4.4 Article

Associations between variants in KITLG, SPRY4, BAK1, and DMRT1 and pediatric germ cell tumors

Journal

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 266-271

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.20951

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Children's Cancer Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent genome wide association studies have identified susceptibility loci for adult testicular germ cell tumors (GCT) near KITLG, SPRY4, BAK1, and DMRT1. We evaluated variants in these four genes to determine whether these are also susceptibility loci for pediatric GCTs. DNA was isolated from 52 pediatric GCTs (ages 021 years) obtained from the Cooperative Human Tissue Network. Control DNA was isolated from de-identified dried blood spots from 141 white newborns. Genotyping was conducted using TaqMan assays (rs4474514) or by PCR and sequencing (rs4324715, rs210138, and rs755383). Associations between variants and GCT were evaluated using logistic regression with adjustment for sex. We also evaluated whether the associations differed by age at GCT diagnosis (09 years, 1021 years), sex, and tumor location (gonadal, non-gonadal). We observed a significant association for rs210138 (BAK1) and pediatric GCT overall (odds ratio (OR) = 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.102.95, P = 0.02) with non-significant associations similar in magnitude in both the pediatric (P = 0.09) and adolescent (P = 0.06) age groups. The KITLG (rs4474514) and SPRY4 (rs4324715) variants were significantly associated with GCT only in the adolescent age group (rs4474514: OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.094.79, P = 0.03 and rs4324715: OR = 2.40, 95% CI 1.194.83, P = 0.01). Associations were mostly similar when stratified by sex. This is the first study to suggest that these loci may also be important in susceptibility to GCTs in the adolescent (KITLG, SPRY4, and BAK1) and pediatric (BAK1) age groups. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available