4.6 Article

Genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and risk of lung cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 593-597

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/22.4.593

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes may be associated with differences in the repair efficiency of DNA damage and may influence an individual's risk of lung cancer. The frequencies of several amino acid substitutions in XRCC1 (Arg194Trp, Arg280His and Arg399Gln), XRCC3 (Thr241Met), XPD (Ilel99Met, Hisa201Tyr, Asp312Asn and Lys751Gln) and XPF (Pro379Ser) genes were studied in 96 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and in 96 healthy controls matched for age, gender and cigarette smoking. The XPD codon 312 Asp/Asp genotype was found to have almost twice the risk of lung cancer when the Asp/Asn + Asn/Asn combined genotype served as reference [odds ratio (OR) 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-3.40]. In light cigarette smokers (less than the median of 34.5 pack-years), the XPD codon 312 Asp/Asp genotype was more frequent among cases than in controls and was associated with an increased risk of NSCLC, Compared with the Asn/ Asn carriers, the OR in light smokers with the Asp/Asn genotype was 1.70 (CI0.35 0.43-6.74) and the OR in those with the Asp/Asp genotype was 5.32 (CI0.35-21.02) (P trend = 0.01), The 312 Asp/Asp genotype was not associated with lung cancer risk in never-smokers or heavy smokers (>34.5 pack-years). The XPD-312Asp and -751Lys polymorphisms were in linkage disequilibrium in the group studied; this finding was further supported by pedigree analysis of four families from Utah. The XPD 312Asp amino acid is evolutionarily conserved and is located in the seven-moth helicase domain of the RecQ family of DNA helicases, Our results indicate that these polymorphisms in the XPD gene should be investigated further for the possible attenuation of DNA repair and apoptotic functions and that additional molecular epidemiological studies are warranted to extend these findings.

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