4.7 Article

Genetic variants in cell cycle control pathway confer susceptibility to bladder cancer

Journal

CANCER
Volume 112, Issue 11, Pages 2467-2474

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23472

Keywords

bladder cancer; risk assessment; cell cycle control pathway; SNP; CART; gene-gene interaction

Categories

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P50CA091846, R01CA074880] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [CA 91846, CA 74880] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. Cell cycle checkpoint regulation is crucial for the prevention of carcinogenesis in mammalian cells. METHODS. To test the hypothesis that common sequence variants in the cell cycle control pathway may affect bladder cancer susceptibility, the effects of a panel of 10 potential functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 7 cell cycle control genes, P53, P21, P27, CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, and STK15, were evaluated on bladder cancer risk in a case-control study of 696 bladder cancer cases and 629 healthy controls. RESULTS. Overall, on individual SNP analysis only individuals with the p53 intron 3 16-bp duplication polymorphism variant allele had a significantly reduced bladder cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.96). This effect was more evident in former smokers and younger subjects. We then applied the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) statistical approach to explore the high-order gene-gene and gene-smoking interactions. In the CART analysis, smoking status was identified as the most influential factor for bladder cancer susceptibility. The final decision tree by CART contained 6 terminal nodes. Compared with the second-lowest risk group the ORs for terminal nodes I and 3 to 6 ranged from 0.46 to 6.30. CONCLUSIONS. These results suggest that cell cycle genetic polymorphisms may affect bladder cancer predisposition through modulation of host genome stability and confirm the importance of studying gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in bladder cancer risk assessment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available