4.6 Article

Ala499Val (C > T) and Lys939Gln (A > C) polymorphisms of the XPC gene: their correlation with the risk of primary gallbladder adenocarcinoma-a case-control study in China

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 496-501

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgq250

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [2001-4, 30830104, 30840096]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Zhongshan [2001-75]
  3. Nature Science Foundation of Guangzhou Medical University [2004-12]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [4203003]
  5. Sun Yat-Sen University [3171310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variations in the gene XPC may be associated with increased risk for gallbladder cancer (GBC). In this study, we detected two non-synonymous polymorphisms in XPC (Ala499Val and Lys939Gln) in 334 cases of GBC and 329 subjects of hospital-based age- and sex frequency-matched controls in China using a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay. Allelic association analysis for the two single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) showed that the risk allele T of Ala499Val was significantly associated with GBC [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.76, P = 0.005), with a population attributive risk of 5.3%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that Ala499Val CT heterozygote (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.13-2.14, P = 0.002) and TT homozygote (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.04-3.55, P = 0.048) had a significantly increased risk compared with CC homozygotes. Genetic analysis suggested that either the SNPs directly exert an effect or the linked functional gene impact of the disease trait likely follows an additive or dominant model. Gene interaction analysis demonstrated that the effects of XPC diplotypes (defined as the number of risk genotypes at the two SNP loci) were highly dependent on gallstone. The data from this case-control study indicated that XPC exonic variants contributed to the risk of GBC in this Chinese population.

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