Literature DB >> 22457752

A common SMAD7 variant is associated with risk of colorectal cancer: evidence from a case-control study and a meta-analysis.

Qibin Song1, Beibei Zhu, Weiguo Hu, Liming Cheng, Hongyun Gong, Bin Xu, Xiawen Zheng, Li Zou, Rong Zhong, Shengyu Duan, Wei Chen, Rui Rui, Jing Wu, Xiaoping Miao.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A common genetic variant, rs4939827, located in SMAD7, was identified by two recent genome-wide association (GWA) studies to be strongly associated with the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the following replication studies yielded conflicting results. METHOD AND
FINDINGS: We conducted a case-control study of 641 cases and 1037 controls in a Chinese population and then performed a meta-analysis, integrating our and published data of 34313 cases and 33251 controls, to clarify the relationship between rs4939827 and CRC risk. In our case-control study, the dominant model was significant associated with increased CRC risk [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.46; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.19-1.80]. The following meta-analysis further confirmed this significant association for all genetic models but with significant between-study heterogeneity (all P for heterogeneity <0.1). By stratified analysis, we revealed that ethnicity, sample size, and tumor sites might constitute the source of heterogeneity. The cumulative analysis suggested that evident tendency to significant association was seen with adding study samples over time; whilst, sensitive analysis showed results before and after removal of each study were similar, indicating the highly stability of the current results.
CONCLUSION: Results from our case-control study and the meta-analysis collectively confirmed the significant association of the variant rs4939827 with increased risk of colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, fine-mapping of the susceptibility loci defined by rs4939287 should be imposed to reveal causal variant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22457752      PMCID: PMC3310071          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033318

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide [1]. Among the risk factors and causes for CRC, genetic component has strongly contributed to CRC development, which accounts for approximately 35% of total cases as reflected by twin- and family-based studies [2]. However, so far genetic factors have incompletely been characterized. Genome-wide association (GWA) study has greatly contributed to identification of common genetic variants associated to common disease without prior knowledge of gene function. Several resent GWA studies have reported multiple novel susceptibility loci to colorectal cancer [3]–[11]._ENREF_7 Among these loci, the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP, rs4939827), located in 18q21, has been strongly associated with risk of CRC by multiple GWA studies [3], [10]. Broderick et al. firstly identified rs4939827 in a GWA set of 620 cases and 960 controls and 3 replication sets of 7377 cases and 5867controls [10], and then Tenesa et al. further refined this finding in another comprehensive, phased-based GWA study comprising 16759 cases and 15545 controls [3]. Interestingly, rs4939827 maps to Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 7 (SMAD7), a strong candidate gene in the famous transformation growth factor-β (TGF-β) pathway. SMAD7 acts as an intracellular antagonist of TGF-β signaling by recruiting SMURF to receptors for inactivation. Perturbation of SMAD7 and suppression of TGF-β signaling has been documented to involve in CRC [12]. Much attention has been drawn to this SNP; however, several follow-up studies cannot replicate the association [13]–[16], which may be due to the sample size. For instance, in Chinese population, Xiong et al. reported a significant association of this SNP with CRC risk [17], whereas Li et al. failed to replicate this association [13]. Similar controversial results were also seen in the replication studies in European [15], [16]. These results emphasize a need of additional replication for large sample size. Herein, we performed a replication study comprising 641cases and 1037 controls in a Chinese population. Moreover, meta-analysis is a method combing data together to make sample size exponential growth to get enough power to clarify inconsistent results in genetic association studies [18]. We further conducted a meta-analysis, combining current and previously published studies about rs4939827, to clarify the real relationship between this SNP and CRC risk.

