4.8 Article

Comprehensive assessment of variation at the transforming growth factor β type 1 receptor locus and colorectal cancer predisposition

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1002816107

Keywords

genetic susceptibility; transforming growth factor beta receptor type 1*6A/9A; candidate gene; low penetrance; TGF signaling

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  4. European Union
  5. Americas (CHIBCHA)
  6. MRC [MC_U127527198, G0000934] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527198, G0000934] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of transforming growth factor beta receptor type 1 (TGFBR1) polymorphisms, particularly a coding CGC insertion (rs11466445, TGFBR1*6A/9A) in exon 1, has been extensively investigated in regard to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. These investigations have generated conflicting results. More recently, allele-specific expression (ASE) of TGFBR1 mRNA has been suggested as predisposing to CRC, with a relative risk of nearly 10-fold and a population attributable risk of similar to 10%. Owing to the potential importance of TGFBR1 variants in CRC, we performed a comprehensive examination of tagging SNPs at and around the gene in 3,101 CRC cases and 3,334 controls of northern European ancestry. To test whether rare or subpolymorphic TGFBR1 variants were associated with CRC risk, we sequenced the gene's exons in a subset of patients. We also evaluated TGFBR1 ASE in a panel of CRC cases and controls. Overall, we found no association between TGFBR1 polymorphisms and CRC risk. The rare variant screen did not identify any changes of potentially pathogenic effects. No evidence of greater ASE in cases than controls was detected, and no haplotype around TGFBR1 could account for the ASE reported in other studies. We conclude that neither genetic variation nor ASE at TGFBR1 is likely to be a major CRC risk factor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available