4.6 Article

A Functional TNFAIP2 3′-UTR rs8126 Genetic Polymorphism Contributes to Risk of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109318

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accumulated evidences demonstrated that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in mRNA 3'-untranslated region (3'-UTR) may impact microRNAs (miRNAs)-mediated expression regulation of oncogenes and tumor suppressors. There is a TNFAIP2 3'-UTR rs8126 T>C genetic variant which has been proved to be associated with head and neck cancer susceptibility. This SNP could disturb binding of miR-184 with TNFAIP2 mRNA and influence TNFAIP2 regulation. However, it is still unclear how this polymorphism is involved in development of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Therefore, we hypothesized that the functional TNFAIP2 rs8126 SNP may affect TNFAIP2 expression and, thus, ESCC risk. Methods: We investigated the association between the TNFAIP2 rs8126 variant and ESCC risk as well as the functional relevance on TNFAIP2 expression in vivo. Genotypes were determined in a case-control set consisted of 588 ESCC patients and 600 controls. The allele-specific regulation on TNFAIP2 expression by the rs8126 SNP was examined in normal and cancerous tissue specimens of esophagus. Results: We found that individuals carrying the rs8126 CC or CT genotype had an OR of 1.89 (95%CI = 1.23-2.85, P = 0.003) or 1.38 (95%CI = 1.05-1.73, P = 0.017) for developing ESCC in Chinese compared with individual carrying the TT genotype. Carriers of the rs8126 CC and CT genotypes had significantly lower TNFAIP2 mRNA levels than those with the TT genotypes in normal esophagus tissues (P<0.05). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that functional TNFAIP2 rs8126 genetic variant is a ESCC susceptibility SNP. These results support the hypothesis that genetic variants interrupting miRNA-mediated gene regulation might be important genetic modifiers of cancer risk.

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