4.6 Article

Glutathione-S-Transferase and Microsomal Epoxide Hydrolase Polymorphism and Viral-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in India

期刊

DNA AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 687-694

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dna.2008.0805

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common cancer worldwide, the main etiological factors being chronic infections with hepatitis B and C viruses. Genetic polymorphic forms of glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and microsomal epoxide hydrolase (mEPHX) have been associated with risk for various malignancies. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the association of GSTT1 and GSTM1 null genotypes and mEPHX polymorphisms with hepatitis virus-related HCC risk in an Indian population. Three groups of subjects were considered, control (n = 169), chronic viral hepatitis (n = 174), and HCC (n = 63). Polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) was used for this polymorphic study. Genotype distributions between categories were compared using the chi(2) test; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval were calculated to express the relative risk. GSTT1 null genotype was associated with 2.23-fold (p < 0.05) increased risk for HCC development as compared to the control group. However, GSTM1 null genotype was found to have a protective effect when hepatitis patients were considered. In case of mEPHX, R139R imposed a risk factor for HCC with both control (OR 1.81) and chronic hepatitis-infected (OR = 2.06) subjects. Combination of heterozygous mutant genotypes at mEPHX exons 3 and 4 revealed a twofold risk (nonsignificant) for HCC. Further, combination of GSTM1 and T1 genotypes with either of exon 3 or 4 polymorphism of mEPHX displayed synergistic associations (risk or protective) for HCC development. GST and mEPHX variants share a positive association with viral-related HCC risk in Indian population, although a larger sample size is still required to confirm the results.

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