4.3 Review

Interactions between meat intake and genetic variation in relation to colorectal cancer

Journal

GENES AND NUTRITION
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1007/s12263-014-0448-9

Keywords

Colorectal carcinogenesis; Genetic susceptibility; Genetic epidemiology; Polymorphisms; Gene-environment interactions; Diet-gene interactions; Lifestyle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Meat intake is associated with the risk of colorectal cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate interactions between meat intake and genetic variation in order to identify biological pathways involved in meat carcinogenesis. We performed a literature search of PubMed and Embase using interaction'', meat'', polymorphisms'', and colorectal cancer'', and data on meat-gene interactions were extracted. The studies were divided according to whether information on meat intake was collected prospectively or retrospectively. In prospective studies, interactions between meat intake and polymorphisms in PTGS2 (encoding COX-2), ABCB1, IL10, NFKB1, MSH3, XPC (P-int = 0.006, 0.01, 0.04, 0.03, 0.002, 0.01, respectively), but not IL1B, HMOX1, ABCC2, ABCG2, NR1I2 (encoding PXR), NR1H2 (encoding LXR), NAT1, NAT2, MSH6, or MLH1 in relation to CRC were found. Interaction between a polymorphism in XPC and meat was found in one prospective and one case-control study; however, the directions of the risk estimates were opposite. Thus, none of the findings were replicated. The results from this systematic review suggest that genetic variation in the inflammatory response and DNA repair pathway is involved in meat-related colorectal carcinogenesis, whereas no support for the involvement of heme and iron from meat or cooking mutagens was found. Further studies assessing interactions between meat intake and genetic variation in relation to CRC in large well-characterised prospective cohorts with relevant meat exposure are warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available