4.6 Article

Missense variants in CYP4B1 associated with increased risk of lung cancer among Chinese Han population

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03223-2

关键词

Lung cancer; Missense variants; Chinese Han population; Susceptibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that three missense variants in the CYP4B1 gene (rs2297810, rs4646491, and rs2297809) are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (LC).
Introduction Understanding the etiology and risk factors of lung cancer (LC) is the key to developing scientific and effective prevention and control strategies for LC. CYP4B1 genetic polymorphism has been reported to be associated with susceptibility to various diseases. We aimed to explore the association between CYP4B1 genetic variants and LC susceptibility.Methods One thousand three hundred thirty-nine participants were recruited to perform an association analysis through SNPStats online software. Statistical analysis of this study was mainly completed by SPSS 22.0 software. False-positive report probability analysis (FPRP) to detect whether the positive findings were noteworthy. Finally, the interaction of SNP-SNP in LC risk was evaluated by multi-factor dimensionality reduction.Results We found evidence that missense variants in CYP4B1 (rs2297810, rs4646491, and rs2297809) are associated with LC susceptibility. In particular, genotype GA of CYP4B1-rs2297810 was significantly associated with an increased risk of LC in both overall and stratified analyses (genotype GA: OR (95% CI) = 1.35 (1.08-1.69), p = 0.010). CYP4B1-rs4646491 (overdominant: OR (95% CI) = 1.30 (1.04-1.62), p = 0.023) and CYP4B1-rs2297809 (genotype CT: OR (95% CI) = 1.26 (1.01-1.59), p = 0.046) are also associated with an increased risk of LC. FPRP analysis showed that all positive results in this study are noteworthy findingsConclusion Three missense variants in CYP4B1 (rs2297810, rs4646491, and rs2297809) are associated with increasing risk of LC.

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