4.5 Article

Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in TNF-LTA locus with breast cancer risk in Indian population

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 114, 期 2, 页码 347-355

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-0006-5

关键词

TNF; LTA; SNP; Breast cancer

类别

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
  3. CSIR [60(0075)/06/EMR-II]
  4. Govt. of India (PT)
  5. ICPO (ICMR), Noida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Cytokine milieu of tumor microenvironment affects tumorigenesis in breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential association of functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in TNF-LTA locus with breast cancer. Methods The study included 127 individuals comprising 40 breast cancer cases (35 sporadic & 5 familial) and 87 individuals of high risk group (with family history of breast cancer) along with 150 healthy controls. PCR-RFLP was employed to analyze TNFA promoter polymorphisms at -238 G/A, -308 G/A, -857 C/T, -863 C/A and -1031 T/C along with +252 A/G SNP in LTA. The results were further confirmed by direct sequencing. Results Significant association was established for TNFA-308 G/A and LTA +252 A/G polymorphisms with breast cancer versus controls (P < 0.0001; OR, 9.53; 95% CI, 4.11-22.13; P-c < 0.001) and high risk group versus controls (P < 0.0001; OR, 8.27; 95% CI, 4.28-16.0; P-c < 0.001) respectively. GGACCT haplotype was found to be positively associated with breast cancer (P < 0.0001; OR, 12.17; 95% CI = 5.12-28.92; P-c < 0.001) and high risk group (P, 0.03; OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.20-7.26; P-c, 0.005) in relation to controls. While GGGCCT haplotype was significantly related with high risk group in comparison to cancer (P, 0.0002; OR, 5.71; 95% CI, 2.18-14.99; P-c, 0.003) and controls (P, 0.0002; OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.55-3.96; P-c, 0.003). Conclusion TNF-LTA locus could serve as an important biomarker for breast cancer predisposition in Indian population.

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

4.5
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