4.8 Article

Identification of the NKG2D haplotypes associated with natural cytotoxic activity of peripheral blood lymphocytes and cancer immunosurveillance

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 563-570

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2776

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that natural cytotoxic activity of peripheral blood lymphocytes was inversely related to cancer development based on a prospective cohort study. The genetic fraction of cytotoxic activity needs to be clarified, identifying individuals immunogenetically susceptible to cancer. A casecontrol study within the cohort members was designed: 102 cancer cases with peripheral lymphocyte DNA available and three control groups, each of which consisted of 204 subjects with each tertile level of cytotoxic activity. We first: compared two control groups with high and low cytotoxic activity in terms of the single nucleotide polymorphisms in the natural killer complex gene region on chromosome 12p, identifying the haplotype alleles that were associated with the activity. Next, cancer risks were assessed for these haplotypes. We found two haplotype blocks, each of which generated two major haplotype alleles: low-activity-related LNK1 (frequency 0.478 and 0.615 in groups with high and low activity, respectively; P < 0.00008) and high-activity-related HNK1 (0.480 and 0.348; P < 0.0001), LNK2 (0.711 and 0.821; P < 0.0002), and HNK2 (0.272 and 0.174; P < 0.0008). These NKG2D haplotype alleles showed a significant difference between cases (0.632 for LNK1 and 0.333 for HNK1) and controls (0.554 for LNK1 and 0.406 for HNK1). The haplotype HNK1/HNK1 revealed a decreased risk of cancer (odds ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.233-0.952) compared with LNK1/LNK1. Individuals who are genetically predisposed to have low or high natural cytotoxic activity can in part lie determined by NKG2D haplotyping, which in turn reveals an increased or decreased risk of cancer developement.

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