4.6 Article

Repetitive element DNA methylation levels in white blood cell DNA from sisters discordant for breast cancer from the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 1946-1952

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgs201

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  2. NIH [U01 CA69398, P30 CA13696, P30 ES009089, K07 CA131094]
  3. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under RFA [CA-06-503]
  4. Columbia University [U01 CA69398]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global decreases in DNA methylation, particularly in repetitive elements, have been associated with genomic instability and human cancer. Emerging, though limited, data suggest that in white blood cell (WBC) DNA levels of methylation, overall or in repetitive elements, may be associated with cancer risk. We measured methylation levels of three repetitive elements [Satellite 2 (Sat2)], long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) and Alu) by MethyLight, and LINE-1 by pyrosequencing in a total of 282 breast cancer cases and 347 unaffected sisters from the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) using DNA from both granulocytes and total WBC. We found that methylation levels in all markers were correlated between sisters (Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.17 to 0.55). Sat2 methylation was statistically significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk [odds ratio (OR) = 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.094.03; for each unit decrease in the natural log of the methylation level, OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 0.885.11 for the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile]. These associations were only observed in total WBC but not granulocyte DNA. There was no association between breast cancer and LINE-1 and Alu methylation. If replicated in larger prospective studies, these findings support that selected markers of epigenetic changes measured in WBC, such as Sat2, may be potential biomarkers of breast cancer risk.

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