4.8 Article

CTLA4 Variants, UV-Induced Tolerance, and Risk of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 15, 页码 6158-6163

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0415

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [CA057494, CA082354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although skin tumors are highly immunogenic, exposure to UV radiation is known to suppress immune responses via regulatory T cells. Specifically, the activity of cytotoxic lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) is integral in regulating the development of UV-induced tolerance and, concomitantly, skin cancers. Due to the inverse relationship between tumor surveillance and autoimmunity, we hypothesize that the same genetic variant in the CTLA4 locus that increases risk for autoimmune diseases is associated with decreased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). We analyzed whether the polymorphism CT60 or haplotypes of CTLA4 influence odds of developing the major types of NMSC, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), in a population-based case-control study of Caucasians in New Hampshire (849 controls, 930 BCC, and 713 SCC). The CTLA4 CT60 GG genotype was associated with decrease odds for BCC and SCC, controlling for age, sex, lifetime number of severe sunburns, and skin type [BCC: odds ratio (OR), 0.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.5-0.9; SCC: OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0]. For BCC, this decrease was apparent largely among those with a higher lifetime number of severe sunburns (P-interaction = 0.0074). There were significantly decreased odds of disease associated with two haplotypes, which possess the CT60 G allele. Additionally, lifetime number of severe sunburns modestly altered the effects of the CTLA4 haplotypes in BCC, and the association seemed driven by the CT60 single nucleotide polymorphism. In conclusion, genetic variation at the CTLA4 locus may be etiologically important in NMSC, the most prevalent malignancy in the United States. [Cancer Res 2009;69(15):6158-63]

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

4.8
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