| Literature DB >> 22857644 |
Changwei Ji1, Zhao Liu, Huimei Chen, Hongqian Guo, Changjian Liu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer results from complex interactions between many genetic and environment factors. The polymorphism Ser326Cys in hOGG1 gene has been reported to be associated with bladder cancer in some studies, though the results remain inconclusive. To explore this relationship of hOGG1 polymorphism and the susceptibility for bladder cancer and the impact of smoking exposures, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed in this study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22857644 PMCID: PMC3487852 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-335
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
| Kim (2005) [ | Korea | Asian | PCR-RFLP | N = 153 (62.9 ± 10.8 yrs) | N = 153 (60.7 ± 11.8 yrs) | Hospital-based |
| Karahalil (2006) [ | Turkey | Caucasian | PCR-RFLP | N = 100 (mean age 60.2 yrs) | N = 100 (age, sex matched controls) | Hospital-based |
| Huang (2007) [ | USA | Caucasian | Taqman | N = 696 (63.9 ± 11.1 yrs) | N = 629 (age, sex matched controls) | Hospital-based |
| Figueroa (2007) [ | Spain | Caucasian | Taqman | N = 1150 (66 ± 10 yrs) | N = 1149 (65 ± 10 yrs) | Hospital-based |
| Arizono (2008) [ | Japan | Asian | PCR-RFLP | N = 251 (68.2 ± 11.2 yrs) | N = 251 (age-matched healthy controls) | Population-based |
| Narter (2009) [ | Turkey | Caucasian | PCR-RFLP | N = 83 (63.4 ± 11.7 yrs) | N = 45 (59.9 ± 9.71 yrs) | Hospital-based |
| Mittal (2011) [ | India | Asian | ARMS-PCR | N = 212 (58.5 ± 12.4 yrs) | N = 250 (56.8 ± 10.8 yrs) | Hospital-based |
Distribution of genotype and allele frequencies of the Ser326Cys polymorphism
| Kim (2005) [ | 37 (24.2%) | 90 (58.8%) | 26 (17.0%) | 38 (24.8%) | 70 (45.6%) | 45 (29.4%) | 164 (53.6%) | 142 (46.4%) | 146 (47.7%) | 160 (52.3%) | 0.30 |
| Karahalil (2006) [ | 40 (40.4%) | 47 (47.5%) | 12 (12.1%) | 62 (62.0%) | 20 (20.0%) | 18 (18.0%) | 127 (64.1%) | 71 (35.9%) | 144 (72.0%) | 56 (28.0%) | <0.001 |
| Huang (2007) [ | 375 (61.2%) | 209 (34.1%) | 29 (4.73%) | 348 (58.0%) | 216 (36.0%) | 36 (6%) | 959 (78.2%) | 267 (21.8%) | 912 (76.0%) | 288 (24.0%) | 0.75 |
| Figueroa (2007) [ | 649 (59.7%) | 383 (35.2%) | 56 (5.15%) | 596 (58.5%) | 361 (35.5%) | 61 (5.99%) | 1681 (77.3%) | 495 (22.7%) | 1553 (76.3%) | 483 (23.7%) | 0.52 |
| Arizono (2008) [ | 61 (24.3%) | 107 (42.6%) | 83 (33.1%) | 67 (26.7%) | 135 (53.8%) | 49 (19.5%) | 229 (45.6%) | 273 (54.4%) | 269 (53.6%) | 233 (46.4%) | 0.20 |
| Narter (2009)[ | 37 (63.8%) | 13 (22.4%) | 8 (13.8%) | 18 (50.0%) | 18 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 87 (75.0%) | 29 (25.0%) | 54 (75.0%) | 18 (25.0%) | 0.08 |
| Mittal (2011) [ | 92 (43.4%) | 93 (43.9%) | 27 (12.7%) | 122 (48.8%) | 111 (44.4%) | 17 (6.8%) | 277 (65.3%) | 147 (34.7%) | 355 (71.0%) | 145 (29.0%) | 0.21 |
