4.1 Article

Genetic variants in the death receptor 4 gene contribute to susceptibility to bladder cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2008.11.009

关键词

Genetic variation; Apoptosis; Urogenital cancer; Molecular epidemiology

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30571583, 30872084]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [20060312002]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2006231]
  4. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [20060390293]
  5. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [0601049]
  6. Foundation for the Young Academic Leader of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Death receptor 4 (DR4) is an important mediator of apoptosis, and its dysfunction may be related to carcinogenesis and cancer development. We hypothesized that common variants in the DR4 gene are associated with risk of bladder cancer and test this hypothesis in a case-control study of 368 bladder cancer patients and 368 cancer-free controls. We genotyped six tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) in these subjects and found a significantly increased risk of bladder cancer associated with the SNP1 - 397GT/TT genotype (adjusted OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.15-2.09) compared with the GG genotype. This increased risk was more pronounced for superficial bladder cancer. A luciferase assay, performed in vitro, revealed that the -397T allele had a lower transcriptional activity than the -397G allele. Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) analysis indicated that the two-factor model including -397G > T and pack-years of smoking was best for predicting bladder cancer risk. Moreover, a significant additive (but not multiplicative) interaction, Was found between the -397G > T polymorphism and smoking on bladder cancer risk. In conclusion, genetic variants of the DR4 gene may be involved in the etiology of bladder cancer, and our findings need further validation by larger studies. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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