4.6 Article

Gene-specific promoter methylation is associated with micronuclei frequency in urothelial cells from individuals exposed to organic solvents and paints

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jes.2015.28

关键词

micronuclei; bladder cancer; promoter methylation; risk assessment

资金

  1. COLCIENCIAS grant [493/110349326210/2009- RC 753-209]
  2. Vicerrectoria de Investigaciones Universidad del Cauca, Colombia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sufficient epidemiologic evidence has established an etiologic link between bladder cancer risk and occupational exposure as a painter to organic solvents. Currently, it remains to be established whether gene-specific promoter methylation contributes to bladder cancer development, including by enhancing chromosome breakage or loss. We investigated the effect of chronic exposure to organic solvents and paints on DNA methylation profiles in the promoter regions of four genes (GSTP1, p16(INK4a), APC and CDH1) and micronucleus (MN) frequency in exfoliated urothelial cells from voided urine from Colombian male non-smoking car painters and age-matched unexposed individuals. The exposed group had a higher percentage of individuals with >2 MNs/2000 cells compared with the unexposed group (P = 0.04). Gene-specific analysis showed a significantly higher percentage of individuals with methylated GSTP1, p16(INK4a) and APC in the exposed group. Poisson regression analysis indicated that exposed individuals with methylated GSTP1 and p16(INK4a) promoters were more than twofold more likely to have an increase in MN frequency as compared with the reference. Finally, among exposed individuals with GSTP1 and p16(INK4a) methylated promoters, those with a greater age had a higher RR of increased MN frequency compared with younger exposed individuals with methylated promoters. These results support the conclusion that gene-specific promoter methylation may increase MN frequency in a dependent or independent interaction with occupational exposure to organic solvents.

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