4.6 Article

Association of hypomethylation of LINE-1 repetitive element in blood leukocyte DNA with an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 805-811

出版社

ZHEJIANG UNIV
DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B1000422

关键词

Cancer risk; Epigenetics; Global hypomethylation; Hepatocellular carcinoma; LINE-1 repetitive element

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global DNA hypomethylation has been associated with increased risk for cancers of the colorectum, bladder, breast, head and neck, and testicular germ cells. The aim of this study was to examine whether global hypomethylation in blood leukocyte DNA is associated with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 315 HCC cases and 356 age-, sex- and HBsAg status-matched controls were included. Global methylation in blood leukocyte DNA was estimated by analyzing long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1) repeats using bisulfite-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and pyrosequencing. We observed that the median methylation level in HCC cases (percentage of 5-methylcytosine (5mC)=77.7%) was significantly lower than that in controls (79.5% 5mC) (P=0.004, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The odds ratios (ORs) of HCC for individuals in the third, second, and first (lowest) quartiles of LINE-1 methylation were 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.8), 1.4 (95% CI 0.8-2.2), and 2.6 (95% CI 1.7-4.1) (P for trend <0.001), respectively, compared to individuals in the fourth (highest) quartile. A 1.9-fold (95% CI 1.4-2.6) increased risk of HCC was observed among individuals with LINE-1 methylation below the median compared to individuals with higher (>median) LINE-1 methylation. Our results demonstrate for the first time that individuals with global hypomethylation measured in LINE-1 repeats in blood leukocyte DNA have an increased risk for HCC. Our data provide the evidence that global hypomethylation detected in the easily obtainable DNA source of blood leukocytes may help identify individuals at risk of HCC.

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

4.6
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