4.6 Article

Oxidative response gene polymorphisms and risk of adult brain tumors

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 709-715

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2008-037

关键词

acoustic neuroma; brain; case-control; glioma; meningioma; neoplasm; oxidative response; polymorphism; tumor

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health [N01-CO-12400]
  3. Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress is believed to play a key role in tumor formation. Although this mechanism could be especially pertinent for brain tumors given the high oxygen consumption of the brain, very little has been published regarding brain tumor risk with respect to genes mediating oxidative stress. Using data from non-Hispanic whites in a hospital-based case-control study conducted by the National Cancer Institute between 1994 and 1998, we evaluated risk of glioma (n = 362), meningioma (n = 134), and acoustic neuroma (n = 69) compared to noncancer controls (n = 494) with respect to nine single nucleotide polymorphisms from seven genes involved in oxidative stress response (CAT, GPX1, NOS3, PON1, SOD1, SOD2, and SOD3). We observed increased risk of glioma (odds ratio [OR](CT/CC) = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.0-1.7) and meningioma (ORCT/CC = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7) with the C variant of SOD3 rs699473. There was also indication of increased acoustic neuroma risk with the SOD2 rs4880 Ala variant (ORCT/CC = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.2) and decreased acoustic neuroma risk with the CAT rs1001179 T allele variant (ORCT/TT = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-1.0). These relationships persisted when major groups of disease controls were excluded from the analysis. Our results suggest that common variants in the SOD2, SOD3, and CAT genes may influence brain tumor risk. Neuro-Oncology 10, 709-715, 2008 (Posted to Neuro-Oncology [serial online], Doc. 08-00008, August 4, 2008. URL http://neuro-oncology.dukejournals.org; DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2008-037)

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