4.2 Article

The Effect of CYP, GST, and SULT Polymorphisms and Their Interaction with Smoking on the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2015, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2015/179867

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) [10068]
  2. ERAWEB project
  3. European Community
  4. Italian Foundation for Cancer Research (FIRC)
  5. MIUR-Universita a Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Giovani Ricercatori
  6. Istituto Toniolo Research Prize
  7. MIUR- Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Research Grants Linea D1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. The aim of our study was to assess whether selected single nucleotide polymorphisms of CYP1A1 and 2E1, GSTM1, GSTT1, and SULT1A1 influence susceptibility towards HCC, considering their interaction with cigarette smoking. Methods. We recruited HCC cases and controls among patients admitted to the hospital Agostino Gemelli, from January 2005 until July 2010. Odds ratios (OR) of HCC were derived from unconditional multiple logistic regression. Gene-gene and gene-smoking interaction were quantified by computing the attributable proportion (AP) due to biological interaction. Results. The presence of any CYP2E1*5B variant allele (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.71) and CYP2E1*6 variant allele (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.33) was inversely related to HCC. There was a borderline increased risk among carriers of combined CYP1A1*2A and SULT1A1 variant alleles (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.97-3.24). A significant biological interaction was observed between GSTT1 and smoking (AP = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.001-0.815), with an OR of 3.13 (95% CI: 1.69-5.82), and borderline significant interaction was observed for SULT1A1 and smoking (AP = 0.36; 95% CI: -0.021-0.747), with an OR of 3.05 (95% CI: 1.73-5.40). Conclusion. CYP2E1*5B and CYP2E1*6 polymorphisms have a favourable effect on the development of HCC, while polymorphisms of GSTT1 and SULT1A1 might play role in increasing the susceptibility among smokers.

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

4.2
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