4.7 Article

The FOXE1 locus is a major genetic determinant for familial nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 134, 期 9, 页码 2098-2107

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28543

关键词

nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma; genetic predisposition; single nucleotide polymorphisms; genetic association study

类别

资金

  1. FP6 EU Grant HERMIONE [LSHC-CT-2006-037530]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy and nonmedullary thyroid carcinoma (NMTC) represents 90% of all cases. NMTC risk in first-degree relatives of affected cases is elevated fivefold to ninefold. Familial NMTC (FNMTC) accounts for about 3-7% of all thyroid tumors and is a more aggressive clinical entity than its sporadic counterparts. Link-age analysis on high-risk families performed a decade ago mapped several susceptibility loci, but did not lead to the identification of high-penetrance causal germline mutations. More recently, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) affecting the risk of sporadic NMTC. We sought to verify if the newly identified genetic risk factors for NMTC are relevant for FNMTC as well. We genotyped 23 SNPs at 11 candidate loci in 672 subjects belonging to 133 pedigrees with at least two NMTC cases. Statistical analysis was performed using family-based association tests, modified quasi-likelihood score and logistic-normal models. SNPs at 9q22.33 near FOXE1 showed convincing evidence of association with NMTC risk in these high-risk families. The other tested loci resulted negative. These findings confirm the importance of the SNPs identified by recent GWAS on sporadic NMTC on FNMTC as well. However, the proposed FOXE1 causal variants do not show the strongest association signal. Moreover, mutation screening of the FOXE1 coding sequence in the FNMTC cases did not identify rarer causal variants, suggesting that other yet unidentified variants at this locus are involved in FNMTC etiology.

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

4.7
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