4.7 Article

Replication study of SNP associations for colorectal cancer in Hong Kong Chinese

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 104, 期 2, 页码 369-375

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605977

关键词

colorectal cancer; genetic; association; replication; Chinese

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C1298/A9511]
  2. Michael and Betty Kadoorie Cancer Genetic Research Programme II
  3. LKS Faculty of Medicine
  4. Genome Research Centre
  5. The University of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Recent genome-wide association studies of colorectal cancer (CRC) have identified common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) mapping to 10 independent loci that confer modest increased risk. These studies have been conducted in European populations and it is unclear whether these observations generalise to populations with different ethnicities and rates of CRC. METHODS: An association study was performed on 892 CRC cases and 890 controls recruited from the Hong Kong Chinese population, genotyping 32 SNPs, which were either associated with CRC in previous studies or are in close proximity to previously reported risk SNPs. RESULTS: Twelve of the SNPs showed evidence of an association. The strongest associations were provided by rs10795668 on 10p14, rs4779584 on 15q14 and rs12953717 on 18q21.2. There was significant linear association between CRC risk and the number of independent risk variants possessed by an individual (P 2.29 x 10(-5)). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that some previously reported SNP associations also impact on CRC risk in the Chinese population. Possible reasons for failure of replication for some loci include inadequate study power, differences in allele frequency, linkage disequilibrium structure or effect size between populations. Our results suggest that many associations for CRC are likely to generalise across populations. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 369-375. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605977 www.bjcancer.com Published online 21 December 2010 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

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