4.6 Article

Opposite association of two PPARG variants with cancer:: overrepresentation of H449H in endometrial carcinoma cases and underrepresentation of P12A in renal cell carcinoma cases

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 109, 期 2, 页码 146-151

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s004390100563

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30CA16058] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) is a nuclear hormone receptor that has been shown to regulate differentiation and cell growth. Studies of the differentiative effects of PPAR gamma agonists on several cancer cell lines led to the hypothesis that dysfunction of PPAR gamma contributes to tumorigenesis. These functional observations were strengthened by genetic evidence: somatic loss-of-function mutations in PPARG, encoding PPAR gamma, in sporadic colorectal carcinomas and somatic translocation of PAX8 and PPARG in follicular thyroid carcinoma. Recently overrepresentation of the H449H variant was found in a cohort of American patients with glioblastoma multiforme. The glioblastoma multiforme data suggest that PPARG contributes common, low-penetrance alleles for cancer susceptibility. To test this hypothesis in a broader range of cancers we examined a series of carcinomas of the cervix, endometrium, ovary, prostate, and kidney for germline sequence variation in PPARG. In addition to the two common sequence variants, P12A and H449H, there were five other sequence variants. P12A alleles were underrepresented in renal cell carcinoma patients compared to country-of-origin race-matched controls (3.75% vs. 12.1%, P<0.04). In contrast, the H449H variant was overrepresented in individuals with endometrial carcinoma compared to controls (14.4% vs. 6.25%, P<0.02). These observations lend genetic evidence consistent with our hypothesis that PPARG serves as a common, low-penetrance susceptibility gene for cancers of several types, especially those epidemiologically associated with obesity and fat intake.

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