4.5 Article

XPA A23G polymorphism and susceptibility to cancer: a meta-analysis

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 6791-6799

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-012-1504-4

关键词

XPA; Polymorphism; Cancer risk; Meta-analysis; Association

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30772411]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xeroderma pigmentosum group A (XPA) participates in modulating recognition of DNA damage during the DNA nucleotide excision repair process. The XPA A23G polymorphism has been investigated in case-control studies to evaluate the cancer risk attributed to the variant, but the results were conflicting. To clarify the effect of XPA A23G polymorphism in cancer risk, we conducted a meta-analysis that included 30 published case-control studies. Overall, no significant association of XPA A23G variant with cancer susceptibility was observed for any genetic model. However, significant association was observed for colorectal cancer (GG vs. AA: OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.15-2.44; dominant genetic model GG + AG vs. AA: OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.08-1.17), for breast cancer an increased but non-significant risk was found (GG vs. AA: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.98-1.66; dominant genetic model GG + AG vs. AA: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.99-1.63), and for head and neck cancer an increased risk was observed in recessive model (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.02-1.38), whereas for lung cancer a significant reduced risk was observed (GG vs. AA: OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.66-0.90; dominant genetic model GG + AG vs. AA: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66-0.87), it's noting that in Asian population the inverse association was more apparent. In addition, in Asian population for esophageal cancer a significant decreased risk was also found in dominant genetic model (OR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.43-0.70) and for head and neck cancer an increased risk was observed in dominant genetic model (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.03-2.23). The meta-analysis suggested that the XPA A23G G allele is a low-penetrant risk factor for cancer development.

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