4.1 Article

TGFβ-1 and TGFBR2 polymorphisms, cooking oil fume exposure and risk of lung adenocarcinoma in Chinese nonsmoking females: a case control study

Journal

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12881-015-0170-5

Keywords

Transforming growth factor-beta; Lung adenocarcinoma; Polymorphisms; Nonsmoking females

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272293]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) plays an important role in regulating cellular functions, and many studies have demonstrated important roles for TGF-beta in various cancers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of TGF-beta may influence lung carcinogenesis. The aim of this study was to test whether TGF-beta 1 C509T and TGF-beta receptor II (TGFBR2) G-875A polymorphisms were associated with lung adenocarcinoma in nonsmoking females. Methods: A hospital-based case-control study was performed in Chinese nonsmoking females. Genotyping was performed using TaqMan SNP genotyping assay, and demographic data and environmental exposure were collected by trained interviewers after informed consents were obtained. Results: A total of 272 (95.4%) cases and 313 (99.4%) controls were successfully genotyped, and the results showed that the polymorphic allele frequencies of C509T and G875A were similar among lung adenocarcinoma patients and controls (P=0.589 and 0.643, respectively). However, when the data were stratified for cooking oil fume exposure, the TT genotype of the TGFB1 C509T polymorphism showed a significantly decreased risk for lung adenocarcinoma compared with the CC genotype (adjusted OR=0.362, 95% CI=0.149-0.878, P=0.025). Conclusions: TGF-beta 1 gene C509T polymorphism might be associated with decreased risk of lung adenocarcinoma in Chinese females exposed to cooking oil fumes, but no association was observed TGFBR2 gene G875A polymorphism.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available