4.7 Article

Impact of the APOBEC3A/B deletion polymorphism on risk of ovarian cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02820-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norwegian Cancer Society
  2. Norwegian Research Council
  3. Norwegian Health Region West
  4. K.G.Jebsen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The germline deletion of APOBEC3A/B is associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, particularly in non-serous and serous cases. Validation from an independent dataset shows similar trends, with a significant risk reduction observed in clear cell cancers.
A germline 29.5-kb deletion variant removes the 3' end of the APOBEC3A gene and a large part of APOBEC3B, creating a hybrid gene that has been linked to increased APOBEC3 activity and DNA damage in human cancers. We genotyped the APOBEC3A/B deletion in hospital-based samples of 1398 Norwegian epithelial ovarian cancer patients without detected BRCA1/2 germline mutations and compared to 1,918 healthy female controls, to assess the potential cancer risk associated with the deletion. We observed an association between APOBEC3A/B status and reduced risk for ovarian cancer (OR = 0.75; CI = 0.61-0.91; p = 0.003) applying the dominant model. Similar results were found in other models. The association was observed both in non-serous and serous cases (dominant model: OR = 0.69; CI = 0.50-0.95; p = 0.018 and OR = 0.77; CI = 0.62-0.96; p = 0.019, respectively) as well as within high-grade serous cases (dominant model: OR = 0.79; CI = 0.59-1.05). For validation purposes, we mined an available large multinational GWAS-based data set of > 18,000 cases and > 26,000 controls for SNP rs12628403, known to be in linkage disequilibrium with the APOBEC3A/B deletion. We found a non-significant trend for SNP rs12628403 being linked to reduced risk of ovarian cancer in general and similar trends for all subtypes. For clear cell cancers, the risk reduction reached significance (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.69-1.00).

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

4.7
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