| Literature DB >> 22642904 |
Xuhui Zhang1, Xuan Zhang, Lei Zhang, Qing Chen, Zhangping Yang, Jingmin Yu, Hong Fu, Yimin Zhu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational chromium exposure may induce DNA damage and lead to lung cancer and other work-related diseases. DNA repair gene polymorphisms, which may alter the efficiency of DNA repair, thus may contribute to genetic susceptibility of DNA damage. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the genetic variations of 9 major DNA repair genes could modulate the hexavalent chromium (Cr (VI))-induced DNA damage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22642904 PMCID: PMC3500259 DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
The chromium concentration in erythrocytes (μg/l) and DNA damage in exposed and control subjects
| chromium concentration in erythrocytes (μg/l) | 4.41 (2.50–5.29) | 1.54 (0.61–2.98) | <0.001 |
| Olive tail moment | 1.13 (0.47–1.45) | 0.12 (0.04–0.22) | <0.001 |
| Tail Length | 11.77 (6.42–14.84) | 3.26 (3.00–4.00) | <0.001 |
| Tail DNA% | 3.69 (2.50–5.29) | 0.59 (0.19–1.11) | <0.001 |
1. Data were presented as median (P25-P75).
2. P values were calculated with rank sum test between the exposed and control subjects.
3. Owing to missing detect in DNA damage and genotype, the numbers of subjects in Table 2 were less 157 in exposed group and 93 in control group.
DNA damage in the exposed subjects with different genotypes of polymorphisms
| XRCC1 Arg399Gln | GG | 70 | 0.93 | 0.58–1.79 | 9.74 | 6.89–18.14 | 3.25 | 1.94–5.58 |
| GA | 42 | 0.73 | 0.46–1.35 | 8.19 | 5.93–13.79 | 2.50 | 1.77–4.36 | |
| AA | 8 | 0.50 | 0.43–0.93 | 6.64 | 5.00–9.92 | 1.91 | 1.43–3.03 | |
| | | 0.048 | 0.050 | 0.039 | ||||
| | AA + GA | 50 | 0.66 | 0.44–1.31 | 8.00 | 5.69–13.74 | 2.32 | 1.66–4.33 |
| | | 0.043 | 0.067 | 0.046 | ||||
| XRCC1 Arg194Trp | CC | 66 | 0.75 | 0.47–1.45 | 8.55 | 6.30–14.22 | 2.82 | 1.66–4.85 |
| CT | 49 | 0.91 | 0.48–1.49 | 9.69 | 6.97–16.25 | 3.22 | 1.83–4.75 | |
| TT | 5 | 0.66 | 0.37–1.82 | 7.67 | 5.11–16.94 | 2.39 | 1.29–5.84 | |
| | | 0.973 | 0.964 | 0.992 | ||||
| OGG1 Ser326Cys | CC | 18 | 1.09 | 0.41–1.84 | 11.72 | 4.92–18.87 | 3.63 | 1.55–5.80 |
| CG | 56 | 0.86 | 0.47–1.46 | 9.18 | 6.50–15.53 | 3.07 | 1.73–4.86 | |
| GG | 41 | 0.78 | 0.56–1.19 | 8.93 | 6.87–12.07 | 2.69 | 2.02–4.15 | |
| | | 0.462 | 0.335 | 0.377 | ||||
| ERCC1 C8092A | CC | 20 | 0.84 | 0.45–1.38 | 9.79 | 6.56–15.53 | 3.20 | 1.77–4.72 |
| CA | 47 | 0.71 | 0.47–1.43 | 8.10 | 5.81–14.10 | 2.45 | 1.61–4.53 | |
| AA | 49 | 0.92 | 0.62–1.60 | 9.66 | 7.21–17.29 | 3.22 | 2.06–5.50 | |
| | | 0.543 | 0.690 | 0.595 | ||||
| ERCC5 His1104Asp | GG | 25 | 0.92 | 0.62–1.60 | 9.66 | 7.21–17.29 | 3.22 | 2.06–5.50 |
| GC | 61 | 0.84 | 0.54–1.50 | 9.66 | 6.79–15.88 | 2.84 | 1.99–4.99 | |
| CC | 30 | 0.83 | 0.50–1.38 | 9.21 | 7.01–15.05 | 3.04 | 1.81–4.59 | |
| | | 0.886 | 0.931 | 0.920 | ||||
| ERCC6 Gly399Asp | CC | 32 | 0.83 | 0.49–1.14 | 8.90 | 6.82–11.70 | 3.03 | 1.87–3.97 |
| CT | 54 | 0.75 | 0.48–1.73 | 8.26 | 6.42–16.12 | 2.75 | 1.85–5.51 | |
| TT | 31 | 1.03 | 0.48–1.57 | 10.70 | 5.72–18.10 | 3.22 | 1.68–5.19 | |
| | | 0.143 | 0.152 | 0.203 | ||||
| XPD Lys751Gln | AA | 94 | 0.82 | 0.48–1.45 | 9.50 | 6.42–14.84 | 2.94 | 1.81–4.80 |
| AC | 20 | 0.81 | 0.48–1.81 | 8.79 | 7.00–16.74 | 2.88 | 1.88–5.81 | |
| CC | 0 | | | | | | | |
| | | 0.771 | 0.742 | 0.900 | ||||
| XPC Lys939Gln | GG | 45 | 0.89 | 0.56–1.52 | 9.66 | 6.97–15.96 | 2.96 | 2.02–5.14 |
| GT | 53 | 0.83 | 0.47–1.40 | 8.87 | 6.63–14.07 | 2.75 | 1.39–6.13 | |
| TT | 18 | 0.81 | 0.39–2.10 | 9.13 | 5.68–23.00 | 2.92 | 1.73–4.57 | |
| | | 0.564 | 0.379 | 0.705 | ||||
| GSTP1 Ile105Val | AA | 80 | 0.83 | 0.52–1.58 | 9.21 | 6.75–15.65 | 2.94 | 1.85–5.30 |
| AG | 30 | 0.70 | 0.38–1.41 | 8.03 | 5.71–15.29 | 2.41 | 1.62–4.53 | |
| GG | 6 | 1.02 | 0.71–1.84 | 11.89 | 8.83–18.95 | 3.74 | 2.46–5.83 | |
| 0.169 | 0.514 | 0.463 | ||||||
* The DNA damage data was square root-transformed and multivariable linear model was used after adjusting confounding factors of gender, age, smoking status, drinking and exposure time of chromium.
Comparing the subjects with GG genotype with AA + GA.
∫ Owing to missing detect in DNA damage and genotype, the numbers of subjects in Table 2 were less 157 in exposed group.
Figure 1The percentage of high DNA damage in different genotypes of XRCC1 399. DNA damage was quantitatively assessed with Olive tail moment by alkaline comet assay. High DNA damage was defined as great than the value (1.44) of percentile 75 of Olive tail moment.