4.5 Article

Gene variants of XRCC4 and XRCC3 and their association with risk for urothelial bladder cancer

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 1667-1675

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-011-0906-z

关键词

Polymorphism; Immunotherapy; XRCC4; XRCC3

资金

  1. Division of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The DNA double strand break repair gene XRCC4, an important caretaker of genome stability and XRCC3 are suggested to play an imperative role in the development of carcinogenesis. However, no evidence has been provided showing that these genes are associated with risk of urinary bladder cancer (UBC). The study was designed to examine the polymorphisms associated with two genes namely XRCC4 G1394T (rs6869366), intron 3 (rs28360317), intron 7 rs1805377 and rs2836007 and XRCC3 (rs861539 and rs1799796), respectively and investigate their role as susceptible markers for UBC risk in North Indian cohort. In this hospital-based case-control study histologically confirmed 211 UBC patients and 244 age and gender matched controls of similar ethnicity were genotyped by means of PCR-RFLP. Significant different distributions in the frequency of the XRCC4 intron 3 genotype, but not the XRCC4 G1394T or intron 7 genotypes, between the UBC and control groups were observed. XRCC4 intron 7 Del/Del conferred enhanced risk (OR 1.94; P 0.017) in UBC. Interestingly, XRCC -1394 G > T variant genotype GG was associated with reduced risk (OR 0.27; P 0.020). However, none of the four polymorphisms in XRCC4 were associated with tobacco smoking and risk of recurrence in patients treated with BCG immunotherapy. Similarly, none of the XRCC3 polymorphisms were associated with UBC susceptibility. Our results suggested that the XRCC4 intron 3 rs6869366 genotype and intron 7 rs28360317 may be associated with UBC risk and may be a novel useful marker for primary prevention and anticancer intervention.

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