4.8 Article

Cigarette smoking increases copy number alterations in nonsmall-cell lung cancer

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1102769108

关键词

tumor genome; multimarker analyses

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA076404, CA134294, CA092824, CA074386, CA090578, CA122794, CA140594, CA141576]
  2. Raymond P. Lavietes Foundation
  3. Norwegian Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cigarette smoking has been a well-established risk factor of lung cancer for decades. How smoking contributes to tumorigenesis in the lung remains not fully understood. Here we report the results of a genome-wide study of DNA copy number and smoking pack-years in a large collection of nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors. Genome-wide analyses of DNA copy number and pack-years of cigarette smoking were performed on 264 NSCLC tumors, which were divided into discovery and validation sets. The copy number-smoking associations were investigated in three scales: whole-genome, chromosome/arm, and focal regions. We found that heavy cigarette smokers (>60 pack-years) have significantly more copy number gains than non-or light smokers (<= 60 pack-years) (P = 2.46 x 10(-4)), especially in 8q and 12q. Copy number losses tend to occur away from genes in non/light smokers (P = 5.15 x 10(-5)) but not in heavy smokers (P = 0.52). Focal copy number analyses showed that there are strong associations of copy number and cigarette smoking pack-years in 12q23 (P = 9.69 x 10(-10)) where IGF1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) is located. All of the above analyses were tested in the discovery set and confirmed in the validation set. DNA double-strand break assays using human bronchial epithelial cell lines treated with cigarette smoke condensate were also performed, and indicated that cigarette smoke condensate leads to genome instability in human bronchial epithelial cells. We conclude that cigarette smoking leads to more copy number alterations, which may be mediated by the genome instability.

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

4.8
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