Materials and Methods

Study populations

In this study, a total of 641 new CRC cases and 1037 cancer-free controls were enrolled from between 2009 and 2011 from Tongji Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Cases had been histopathologically confirmed with primary colorectal cancer and had not received any treatment prior to blood samples collection. Controls were randomly selected from a subject pool of individuals who participate in health check-up programs at the same hospital in the same time period as the patients were enrolled. Controls were frequency matched to patients by age (±5 years) and gender. All subjects were unrelated ethnic Han Chinese living in Wuhan region. At recruitment, a 5-ml peripheral venous blood sample was collected from each subject after written informed consent was obtained. This study was approved by ethnics committee of Tongji Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

DNA isolation and genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from 5-mL of peripheral blood sample using the RelaxGene Blood System DP319-02 (Tiangen, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The genotypes of rs4939827 were determined by using the TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assay (Applied Biosystems, Foster city, CA) on a 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster city, CA). For quality control, 5%duplicated samples were randomly selected for to assess the reproducibility, with a concordance rate of 100%

Statistical analysis

Pearson χ test, fisher exact test, and t test were employed to evaluate the differences in distribution of demographic characteristics and genotypes between case and control groups, where appropriate. Goodness-of-fit χ2 test was adopted to assess Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) in the controls. Unconditional multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the effect of rs4939827 genotypes on CRC risk, after adjusting for age and sex. To avoid the assumptions of genetic models, additive and dominant models for rs4939827 were also assessed. All statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS 12.0 software. A value of P<0.05 was considered representative of statistical significance.

Meta-analysis of rs4939827 in association with CRC risk

To further investigate the association between rs4939827 and CRC risk, a meta-analysis based on the published studies was carried out according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) [19]. Systematic literature search updated to September, 2011 were performed in the PubMed and EMBase databases(Figure S1), using the search strategy based on combinations of the keywords “rs4939827 or 18q21” and “colorectal cancer, colorectal neoplasia or colorectal adenoma” without language restriction. References listed in the retrieved articles were also scanned. Reviews, comments, and letters were also checked for additional studies. Studies were included if they met the all of the following criteria: (a) assessment of the association between rs4939827 and CRC risk; (b) use of a case-control study or nested case-control study design; (c) information provided on genotype or allele frequency for risk estimates; (d) the genotype of controls is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; (e) studies of humans. If the studies had overlapping subjects, only the study contained the largest population was finally included. Three reports were excluded due to lack of sufficient data for calculation of ORs after contacting with individual authors by E-mail [20]–[22]. The following data were extracted by two independent authors (B. Zhu & Q. Song): first author's last name, country of origin, publication year, predominant ethnicity of participants, sample size, study method and design, source of control groups (population- or hospital-based controls), genotyping method. Counts of alleles and genotypes in cases and controls were extracted or calculated from published data. Pooled frequency of the T allele in various ethnic populations was estimated using the inverse variance method previously described by Thakkinstian et al [23]. ORs and their 95% CIs as the metrics of effect size were re-calculated for the genotypes TT versus CC and CT versus CC. A dominant model was assumed for rs4939827, and an additive “per-allele” model and a recessive model were also considered. In this study, we used the Cochran's Q statistic to assess heterogeneity (heterogeneity was considered significant at P<0.1) [24]. The I metric was applied to quantify heterogeneity irrespective of numbers of studies (I = 0–25%, no heterogeneity; I = 25–50%, moderate heterogeneity; I = 50–75%, large heterogeneity; I = 75–100%, extreme heterogeneity) [25]. A fixed-effects model, using Mantel-Haenszel method [26], was applied to pool data from studies when heterogeneity was negligible; otherwise, a random-effects model, using DerSimonian and Laird method, was applied [27]. Stratified analyses were performed, if feasible, according to ethnicity (European, Asian and mixed population), sample size (≤1000 and >1000 subjects), study design (GWA and replication study) and tumor site (colon, rectum and colorectal cancers). Sensitivity analysis was also performed to assess the influence of each individual study on overall estimates by sequential removal of individual studies [28]. Cumulative analysis was performed to investigate the dynamic trend of the association between the SNP and CRC with accumulation of studies by published year [29]. Publication bias was estimated by funnel plot and Eegger's test [30], [31]. All statistical analyses were carried out by Stata version 10.0.

Results

Results of case-control study

Population characteristics

A total of 641 incident cases of colorectal cancer and 1037 frequency-matched controls were enrolled in this study. As shown in Table 1, males were 59.9% among cases compared with 59.1% among controls. Mean age was56.31 years (±12.59) for cases and 57.24 years (±10.86) for controls. There was no significant difference in distribution of sex (P = 0.748) and age (P = 0.119) between case and control group. Of Cases, 39% had colon cancer and 61% had rectum cancer. Regarding tumor state, 12.9%, 35.6%, 35.4% and 16.1% of cases were classified as Duke's A, B, C and D stage at the time of diagnosis, respectively.
Table 1

Characteristics of study population.

