4.5 Article

Association of polymorphisms in transforming growth factor-β receptors with susceptibility to gastric cardia adenocarcinoma

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 4301-4309

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-011-1217-0

关键词

Transforming growth factor-beta receptor I; Transforming growth factor-beta receptor II; Polymorphism; Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both transforming growth factor-beta receptor I (TGFBR1) and receptor II (TGFBR2) are serine/threonine kinases and play important roles in TGF-beta/Smads signal pathway. The case-control study was performed to evaluate the possible association of Int7G24A and *6A polymorphisms of TGFBR1 and G-875A polymorphism of TGFBR2 with susceptibility to gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) in a population of North China. Polymerase-chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and PCR methods were used respectively to detect the genotype of Int7G24A, *6A and G-875A in 468 GCA and 584 healthy controls. Immunohistochemistry method was used to determine the protein expression of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2. Family history of upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) significantly increased the risk of developing GCA. There were no differences in the genotype distribution of TGFBR1 *6A polymorphism among cases and controls. However, A allele of Int7G24A significantly elevated the risk of developing GCA (adjusted OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.87) and A allele of G-875A significantly decreased the risk of developing GCA (adjusted OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49-0.92). When stratified for TNM stage, A allele of Int7G24A and G-875A allele carriers had a 1.41-fold (95% CI 1.05-1.98) increased and a 0.70-fold (95% CI 0.47-0.92) decreased risk of stage III and IV gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. The protein expression of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 in GCA was not correlated with genotypes of them. In conclusions, TGFBR1 Int7G24A and TGFBR2 G-875A polymorphisms may play important roles in the risk of GCA in North China.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据