4.7 Article

The NQO1 polymorphism C609T (Pro187Ser) and cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 5, 页码 1325-1337

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.357

关键词

NQO1; polymorphism; C609T; Pro187Ser; rs1800566

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Evidence is increasingly emerging about multiple roles for the NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1 enzyme in cancer. The C609T (rs1800566, Pro187Ser) null polymorphism of the NQO1 gene contributes significantly to the variation in enzymatic activity across different populations. NQO1 C609T polymorphism was thoroughly investigated with respect to cancer susceptibility. The results were inconsistent partly due to low sample sizes. The aim of the present work was to perform a meta-analysis to assess association for all common cancer sites separately and in combination. Methods: Our meta-analysis involved 92 studies including 21 178 cases and 25 157 controls. Statistical analysis involved individual cancer sites and the combined cancer risk. Association was tested under different genetic models. Results: We found a statistically significant association between the variant T allele and overall cancer risk in the worldwide population (for the TT vs CC model, OR=1.18 (1.07-1.31), P=0.002, I-2=36%). Stratified analysis revealed that this association was largely attributed to the Caucasian ethnicity (for the TT vs CC model, OR=1.28 (1.12-1.46), P=0.0002, I-2=1%). Stratification by tumour site showed significant association for bladder cancer in the worldwide population (for the TT vs CC model, OR=1.70 (1.17-2.46), P=0.005, I-2=0%), and in the Asian population (for the TT vs CC model, 1.48 (1.14-1.93), P=0.003, I-2=16%). Positive association was also found for gastric cancer in the worldwide population under the dominant model (OR=1.34 (1.09-1.65), P=0.006, I-2=15%). Conclusion: Our results indicate that the C609T polymorphism of the NQO1 gene is an important genetic risk factor in cancer.

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

4.7
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