VariablesCases (N = 641)No. (%)Control (N = 1037)No. (%) P
Sex0.784a
Male384 (59.9)613 (59.1)
Female257 (40.1)424 (40.9)
Age (years)56.31±12.5957.24±10.860.119b
Tumor site
Colon250 (39%)
Rectum391 (61%)
Duke's stage
A83 (12.9%)
B228 (35.6%)
C227 (35.4%)
D103 (16.1%)

P value was calculated by the x test;

P value was calculated by the t test.

P value was calculated by the x test; P value was calculated by the t test. Genotypes in the controls conformed to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P = 0.214). Significant difference in genotype distribution was observed between cases and controls (χ = 21.25, P<0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression model, individuals with the CT genotype had a significant, 57% increased risk of CRC (OR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27–1.94, P<0.001) compared to those with the CC homozygote. Due to the low frequency of the TT genotype (3.2% in controls and 1.6% in cases) in this study population, a dominant model was perform, by combining the TT with the CT into an T carrier (TT plus CT) group, and result showed that the T carrier also present significantly increased risk, compared with those carrying the CC genotype (OR = 1.46; 95%CI, 1.19–1.80, P<0.001). In the allelic model, T allele carriers also showed significantly increased risk compared to those with the C allele (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05–1.51, P = 0.01). In the additive model, per-T allele similarly conferred an OR of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.05–1.52, P = 0.01) (Table 2).
Table 2

The association between rs4939827 and colorectal cancer risk in a Chinese population.

ControlsCasesOR (95% CI)b
CC/CT/TTCC/CT/TTCT vs. CCTT vs. CCDominant modelAdditive model
Total732/272/33399/232/101.57 (1.27–1.94)1.46 (1.19–1.80)1.27 (1.05–1.52)
Tumor site
Colon732/305a 149/101a 1.65 (1.24–2.20)
Rectum732/305a 250/141a 1.35 (1.06–1.73)
Duke's stage
A+B732/305a 184/127a 1.67 (1.28–2.17)
C+D732/305a 215/115a 1.28 (0.98–1.67)

CC/(CT+TT);

ORs and their corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by multivariate logistic regression model after adjusting for age and sex.

CC/(CT+TT); ORs and their corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by multivariate logistic regression model after adjusting for age and sex. We then stratified data according to the pathological factors under the dominant model. The CT plus TT genotypes were both associated with increased risk of colon and rectal cancers. Interestingly, the effect of the CT plus TT genotypes was larger in colon cancer (OR = 1.65; 95%CI = 1.24–2.20) than that in rectum cancer (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.06–1.73). Regarding the Duke's stage, the CT plus TT genotypes were associated with increased risk in early stage (A+B: OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.28–2.17) but not in advanced cancer (C+D: OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.98–1.67; Table 2).

Results of meta-analysis

Study characteristics

A total of 11 publications plus the current study, comprising 25 case-control studies of 34313 cases and 33251 controls, were finally included in this meta-analysis[3], [10], [13]–[17], [32]–[35] , of which, 19 studies were conducted in European [3], [10], [16]–[17], [32]–[34], 5 in Asian [3], [13], [14], [35], and 1 in the mixed population [15] (Table 3). The report by Broderick et al. only provided data on allele frequency and thus was only included in the pooled analysis of allelic OR [10].
Table 3

Characteristics of studies on rs4939827 polymorphisms and risk of colorectal cancer included in the meta-analysis.

