4.6 Article

Genetic polymorphisms of multiple DNA repair pathways impact age at diagnosis and TP53 mutations in breast cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 32, 期 9, 页码 1354-1360

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgr117

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA73629, R01 CA81330]
  2. Cancer Center [P30 CA12197, T32 CA79448]
  3. Florida Biomedical Bankhead-Coley Cancer Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defective DNA repair may contribute to early age and late stage at time of diagnosis and mutations in critical tumor suppressor genes, such as TP53 in breast cancer. Using DNA samples from 436 breast cancer cases (374 Caucasians and 62 African-Americans), we tested these associations with 18 non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) in four DNA repair pathways: (i) base excision repair: ADPRT V762A, APE1 D148E, XRCC1 R194W/R280H/R399Q and POLD1 R119H; (ii) double-strand break repair: NBS1 E185Q and XRCC3 T241M; (iii) mismatch repair: MLH1 I219V, MSH3 R940Q/T1036A and MSH6 G39E and (iv) nucleotide excision repair: ERCC2 D312N/K751Q, ERCC4 R415Q, ERCC5 D1104H and XPC A499V/K939Q. Younger age at diagnosis (< 50) was associated with ERCC2 312 DN/NN genotypes [odds ratio (OR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10, 2.81] and NBS1 185 QQ genotype (OR = 3.09; 95% CI = 1.47, 6.49). The XPC 939 QQ genotype was associated with TP53 mutations (OR = 5.80; 95% CI = 2.23, 15.09). There was a significant trend associating younger age at diagnosis (< 50) with increasing numbers of risk genotypes for ERCC2 312 DN/NN, MSH6 39 EE and NBS1 185 QQ (P-trend < 0.001). A similar significant trend was also observed associating TP53 mutations with increasing numbers of risk genotypes for XRCC1 399 QQ, XPC 939 QQ, ERCC4 415 QQ and XPC 499 AA (P-trend < 0.001). Our pilot data suggest that nsSNPs of multiple DNA repair pathways are associated with younger age at diagnosis and TP53 mutations in breast cancer and larger studies are warranted to further evaluate these associations.

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