4.2 Article

A promoter polymorphism (-77T>C) of DNA repair gene XRCC1 is associated with risk of lung cancer in relation to tobacco smoking

期刊

PHARMACOGENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 457-463

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.fpc.0000167329.85163.0d

关键词

lung cancer; polymorphisms; promoter; XRCC1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-ray repair cross complementing group 1 (XRCC1) is one of the major DNA repair proteins involved in the base-excision repair pathway. Functional Polymorphisms in the XRCC1 gene may lead to decreased DNA repair capacity and thus confer inherited predisposition to cancer risk. In this case-control study of 710 patients with incident lung cancer and 710 cancer-free controls who were frequency matched on age, sex and residential area, we genotyped a novel T > C transition at the promoter region (-77T > C) of XRCC1 and other two common non-synonymous polymorphisms (Arg194Trp and Arg399Gln) to determine their associations with risk of lung cancer. We found that compared with the -77TT wild-type homozygote, the variant genotypes were associated with significantly increased risk of lung cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.17-1.94 for -77TC; OR=2.98; 95% CI=0.93-9.59 for -77CC; and OR 1.55; 95% CI=1.21-1.98 for -77TC/CC]. By contrast, no significant associations were observed between the other two exonic variants (Arg194Trp and Arg399Gln) and lung cancer risk. Furthermore, we observed a 9.82-fold increased risk (95% CI=5.66-17.02) for heavy smokers carrying the -77C variant (-77TC/CC) and a 4.07-fold increased risk (95% CI=2.85-5.81) for heavy smokers not carrying the variant. However, the interaction between the -77T > C variant and cumulative smoking was not statistically significant (P=0.1560). These findings indicate that: the new XRCC1 -77T > C polymorphism may contribute to the aetiology of lung cancer. Further functional studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying molecular mechanisms of the association.

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