First authorPublished yearCountryEthnicityStudy methodStudydesignGenotyping methodTumor siteCase/control
Broderick P [10] 2007UKEuropeanNested CCGWASIlluminaCRC620/960
UKEuropeanCCReplicationAllele-PCRCRC4422/3844
UKEuropeanCCReplicationAllele-PCRCRC1992/1680
UKEuropeanNested CCReplicationAllele-PCRCRC963/343
Tenesa A [3] 2008ScotlandEuropeanNested CCGWASIlluminaCRC2895/3059
ScotlandEuropeanNested CCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC830/923
AustraliaEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC1318/1140
CanadaEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC1173/1182
EnglandEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC2232/2250
GermanEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC2150/2182
IsraelEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC1352/1336
SpainEuropeanCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC418/295
JapanAsiansCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRCRC4391/3178
Curtin K [14] 2009Leeds, UKEuropeanCCReplicationSNPlexCRC245/216
Sheffield, UKEuropeanCCReplicationSNPlexCRC398/400
Utah, USAEuropeanCCReplicationSNPlexCRC422/425
Thompson CL [15] 2009USAMixedCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRColon554/709
Mates IN [16] 2010RomaniaEuropeanCCReplicationCentauruscolon, rectum92/95
Niittymaki I [32] 2010FinlandEuropeanCCReplicationSequencingCRC970/969
Slattery ML [33] 2010USAAmericansCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRColon1475/2287
Xiong F [17] 2010ChinaAsiansCCReplicationT-ARMS-PCRColon, rectum2124/2180
von Holst [34] 2010SwedenEuropeanNested CCReplicationdeCode testCRC1782/1679
Li X [13] 2011ChinaAsiansCCReplicationSequenomCRC138/168
Ho JW [35] 2011HK, ChinaAsiansCCReplicatoinSequenomCRC716/714
Zhu B2011ChinaAsiansCCReplicationTaqMan-PCRColon, rectum641/1037

Abbreviation: CC, case-control study; CRC, colorectal cancer.

Abbreviation: CC, case-control study; CRC, colorectal cancer.

Frequency of risk allele in control population

Both significant between-study heterogeneity were observed in European and Asian groups (P for heterogeneity <0.001). Under random-effects model, the pooled frequency of the T allele was 51.2% (95% CI, 50.1%–52.2%) in European controls, which was markedly higher than that of 23.4% in Asian controls (95% CI, 18.4%–28.3%)(Figure S2). These pooled frequencies were similar to those reported in HapMap database of 0.508 and 0.256 for European and Asian, respectively.

Overall meta-analysis of rs4939827 in associated with CRC

As shown in Table 4, significant evidence of heterogeneity was seen in all genetic models (all P for heterogeneity <0.05), and ORs for all genetic models were pooled under random-effects model. In allelic model, the T allele conferring a pooled OR of 1.18 compared to the C allele (95% CI, 1.14–1.22; Figure 1). Genotypic ORs of the TT versus CC and CT versus CC were 1.33 (95%CI, 1.21–1.47) and 1.17 (95%CI, 1.09–1.26), respectively. Similarly, the dominant, recessive and additive models were all associated with significantly increased risk of CRC.
Table 4

Pooled OR with 95% CI for the association between rs4929827 and colorectal cancer risk in the meta-analysis.

Genetic modelOR (95%CI) P P forHeterogeneity I2 (%)
Overall
(n = 25)T vs. C1.18 (1.14–1.22)<0.0010.00155.0
(n = 21)TT vs. CC1.33 (1.21–1.47)<0.001<0.00160.6
CT vs. CC1.17 (1.09–1.26)<0.001<0.00159.1
Dominant1.22 (1.14–1.31)<0.001<0.00161.6
Recessive1.24 (1.17–1.32)<0.0010.03938.4
Additive1.17 (1.14–1.20)<0.0010.00154.8
Figure 1

Forest plot of association of rs4939827 with CRC under allelic model.

Stratified analysis

To investigate the potential source of between-study heterogeneity, stratified analysis was performed (Table 5). After stratifying by ethnicity, significant heterogeneity still existed in European, whereas in Asian heterogeneity was effectively reduced. In European population, the variant in all genetic models presented significantly increased risk of CRC. In Asian population, all the genetic models except for the TT genotypic and recessive models were associated with increased risk of CRC, potentially suggesting that the T variant act in various manners between different ethnical populations. When stratified by sample size, we defined the large group when the sample size was more than 1000, otherwise was small group, heterogeneity was almost removed in small sample subgroup but not large sample subgroup. Significant association of CRC risk with the variant remained in large sample studies for all genetic models, whereas only the recessive model showed significant result in small sample subgroup. According to tumor site, only the data on dominant model was available. For colon cancer, heterogeneity was still observed and no significant association was found, whereas the dominant model was significantly associated with increased risk of rectum cancer without evidence of heterogeneity. Regarding study design, GWA studies were merely pooled in allelic model due to limited studies for assessing genotypic model. Heterogeneity did not change after stratifying by GWAS and replication and significant association still existed.
Table 5

Stratified analysis of the association between rs4939827 genotype and colorectal cancer risk.

