4.5 Article

Association of Leukocyte Mitochondrial DNA Copy Number with Colorectal Cancer Risk: Results from the Shanghai Women's Health Study

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 23, 期 11, 页码 2357-2365

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0297

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R37 CA070867]
  2. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
  3. NIH [P30 CA068485]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mitochondria play an important role in cellular energy metabolism, free radical production, and apoptosis, and thus may be involved in cancer development. Methods: We evaluated mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number in peripheral leukocytes in relation to colorectal cancer risk in a case-control study of 444 colorectal cancer cases and 1,423 controls nested in the Shanghai Women's Health Study, a population-based, prospective cohort study. Relative mtDNA copy number was determined by a quantitative real-time PCR assay using peripheral leukocyte DNA samples collected at the time of study enrollment, before cancer diagnosis. Results: We found that baseline mtDNA copy number was lower among women who subsequently developed colorectal cancer [geometric mean, 0.277; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.269-0.285] than among women who remained cancer-free (geometric mean, 0.288; 95% CI, 0.284-0.293; P = 0.0153). Multivariate adjusted ORs were 1.26 (95% CI, 0.93-1.70) and 1.44 (95% CI, 1.06-1.94) for the middle and lower tertiles of mtDNA copy number, respectively, compared with the upper tertile (highest mtDNA copy number; P-trend = 0.0204). The association varied little by the interval between blood collection and cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: Our data suggest that mtDNA copy number measured in peripheral leukocytes may be a potential biomarker useful for colorectal cancer risk assessment. Impact: If confirmed, mtDNA copy number measured in peripheral leukocytes may be a biomarker useful for colorectal cancer risk assessment. (C) 2014 AACR.

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