4.6 Article

γ-H2AX level in peripheral blood lymphocytes as a risk predictor for bladder cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 2543-2547

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgt270

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01 CA 127615, R01 CA 74880, P50 CA 91846]
  2. MD Anderson Cancer Center Research Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of susceptibility to double-strand breaks (DSBs) may provide valuable information about individual bladder cancer (BC) risk. The formation of -H2AX foci is a highly sensitive marker for DNA DSBs induction. We assessed whether levels of -H2AX in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) obtained after stimulation by ionizing radiation (IR) are able to predict BC risk. Patients were enrolled from an ongoing BC casecontrol study. Baseline- and IR-induced H2AX phosphorylation was assessed in PBL from 174 newly diagnosed and untreated BC patients and from 174 matched control subjects by a novel, image-based, high-throughput phenotypic assay. The ratio of -H2AX level of IR-treated cells to that of non-treated cells (baseline) was used as the parameter to assess the sensitivity to the mutagen. The mean -H2AX ratios were significantly higher for cases than for controls (1.430.14 versus 1.350.12; P 8.4510(8)). This trend was irrespective of age, sex and smoking status. The risk estimates of BC for induced DSBs by tertile distributions in controls showed also a significant trend for increased risk at the highest tertile for the whole cohort (odds ratio 5.16; 95% confidence interval 2.69, 9.89; P 7.78 10(7)) as well as for each category. Our findings suggest that a higher susceptibility to induction of DSBs as measured by the -H2AX assay is significantly associated with an increased risk for BC. This might help to identify individuals at high risk for this cancer, adding new perspectives to established epidemiological and genetic risk factors. Further research of the role of -H2AX in biological processes of BC is warranted.

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