CategoryGenetic modelOR (95%CI) P I2 P forheterogeneity
Ethnicity
European (n = 19)T vs. C1.18 (1.14–1.24)<0.00160.6<0.001
European (n = 15)TT vs. CC1.39 (1.26–1.55)<0.00161.00.001
CT vs.CC1.17 (1.07–1.27)0.00158.60.002
Dominant1.24 (1.13–1.36)<0.00164.7<0.001
Recessive1.26 (1.18–1.34)<0.00137.40.071
Additive1.18 (1.14–1.21)<0.00168.0<0.001
Asians (n = 5)T vs. C1.18 (1.12–1.25)<0.0010.00.584
Asians (n = 5)TT vs. CC1.18 (0.93–1.51)0.18147.40.107
CT vs.CC1.23 (1.09–1.39)0.00154.40.067
Dominant1.24 (1.13–1.35)<0.00128.20.234
Recessive1.11 (0.86–1.43)0.42852.60.077
Additive1.18 (1.11–1.25)<0.0010.00.469
Sample size
Large (n = 19)T vs.C1.19 (1.15–1.24)<0.00158.2<0.001
Large (n = 15)TT vs. CC1.37 (1.24–1.52)<0.00166.0<0.001
CT vs.CC1.22 (1.14–1.30)<0.00153.50.007
Dominant1.27 (1.18–1.35)<0.00159.30.002
Recessive1.24 (1.15–1.33)<0.00153.10.008
Additive1.18 (1.15–1.21)<0.00155.90.004
Small (n = 6)T vs.C1.07 (0.95–1.21)0.24426.80.234
Small (n = 6)TT vs. CC1.15 (0.91–1.45)0.23218.9<0.001
CT vs.CC0.89 (0.69–1.13)0.33945.20.104
Dominant0.96 (0.76–1.22)0.74447.50.090
Recessive1.23 (1.05–1.43)0.0110.00.768
Additive1.05 (0.95–1.16)<0.00129.10.217
Tumor site
Colon (n = 3)T vs. C1.07 (0.96–1.20)0.20135.70.212
Colon (n = 5)Dominant1.03 (0.77–1.38)0.86185.6<0.001
Rectal (n = 3)Dominant1.24 (1.10–1.41)0.0010.00.725
Colorectal (n = 22)T vs.C1.19 (1.15–1.23)<0.00153.00.002
Colorectal (n = 16)Dominant1.20 (1.09–1.33)<0.00171.3<0.001
Design
GWAS (n = 2)T vs.C1.26 (1.09–1.44)0.00166.70.083
Replication (n = 23)T vs. C1.17 (1.13–1.22)<0.00155.50.001
Replication (n = 20)TT vs. CC1.32 (1.19–1.46)<0.00162.4<0.001
CT vs. CC1.16 (1.07–1.25)<0.00159.2<0.001
Dominant1.21 (1.12–1.30)<0.00162.1<0.001
Recessive1.24 (1.16–1.33)<0.00139.30.037
Additive1.17 (1.14–1.20)<0.00156.90.001

Sensitivity analyses and cumulative meta-analysis

Due to the significant between-study heterogeneity for all genetic models, sensitivity analysis was performed, by removing the individual studies sequentially under random-effects model, to assess the effect of each study on the pooled estimate. As shown in Table 6, the pooled OR for the allelic model was similar before and after elimination of each study. Similar results were seen for other genetic models that no single study dramatically change the pooled ORs, indicating the robust stability of the current results.
Table 6

Sensitivity analysis of allelic model.

