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. The XRCC3 protein participates in DNA double-strand breaks and recombinational repair. A single C-to-T nucleotide change at codon 241 (Thr241Met) has been identified in the XRCC3 gene. Using a hospital-based case-control approach, the authors studied the XRCC3 polymorphism as a possible genetic risk factor for lung carcinoma in African Americans and Mexican Americans. METHODS. A total of 112 patients with lung carcinoma were frequency matched with 190 control participants on the basis of age, gender, and ethnicity. Polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism molecular analysis was used successfully to identify the XRCC3 polymorphism in peripheral blood lymphocytes. RESULTS. No significant association between the XRCC3 variant allele polymorphism (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.72-2.15) and lung carcinoma risk was noted. However, a significantly increased risk for lung carcinoma (OR, 5.20; 95% Cl, 1.59-17.03) was evident in heavy smokers with the variant T-allele genotypes. Furthermore, a joint effect of the T-allele and heavy smoking was observed (OR, 37.31; 95% Cl, 11.43-121.72). CONCLUSIONS. The XRCC3 polymorphism appeared to be associated with increased risk of lung carcinoma in certain subgroups. It is plausible that the association is very heavily dependent on the degree of smoking. Further studies with larger sample sizes will be necessary to confirm these findings. (C) 2003 American Cancer Society.

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