4.7 Article

Gene promoter methylation in plasma and sputum increases with lung cancer risk

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 6505-6511

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0625

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA37403, CA097356, CA095568] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States, due in part to the lack of a validated and effective screening approach for early detection. The prevalence for methylation of seven and three genes was examined in DNA from sputum and plasma, respectively, from women at different risk for lung cancer. Experimental Design: Lung cancer survivors (n = 56), clinically cancer-free smokers (n = 121), and never smokers (n = 74) comprised the study population. Plasma was collected from all three groups, whereas sputum was collected from lung cancer survivors and smokers. Results: Methylation was detected in plasma DNA from 10 of 74 women who never smoked. Prevalence for methylation of the p16 gene in plasma was highest in lung cancer survivors. Lung cancer survivors showed a significant increase in the odds of having at least one or more genes methylated in plasma (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-9.1) than never smokers. The prevalence for methylation of the O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase, ras effector homologue 1, death associated protein kinase, and PAX5 alpha genes in sputum was significantly higher in lung cancer survivors compared with smokers. Lung cancer survivors had 6.2-fold greater odds (95% confidence interval, 2.1-18.5) for methylation of three or more genes in sputum compared with smokers. Methylation was more commonly detected in sputum than plasma for O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase and ras effector homologue 1, but not p16, in lung cancer survivors. Conclusion: Concomitant methylation of multiple. gene promoters in sputum is strongly associated with lung 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

4.7
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