4.6 Article

A specific interleukin-1B haplotype correlates with high levels of IL1B mRNA in the lung and increased risk of non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 1186-1192

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgp122

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council
  2. Norwegian Cancer Society
  3. Solbergs Cancer Legacy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epidemiological evidence suggests a relationship between chronic inflammation and lung cancer. Inflammation in the lung may be modulated by host genetic factors such as polymorphisms in inflammatory genes. Identification of polymorphisms in inflammatory genes may help understanding interindividual differences in susceptibility to lung cancer. We have investigated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their haplotypes in the regulatory region of the IL1B gene in association to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) risk. Our previous work showed that two promoter SNPs C-511T and T-31C modulated NSCLC risk. In the present study, we show that G-3893A and G-1464C located in the enhancer region of the IL1B gene may also affect this risk, with odds for developing NSCLC being 0.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.92] for -3893 A-allele and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.47 - 0.83) for -1464 C-allele. The associations were particularly prominent in patients with TP53 mutations in the tumor. Inference of the haplotype structures showed that -3893 G, -1464 G, -511 C and -31 T formed a specific haplotype (GGCT) with near complete linkage disequilibrium in lung cancer patients but not in controls. Furthermore, the risk haplotype (GGCT) was present in 65% of cases compared with 36% of controls. Quantitative analysis of RNA in normal lung tissue of the patients showed that the risk haplotype was correlated with significantly higher IL1B messenger RNA (mRNA) levels compared with the non-risk haplotype (ACTC). These data suggest that a specific IL1B haplotype associated with increased IL1B gene expression increases the risk of NSCLC.

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

4.6
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