4.7 Article

A common p73 polymorphism is associated with a reduced incidence of oesophageal carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 85, Issue 10, Pages 1499-1503

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2066

Keywords

oesophageal cancer; p53; p73; polymorphism; genetics; risk

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma is rising; to date, no susceptibility genes have been identified. p73, a novel p53 homologue, maps to chromosome 1p36, a region commonly deleted in oesophageal cancers. p73 shares some p63-like activity, but in addition, may also play a role in gastrointestinal epithelial inflammatory responses. A non-coding p73 polymorphism (denoted AT or GC) may be functionally significant. We investigated whether this polymorphism might play a role in the aetiopathogenesis of oesophageal cancer. This was a case-control, retrospective study. 84 cases of oesophageal cancer (25 squamous and 59 adenocarcinoma) and 152 normal population controls were genotyped for this polymorphism. Informative cases were examined for p73 LOH within the tumour, AT/AT homozygotes were significantly less prevalent in the oesophageal cancer population (1/84 = 1.2%) compared to controls (15/152 = 9.9%) (P < 0.02), corresponding to an odds ratio of 0.11 (95% C.I. 0.2-0.6, P < 0.02), or 9-fold reduced risk. Moreover, AT/AT homozygotes were significantly less frequent in the cancer population than would be expected under the Hardy-Weinberg hypothesis (P = 0.099). LOH at the p73 locus was observed in 37.8% (14/37) of the AT/GC heterozygotes studied; in all cases there was loss of the AT allele. Our findings indicate that p73 AT/AT homozygotes appear to be protected against the development of oesophageal cancer. Clinically, this observation could have implications in aiding identification of high-risk Barrett's oesophagus patients. (C) 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

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