• Am. J. Hum. Genet. · Mar 2006

    Bladder cancer predisposition: a multigenic approach to DNA-repair and cell-cycle-control genes.

    • Xifeng Wu, Jian Gu, H Barton Grossman, Christopher I Amos, Carol Etzel, Maosheng Huang, Qing Zhang, Randal E Millikan, Seth Lerner, Colin P Dinney, and Margaret R Spitz.
    • Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA. xwu@mdanderson.org
    • Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2006 Mar 1; 78 (3): 464-79.

    AbstractThe candidate-gene approach in association studies of polygenic diseases has often yielded conflicting results. In this hospital-based case-control study with 696 white patients newly diagnosed with bladder cancer and 629 unaffected white controls, we applied a multigenic approach to examine the associations with bladder cancer risk of a comprehensive panel of 44 selected polymorphisms in two pathways, DNA repair and cell-cycle control, and to evaluate higher-order gene-gene interactions, using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Individually, only XPD Asp312Asn, RAG1 Lys820Arg, and a p53 intronic SNP exhibited statistically significant main effects. However, we found a significant gene-dosage effect for increasing numbers of potential high-risk alleles in DNA-repair and cell-cycle pathways separately and combined. For the nucleotide-excision repair pathway, compared with the referent group (fewer than four adverse alleles), individuals with four (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.20), five to six (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.31-2.50), and seven or more adverse alleles (OR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.69-3.70) had increasingly elevated risks of bladder cancer (P for trend <.001). Each additional adverse allele was associated with a 1.21-fold increase in risk (95% CI 1.12-1.29). For the combined analysis of DNA-repair and cell-cycle SNPs, compared with the referent group (<13 adverse alleles), the ORs for individuals with 13-15, 16-17, and >or=18 adverse alleles were 1.22 (95% CI 0.84-1.76), 1.57 (95% CI 1.05-2.35), and 1.77 (95% CI 1.19-2.63), respectively (P for trend = .002). Each additional high-risk allele was associated with a 1.07-fold significant increase in risk. In addition, we found that smoking had a significant multiplicative interaction with SNPs in the combined DNA-repair and cell-cycle-control pathways (P<.01). All genetic effects were evident only in "ever smokers" (persons who had smoked >or=100 cigarettes) and not in "never smokers." A cross-validation statistical method developed in this study confirmed the above observations. CART analysis revealed potential higher-order gene-gene and gene-smoking interactions and categorized a few higher-risk subgroups for bladder cancer. Moreover, subgroups identified with higher cancer risk also exhibited higher levels of induced genetic damage than did subgroups with lower risk. There was a significant trend of higher numbers of bleomycin- and benzo[a]pyrene diol-epoxide (BPDE)-induced chromatid breaks (by mutagen-sensitivity assay) and DNA damage (by comet assay) for individuals in higher-risk subgroups among cases of bladder cancer in smokers. The P for the trend was .0348 for bleomycin-induced chromosome breaks, .0036 for BPDE-induced chromosome breaks, and .0397 for BPDE-induced DNA damage, indicating that these higher-order gene-gene and gene-smoking interactions included SNPs that modulated repair and resulted in diminished DNA-repair capacity. Thus, genotype/phenotype analyses support findings from CART analyses. This is the first comprehensive study to use a multigenic analysis for bladder cancer, and the data suggest that individuals with a higher number of genetic variations in DNA-repair and cell-cycle-control genes are at an increased risk for bladder cancer, confirming the importance of taking a multigenic pathway-based approach to risk assessment.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…