4.5 Article

Common Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms in DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Genes and Breast Cancer Risk

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 3482-3489

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0594

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. NIH-University of Cambridge Graduate Partnership Program
  3. National Cancer Institute
  4. Cancer Research UK [10118] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proteins involved in homologous recombination are instrumental in the error-free repair of dsDNA breakages, and common germ-line variations in these genes are, therefore, potential candidates for involvement in breast cancer development and progression. We carried out a search for common, low-penetrance susceptibility alleles by tagging the common variation in 13 genes in this pathway in a two-stage case-control study. We genotyped 100 single-nucleotide polymorphism. (SNP), tagging the 655 common SNPs in these genes, in up to 4,470 cases and 4,560 controls from the SEARCH study. None of these tagging SNP. was associated with breast cancer risk, with the exception of XRCC2 rs3218536, R188H, which showed some evidence of a protective association for the rare allele [per allele odds ratio, 0.89; 959% confidence intervals (959% CI), 0.80-0.99; P trend = 0.03]. Further analyses showed that this effect was confined to a risk of progesterone receptor positive tumors (per rare allele odds ratio, 0.78; 95%, CI, 0.66-0.91; P trend = 0.002). Several other SNPs also showed receptor status-specific susceptibility and evidence of roles in long-term survival, with the rare allele of BRIP1 rs2191249 showing evidence of association with a poorer prognosis (hazard ratio per minor allele, 1.20; 959% CI, 1.07-1.36; P trend = 0.002). In summary, there was little evidence of breast cancer susceptibility with any of the SNP. studied, but larger studies would be needed to confirm subgroup effects. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(12):3482-9)

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