4.1 Article

Association analysis of colorectal cancer susceptibility variants with gastric cancer in a Chinese Han population

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 3673-3680

出版社

FUNPEC-EDITORA
DOI: 10.4238/2014.May.9.10

关键词

Single nucleotide polymorphism; Susceptibility; Gastric Cancer; Colorectal cancer

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20104433120016]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA020205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence suggests that some genetic variants are risk factors for both colorectal cancer (CRC) and gastric cancer (GC). Thus, we selected 12 reported single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from genome-wide association studies of CRC and conducted this case-control study to assess the associations between these SNPs and the risk for GC in a southern Chinese population. All SNPs were genotyped in 249 individuals with GC and 292 healthy population-matched subjects using the Sequenom MassArray iPLEX System. Association analyses based on the chi(2) test and binary logistic regression were performed to determine the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for each SNP. A stratified analysis by gender was also performed. Borderline significant associations were observed for rs4444235 (P = 0.070) and rs10411210 (P = 0.084), both fitting the overdominant model. The rs4444235 CT genotype showed a protective effect (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.50-1.03), while the rs10411210 CT genotype was a risk factor (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.96-2.05) as compared with the CC+ TT genotype. In the female subgroup, the rs6983267 GT genotype (compared with TT, OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.07-4.99) and the rs10505477 CT genotype (compared with TT, OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.09-5.11) significantly increased the risk for GC. No significant association was detected for the other SNPs. These results provide evidence that known genetic variants associated with CRC risk may also confer risk for GC.

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

4.1
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