4.6 Article

The 4q27 locus and prostate cancer risk

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-69

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [396407, 504700, 504702]
  2. Cancer Institute of New South Wales
  3. Australian Rotary Health Research
  4. Children's Cancer Institute Australia for Medical Research
  5. Australian Cancer Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic inflammation is considered to be implicated in the development of prostate cancer. In this study we are the first to investigate a potential association between variants in an autoimmune related region on chromosome 4q27 and prostate cancer risk. This region harbors two cytokine genes IL-2 and the recently described IL-21. Methods: We genotyped six variants previously associated with autoimmune disease (namely rs13151961, rs13119723, rs17388568, rs3136534, rs6822844 and rs6840978) and one functional IL-2 promoter variant (rs2069762) for possible association with prostate cancer risk using the Australian Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer case-control Study. Results: Overall, our results do not support an association between the seven variants at position 4q27 and prostate cancer risk. Per allele odds ratios (ORs) were not significantly different from 1 (all P-values = 0.06). However, we found suggestive evidence for a significant association between the presence of the rs13119723 variant (located in a protein of unknown function) and men with a family history of prostate cancer in first-degree relatives (P-value for interaction 0.02). The per allele OR associated with this variant was significantly higher than 1 (2.37; 95% C.I. = 1.01-5.57). Conclusions: We suggest that genetic variation within the chromosome 4q27 locus might be associated with prostate cancer susceptibility in men with a family history of the disease. Furthermore, our study alludes to a potential role of unknown protein KIAA1109 in conferring this 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

4.6
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