Study omittedOR (95%CI) P for heterogeneity I2
Broderick 2007 (GWAS) [10] 1.17 (1.13–1.22)0.00153.5%
Broderick 2007 (B)1.18 (1.14–1.23)0.00154.6%
Broderick 2007 (C)1.17 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.1%
Broderick 2007 (D)1.18 (1.14–1.23)<0.00156.2%
Tenesa 2008 (Scotland GWAS) [3] 1.17 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Tenesa 2008 (Scotland Replication)1.19 (1.14–1.23)0.00153.7%
Tenesa 2008 (Australia)1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.3%
Tenesa 2008 (Canada)1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Tenesa 2008 (England)1.17 (1.13–1.22)0.00155.6%
Tenesa 2008 (German)1.17 (1.13–1.22)0.00154.9%
Tenesa 2008 (Israel)1.17 (1.13–1.20)0.04635.3%
Tenesa 2008 (Spain)1.18 (1.14–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Tenesa 2008 (Japan)1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Curtin 2009 (UK-Leeds) [17] 1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.7%
Curtin 2009 (UK-Sheffield)1.18 (1.14–1.23)0.00153.9%
Curtin 2009 (USA-Utah)1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Thompson 2009 [15] 1.19 (1.14–1.23)0.00152.6%
Xiong 2010 [13] 1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Mates 2010 [16] 1.18 (1.14–1.22)0.00154.3%
Niittymaki 2010 [32] 1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Slattery 2010 [33] 1.18 (1.14–1.22)0.00155.6%
von Holst 2010 [34] 1.18 (1.14–1.23)0.00154.7%
Li 2011 [14] 1.18 (1.14–1.23)0.00154.9%
Ho 2011 [35] 1.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.9%
Zhu 20111.18 (1.13–1.22)<0.00156.6%
Combined1.18 (1.14–1.22)0.00155.0%
Accumulative meta-analysis was carried out via the assortment of studies by publication time. As shown by Figure 2, in the allelic model, the 95% CIs for the pooled OR became increasingly narrower with each accumulation of more studies, indicating the progressively boosted precision of the estimation by continual adding more samples. Simultaneously, inclinations toward significant association were evident over time. Similar results were seen in other genetic models.
Figure 2

Cumulative meta-analysis of association rs4939827 with CRC under allelic model.

Publication Bias

As reflected by the funnel plot (Figure S3.) and Egger's test, no evidence of publication bias was observed in all genetic models (all P for egger's test>0.05).

