BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an age related non-malignant disease diagnosed as lower urinary tract symptoms and prostatic enlargement. Null genotypes in drug detoxification glutathione-S-transferase genes/enzymes, such as GSTT1 and GSTM1 have been reported to increase risk of several cancers including prostate. Meta-analysis on PC also suggested significant impact of GSTM1 null genotype but not that of GSTT1; however, BPH data have not been subjected to meta-analysis. METHODS: We investigated GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes in 429 subjects which included 244 BPH, 51 prostate cancer (PC) patients, and 134 control subjects to find if null genotype in any of the two genes increased the risk of BPH/PC. We also performed a quantitative meta-analysis on 888 BPH cases and 793 controls for GSTM1 and on 890 BPH cases and 793 controls for GSTT1 to assess overall consensus about the impact of null genotypes on BPH risk. RESULTS: We did not find any significant difference in the distribution of genotypes of either of the two genes between BPH/PC cases and controls; however, double deletion (GSTM1 null + GSTT1 null) increased BPH risk, significantly. Upon meta-analysis, null genotype of GSTM1 but not that of GSTT1 appeared to strongly affect BPH risk. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, null genotypes of either GSTM1 or GSTT1 do not appear to affect BPH risk; however, the double deletion was significantly associated with BPH. Meta-analysis suggested significant influence of GSTM1 null genotype but not that of GSTT1 on BPH risk.
BACKGROUND:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an age related non-malignant disease diagnosed as lower urinary tract symptoms and prostatic enlargement. Null genotypes in drug detoxification glutathione-S-transferase genes/enzymes, such as GSTT1 and GSTM1 have been reported to increase risk of several cancers including prostate. Meta-analysis on PC also suggested significant impact of GSTM1 null genotype but not that of GSTT1; however, BPH data have not been subjected to meta-analysis. METHODS: We investigated GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes in 429 subjects which included 244 BPH, 51 prostate cancer (PC) patients, and 134 control subjects to find if null genotype in any of the two genes increased the risk of BPH/PC. We also performed a quantitative meta-analysis on 888 BPH cases and 793 controls for GSTM1 and on 890 BPH cases and 793 controls for GSTT1 to assess overall consensus about the impact of null genotypes on BPH risk. RESULTS: We did not find any significant difference in the distribution of genotypes of either of the two genes between BPH/PC cases and controls; however, double deletion (GSTM1 null + GSTT1 null) increased BPH risk, significantly. Upon meta-analysis, null genotype of GSTM1 but not that of GSTT1 appeared to strongly affect BPH risk. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, null genotypes of either GSTM1 or GSTT1 do not appear to affect BPH risk; however, the double deletion was significantly associated with BPH. Meta-analysis suggested significant influence of GSTM1 null genotype but not that of GSTT1 on BPH risk.
Authors: Rufus Cartwright; Altaf Mangera; Kari A O Tikkinen; Prabhakar Rajan; Jori Pesonen; Anna C Kirby; Ganesh Thiagamoorthy; Chris Ambrose; Juan Gonzalez-Maffe; Phillip R Bennett; Tom Palmer; Andrew Walley; Marjo-Riitta Järvelin; Vik Khullar; Chris Chapple Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jacklyn N Hellwege; Sarah Stallings; Eric S Torstenson; Robert Carroll; Kenneth M Borthwick; Murray H Brilliant; David Crosslin; Adam Gordon; George Hripcsak; Gail P Jarvik; James G Linneman; Parimala Devi; Peggy L Peissig; Patrick A M Sleiman; Hakon Hakonarson; Marylyn D Ritchie; Shefali Setia Verma; Ning Shang; Josh C Denny; Dan M Roden; Digna R Velez Edwards; Todd L Edwards Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrew Feber; Paul Guilhamon; Matthias Lechner; Tim Fenton; Gareth A Wilson; Christina Thirlwell; Tiffany J Morris; Adrienne M Flanagan; Andrew E Teschendorff; John D Kelly; Stephan Beck Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 13.583