4.6 Article

MSH6 G39E Polymorphism and CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Colon Cancer

期刊

MOLECULAR CARCINOGENESIS
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 989-994

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/mc.20566

关键词

MSH6; CIMP; DNA mismatch repair; microsatellite instability; colon cancer

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA48998, CA61757, R01 CA61757]
  2. National Cancer Institute [N01-PC-67000]
  3. State of Utah Department of Health
  4. University of Utah
  5. Northern California Cancer Registry
  6. Sacramento Tumor Registry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The MSH6 G39E germline polymorphism is not associated with an increased risk of either microsatellite stable or unstable sporadic colorectal cancer. Other than microsatellite instability, however, most genetic and epigenetic changes of tumors associated with this common variant have not been studied. The objective of our investigation was to evaluate associations between the MSH6 G39E (116G>A) polymorphism and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) and BRAF V600E mutations in tumors from a sample of 1048 individuals with colon cancer and 1964 controls from Utah, Northern California, and Minnesota. The G39E polymorphism (rs1042821) was determined by the five prime nuclease assay. CIMP was determined by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of CpG islands in MLH1, methylated in tumors (MINT)1, MINT2, MINT31, and CDKN2A. The BRAF V600E mutation was determined by sequencing exon 15. In microsatellite stable tumors, homozygous carriers of the G39E polymorphism had an increased risk of CIMP+ colon cancer (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1. 1, 4.2) and BRAF V600E mutation (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.01, 9.7) in a case-control comparison. This finding was not observed in unstable tumors; however, power may have been low to detect an association. Age at diagnosis, family history, and alcohol use did not interact with MSH6 G39E and CIMP. The MSH6 G39E germline polymorphism may be associated with CIMP+ colon cancer. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.6
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