Discussion

rs4939827 located at 18q21 was revealed to be associated with CRC risk by two GWA studies, but inconsistent results have been reported by multiple following replication studies. In this study, we initially found a significant association between the variant 4939827 and increased risk of CRC in a case-control set of a Chinese population. Then the following meta-analysis, first to integrate GWA and replication data from 25 case-control studies of 34313 cases and 33251 controls, consistently indicated the significant association of rs4939827 with the risk of CRC. This significant association was further confirmed by cumulative meta-analysis, presenting the effect of the variant got increasingly significant with each accumulating of more data over time. rs4939827 is located in intron 3 of SMAD7,which encodes a inhibitory SMAD protein that function as a negatively feedback regulator of TGF-β signals [36]. There was evidence that the over-expression of SMAD7 could promote tumorigenesis via disturbing TGF-β-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis. Although we herein confirmed the association between the rs4939827 and CRC risk, whether this SNP is causative was still uncertain. Intriguingly, Houlston et al. have identified a novel C to G SNP unlisted in dbSNP (MAF = 0.47), through re-sequencing the linkage disequilibrium (LD) region tagged by rs4939827 in 2532 CRC cases and 2607 controls, was maximally associated with CRC risk [37]. The following functional models further provided evidence for the role of this SNP in transcription factor binding, proposing that this functional SNP was likely to be one of the causal variants in susceptibility loci tagged by rs4939827. Nevertheless, the obvious evidence of between-study heterogeneity in this meta-analysis should be issued. We have applied a comprehensive stratified analysis to interrogate the potential source of heterogeneity. After stratifying by ethnicity, heterogeneity was largely reduced in Asian, reflecting ethnicity could partly explain the heterogeneity. The further supports of that came from the evidence that various manners the T variant likely act in and different allele frequencies between European and Asian populations. When stratified by tumor sites, rectum cancer subgroup did not show heterogeneity anymore, suggesting tumor sites might also be a potential source of heterogeneity. Additionally, significant association only presented for rectum cancer, which was inconsistent with our case-control study, possibly due to our small sample size for stratification by tumor sites. Regarding sample size, heterogeneity was almost removed in small sample studies but not large sample subgroup, possibly due to more complex confounding factors introduced into large sample. Significant association remained in large sample studies for all genetic models, whereas only the recessive model showed significant result in small sample subgroup, reflecting the limited power of small sample size to detect the modest effect of the variant. Taken together, we revealed that the ethnicity, tumor sites, and sample size might constitute source of heterogeneity in this meta-analysis. Whilst, the significant association of rs4939827 presented in the subgroup of replication studies, consistent with the result from GWA study subgroup, suggested this meta-analysis succeed in amplifying power to detect the modest effect of this variant by pooling data across studies. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment indicated the current results from this meta-analysis were stable. Despite the clear strengthen of this study that applied a comprehensive analysis strategy, several limitations should be Figured out. First, the sample size of our case-control study was relatively small. Nevertheless, the following meta-analysis with enough power has drawn the consistent result with our case-control study. Second, the analysis of separate effect for colon or rectum cancer conferred limited power, and more studies are needed. Additionally, CRC is a complex trait corporately influenced by genetic and environmental factors; however, lacking the environment data limited us to further assess gene-environment interaction. In conclusion, our study in a Chinese population and this meta-analysis collectively confirm the significant association between SNP rs4939827 and the colorectal cancer risk in European and Asian populations. However, although a novel SNP in highly LD with rs4939827 has been proposed to be causal, further fine-mapping of the CRC susceptibility loci tagged by rs4939827 is warranted to uncover more causal variants, especially for the low-frequency or rare functional variants. Flow chart of study selection. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Pooled frequency of T allele in European and Asian population. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Funnel plot of publication bias under allelic model. (TIF) Click here for additional data file.
  36 in total

1.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Roles for the MH2 domain of Smad7 in the specific inhibition of transforming growth factor-beta superfamily signaling.

Authors:  Toshiaki Mochizuki; Hideyo Miyazaki; Takane Hara; Toshio Furuya; Takeshi Imamura; Tetsuro Watabe; Kohei Miyazono
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2004-05-17       Impact factor: 5.157

3.  A method for meta-analysis of molecular association studies.

Authors:  Ammarin Thakkinstian; Patrick McElduff; Catherine D'Este; David Duffy; John Attia
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

6.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; M Mazumdar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  A common genetic risk factor for colorectal and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher A Haiman; Loïc Le Marchand; Jennifer Yamamato; Daniel O Stram; Xin Sheng; Laurence N Kolonel; Anna H Wu; David Reich; Brian E Henderson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2007-07-08       Impact factor: 38.330

8.  Common genetic variants at the CRAC1 (HMPS) locus on chromosome 15q13.3 influence colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Emma Jaeger; Emily Webb; Kimberley Howarth; Luis Carvajal-Carmona; Andrew Rowan; Peter Broderick; Axel Walther; Sarah Spain; Alan Pittman; Zoe Kemp; Kate Sullivan; Karl Heinimann; Steven Lubbe; Enric Domingo; Ella Barclay; Lynn Martin; Maggie Gorman; Ian Chandler; Jayaram Vijayakrishnan; Wendy Wood; Elli Papaemmanuil; Steven Penegar; Mobshra Qureshi; Susan Farrington; Albert Tenesa; Jean-Baptiste Cazier; David Kerr; Richard Gray; Julian Peto; Malcolm Dunlop; Harry Campbell; Huw Thomas; Richard Houlston; Ian Tomlinson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2007-12-16       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Common variant in 6q26-q27 is associated with distal colon cancer in an Asian population.

Authors:  R Cui; Y Okada; S G Jang; J L Ku; J G Park; Y Kamatani; N Hosono; T Tsunoda; V Kumar; C Tanikawa; N Kamatani; R Yamada; M Kubo; Y Nakamura; K Matsuda
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Replication study of SNP associations for colorectal cancer in Hong Kong Chinese.

