4.5 Article

The FOXE1 and NKX2-1 loci are associated with susceptibility to papillary thyroid carcinoma in the Japanese population

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 645-648

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100063

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [22256004, 22390189, 22791204, 21790337]
  2. INSERM
  3. Yasuda Medical Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23221005, 23590379, 22791204, 22390189, 22256004, 21790337] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background FOXE1 and NKX2-1 are two known genetic risk factors for the predisposition to sporadic papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) in Europeans, but their association in other ethnicities is still unknown. Objective We aim to examine the association of the two genes with Japanese sporadic PTC, which exhibits high BRAF(V600E) mutation rate. Methods 507 Japanese sporadic PTC cases and 2766 controls were genotyped for rs965513 (FOXE1) and rs944289 (NKX2-1). PTC cases were also examined for their BRAF(V600E) mutational status. Results The association of both rs965513 (p=1.27x10(-4), OR=1.69, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.21) and rs944289 (p=0.0121, OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.39) with the risk of sporadic PTC was confirmed. Subgroup analysis based on the BRAF mutational status showed strong association of rs965513 with BRAF(V600E)-positive cases (p=2.26x10(-4), OR=1.72, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.29), but not with BRAF(V600E)-negative cases (p=0.143, OR=1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.65). However, there was no difference in the observed effect size between both subgroups. For rs944289, both subgroups showed marginal association (p=0.0585, OR=1.17, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37 for BRAF(V600E)-positive cases; p=0.0492, OR=1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.81 for BRAF(V600E)-negative cases). Conclusions Both FOXE1 and NKX2-1 were associated with the increased risk of sporadic Japanese PTC. No clear associations were observed for either SNP with BRAF(V600E) status.

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

4.5
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