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

被引:29
|
作者
Pooley, Karen A. [1 ]
Baynes, Caroline [2 ]
Driver, Kristy E. [2 ]
Tyrer, Jonathan [2 ]
Azzato, Elizabeth M. [2 ,4 ]
Pharoah, Paul D. P. [2 ]
Easton, Douglas F. [1 ]
Ponder, Bruce A. J. [3 ]
Dunning, Alison M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Strangeways Res Lab, Canc Res UK Genet Epidemiol Unit, Cambridge CB1 8RN, England
[2] Strangeways Res Lab, Canc Res UK Dept Oncol, Cambridge CB1 8RN, England
[3] Li Ka Shing Ctr, Canc Res UK Cambridge Res Inst, Cambridge, England
[4] NCI, Div Canc Epidemiol & Genet, NIH, Rockville, MD USA
关键词
D O I
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0594
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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)
引用
收藏
页码:3482 / 3489
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Ubiquitylation in DNA double-strand break repair
    Tang, Mengfan
    Li, Siting
    Chen, Junjie
    DNA REPAIR, 2021, 103
  • [32] Mechanisms of DNA double-strand break repair
    Symington, Lorraine S.
    Deng, Sarah K.
    YEAST, 2015, 32 : S31 - S31
  • [33] Double-Strand DNA Break Repair in Mycobacteria
    Glickman, Michael S.
    MICROBIOLOGY SPECTRUM, 2014, 2 (05):
  • [34] DNA Repair: A RIDDLE at a Double-Strand Break
    Hiom, Kevin
    CURRENT BIOLOGY, 2009, 19 (08) : R331 - R333
  • [35] Single nucleotide polymorphisms for DNA repair genes in breast cancer patients
    Zhang, LP
    Zhang, ZZ
    Yan, WH
    CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2005, 359 (1-2) : 150 - 155
  • [36] Pathological mutations in PNKP trigger defects in DNA single-strand break repair but not DNA double-strand break repair
    Kalasova, Ilona
    Hailstone, Richard
    Bublitz, Janin
    Bogantes, Jovel
    Hofmann, Winfried
    Leal, Alejandro
    Hanzlikova, Hana
    Caldecott, Keith W.
    NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2020, 48 (12) : 6672 - 6684
  • [37] Association analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in FANCD2-DNA damage repair pathway genes with breast cancer risk
    Chen, F.
    Tang, L.
    Huang, J.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [38] DNA double-strand break repair pathways, chromosomal rearrangements and cancer
    Kasparek, Torben R.
    Humphrey, Timothy C.
    SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, 2011, 22 (08) : 886 - 897
  • [39] Meiotic Genes and DNA Double Strand Break Repair in Cancer
    Lingg, Lea
    Rottenberg, Sven
    Francica, Paola
    FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2022, 13
  • [40] Single nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and putative cancer risk
    Koeberle, Beate
    Koch, Barbara
    Fischer, Bettina M.
    Hartwig, Andrea
    ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY, 2016, 90 (10) : 2369 - 2388