Authors:  J W Ho; S-c Choi; Y-f Lee; T C Hui; S S Cherny; M-M Garcia-Barceló; L Carvajal-Carmona; R Liu; S-h To; T-k Yau; C C Chung; C C Yau; S M Hui; P Y Lau; C-h Yuen; Y-w Wong; S Ho; S S Fung; I P Tomlinson; R S Houlston; K K Cheng; P C Sham
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in SMAD7 and CHI3L1 and Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Amal Ahmed Abd El-Fattah; Nermin Abdel Hamid Sadik; Olfat Gamil Shaker; Amal Mohamed Kamal
Journal:  Mediators Inflamm       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.711

Review 2.  TGF-β/BMP signaling and other molecular events: regulation of osteoblastogenesis and bone formation.

Authors:  Md Shaifur Rahman; Naznin Akhtar; Hossen Mohammad Jamil; Rajat Suvra Banik; Sikder M Asaduzzaman
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 13.567

3.  COX-2-765G>C polymorphism increases the risk of cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiao-feng Wang; Ming-zhu Huang; Xiao-wei Zhang; Rui-xi Hua; Wei-jian Guo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Genetic variant in MTRR, but not MTR, is associated with risk of congenital heart disease: an integrated meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bingxi Cai; Ti Zhang; Rong Zhong; Li Zou; Beibei Zhu; Wei Chen; Na Shen; Juntao Ke; Jiao Lou; Zhenling Wang; Yu Sun; Lifeng Liu; Ranran Song
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Genome-wide association study for backfat thickness in Canchim beef cattle using Random Forest approach.

Authors:  Fabiana Barichello Mokry; Roberto Hiroshi Higa; Maurício de Alvarenga Mudadu; Andressa Oliveira de Lima; Sarah Laguna Conceição Meirelles; Marcos Vinicius Gualberto Barbosa da Silva; Fernando Flores Cardoso; Maurício Morgado de Oliveira; Ismael Urbinati; Simone Cristina Méo Niciura; Rymer Ramiz Tullio; Maurício Mello de Alencar; Luciana Correia de Almeida Regitano
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 2.797

6.  Genetic variations in SMAD7 are associated with colorectal cancer risk in the colon cancer family registry.

Authors:  Xuejuan Jiang; J Esteban Castelao; David Vandenberg; Angel Carracedo; Carmen M Redondo; David V Conti; Jesus P Paredes Cotoré; John D Potter; Polly A Newcomb; Michael N Passarelli; Mark A Jenkins; John L Hopper; Steven Gallinger; Loic Le Marchand; María E Martínez; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Noralane M Lindor; Robert W Haile; Manuela Gago-Dominguez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Association of two variants in SMAD7 with the risk of congenital heart disease in the Han Chinese population.

Authors:  Erli Wang; Wenfei Jin; Wenyuan Duan; Bin Qiao; Shuna Sun; Guoying Huang; Kaihu Shi; Li Jin; Hongyan Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  SMAD7 variant rs4939827 is associated with colorectal cancer risk in Croatian population.

Authors:  Iva Kirac; Petar Matošević; Goran Augustin; Iva Šimunović; Vedran Hostić; Sven Župančić; Caroline Hayward; Natasa Antoljak; Igor Rudan; Harry Campbell; Malcolm G Dunlop; Danko Velimir Vrdoljak; Dujo Kovačević; Lina Zgaga
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Polymorphism of SMAD7 gene (rs2337104) and risk of colorectal cancer in an Iranian population: a case-control study.

Authors:  Zahra Akbari; Nahid Safari-Alighiarloo; Mohammad Yaghoob Taleghani; Farzaneh Sadat Mirfakhar; Hamid Asadzadeh Aghdaei; Mohsen Vahedi; Atena Irani Shemirani; Ehsan Nazemalhosseini-Mojarad; Mohammad Reza Zali
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench       Date:  2014

10.  Correlation Between CASC8, SMAD7 Polymorphisms and the Susceptibility to Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis Based on GWAS Results.

Authors:  Kunhou Yao; Long Hua; Lunshou Wei; Jiming Meng; Junhong Hu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.