4.6 Article

Constitutional short telomeres are strong genetic susceptibility markers for bladder cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1263-1271

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgi063

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lack of functional telomeres can cause chromosomal aberrations. This type of genetic instability may promote tumorigenesis. We have investigated the association between mean telomere length in buccal cells (assessed with quantitative real-time PCR) and bladder cancer risk in a case-control study. Patients with bladder cancer displayed significantly shorter telomeres than control subjects (P = 0.001). Median telomere length ratio was 0.95 (range 0.53-3.2) for cases and 1.1 (0.51-2.4) for controls. Moreover, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for bladder cancer was significantly increased in the quartile with the shortest telomere length OR = 4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-121. It is known that oxidative stress, alkylation or UV radiation increases shortening of telomeres. Therefore, we also analyzed whether environmental and genetic factors associated with DNA damage, i.e. smoking and polymorphisms in the genes involved in the metabolism of genotoxic carcinogens (EPHX1, GSTA1, GSTM1, GSTP1, GSTT1, NAT1, NAT2 and NQO1) or DNA repair (APE], NBS1, XPC, XPD, XRCC1, XRCC3 and XRCC4), could modify the association between telomere length and cancer risk. A clear effect of smoking and telomere length could be observed. Current smokers with short telomeres had more than six times as higher risk as non-smokers/former smokers with long telomeres (OR = 6.3, 95% CI 1.7-23). Lack of the biotransformation gene GSTM1 and short telomeres were associated with OR = 6.5 (95% CI 2.4-18), whereas homozygous carriers of 312Asn in the DNA repair gene XPD, with short telomeres, displayed an OR of 17 (95% CI 1.9-150). However, no significant interaction for cancer risk could be proven for telomere length, smoking and susceptibility genotypes of metabolizing and DNA-repairing genes.

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