4.6 Article

Genetic variations of the A13/A14 repeat located within the EGFR 3′ untranslated region have no oncogenic effect in patients with colorectal cancer

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-183

关键词

Colorectal cancer; EGFR; Polymorphism; Microsatellite instability; Targeted therapy

类别

资金

  1. INCa, the French National Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The EGFR 3' untranslated region (UTR) harbors a polyadenine repeat which is polymorphic (A13/A14) and undergoes somatic deletions in microsatellite instability (MSI) colorectal cancer (CRC). These mutations could be oncogenic in colorectal tissue since they were shown to result into increased EGFR mRNA stability in CRC cell lines. Methods: First, we determined in a case control study including 429 CRC patients corresponding to different groups selected or not on age of tumor onset and/or familial history and/or MSI, whether or not, the germline EGFR A13/A14 polymorphism constitutes a genetic risk factor for CRC; second, we investigated the frequency of somatic mutations of this repeat in 179 CRC and their impact on EGFR expression. Results: No statistically significant difference in allelic frequencies of the EGFR polyA repeat polymorphism was observed between CRC patients and controls. Somatic mutations affecting the EGFR 3' UTR polyA tract were detected in 47/80 (58.8%) MSI CRC versus 0/99 microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. Comparative analysis in 21 CRC samples of EGFR expression, between tumor and non malignant tissues, using two independent methods showed that somatic mutations of the EGFR polyA repeat did not result into an EGFR mRNA increase. Conclusion: Germline and somatic genetic variations occurring within the EGFR 3' UTR polyA tract have no impact on CRC genetic risk and EGFR expression, respectively. Genotyping of the EGFR polyA tract has no clinical utility to identify patients with a high risk for CRC or patients who could benefit from anti-EGFR antibodies.

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