| Total | 1291 (52.2%) | 942 (38.1%) | 241 (9.74%) | 1251 (52.0%) | 931 (38.7%) | 226 (9.39%) | 3524 (71.2%) | 1424 (28.8%) | 3433 (71.3%) | 1383 (28.7%) | 0.006 |
Ser326Cys genotype frequency and distribution according to smoking status
| | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | ||||||
| Karahalil (2006)[ | 14 (41.2%) | 16 (47.1%) | 4 (11.7%) | 27 (62.8%) | 9 (20.9%) | 7 (16.3%) | |
| | Huang (2007) [ | 279 (62.7%) | 166 a (37.3%) | 183 (55.5%) | 147a (44.5%) | ||
| | Arizono (2008) [ | 42 (25.5%) | 72 (43.6%) | 51 (30.9%) | 42 (26.6%) | 83 (52.5%) | 33 (20.9%) |
| | Mittal (2011) [ | 107 b (89.2%) | 13 (10.8%) | 72 b (93.5%) | 5 (6.49%) | ||
| Karahalil (2006) [ | 7 (53.8%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (15.4%) | 38 (66.7%) | 9 (15.8%) | 10 (17.5%) | |
| | Huang (2007) [ | 96 (60.8%) | 62 b (39.2%) | 165 (59.4%) | 113 b (40.6%) | ||
| | Arizono (2008) [ | 19 (22.1%) | 35 (40.7%) | 32 (37.2%) | 25 (26.9%) | 52 (55.9%) | 16 (17.2%) |
| Mittal (2011) [ | 75 a (84.3%) | 14 (15.7%) | 161 a (93.1%) | 12 (6.94%) | |||
a: As only the data of dominant model were available, these data were referred to the sum of Ser/Cys and Cys/Cys.
b: As only the data of recessive model were available, these data were referred to the sum of Ser/ Ser and Ser/Cys.
The main ORs of Ser326Cys polymorphisms in the meta-analysis
| 326Cys allele versus 326Ser allele (additive model) a | All populations | 1.06 (0.90, 1.26) | 64% | 0.01 | Random | 0.49 |
| Caucasian populations | 0.95 (0.85, 1.06) | 30% | 0.23 | Fixed | 0.38 | |
| | Asian populations | 1.14 (0.82, 1.57) | 75% | 0.02 | Random | 0.44 |
| | Hospital-based | 1.00 (0.90, 1.11) | 51% | 0.07 | Random | 0.99 |
| | Studies in HWE | 1.01 (0.91, 1.44) | 65% | 0.02 | Random | 0.83 |
| Cys/Cys versus Ser/Ser (homozygote contrast) a | All populations | 1.11 (0.74, 1.66) | 65% | 0.009 | Random | 0.63 |
| Caucasian populations | 0.87 (0.66, 1.16) | 0% | 0.41 | Fixed | 0.35 | |
| | Asian populations | 1.34 (0.64, 2.83) | 78% | 0.01 | Random | 0.44 |
| | Hospital-based | 0.97 (0.65, 1.45) | 54% | 0.06 | Random | 0.89 |
| | Studies in HWE | 1.12 (0.71, 1.79) | 71% | 0.004 | Random | 0.62 |
| Cys/Cys versus Cys/Ser + Ser/Ser (recessive genetic model)a | All populations | 1.05 (0.65, 1.70) | 79% | <0.0001 | Random | 0.85 |
| | Caucasian populations | 0.85 (0.65, 1.21) | 25% | 0.26 | Fixed | 0.25 |
| | Asian populations | 1.26 (0.50, 3.17) | 89% | <0.0001 | Random | 0.62 |
| | Hospital-based | 0.89 (0.57, 1.38) | 66% | 0.01 | Random | 0.59 |
| | Studies in HWE | 1.14 (0.67, 1.94) | 81% | <0.0001 | Random | 0.64 |
| Cys/Cys + Cys/Ser versus Ser/Ser (dominant genetic model) a | All populations | 1.07 (0.87, 1.32) | 58% | 0.03 | Random | 0.53 |
| | Caucasian populations | 1.04 (0.74, 1.47) | 75% | 0.007 | Random | 0.82 |
| | Asian populations | 1.16 (0.91, 1.47) | 0% | 0.85 | Fixed | 0.23 |
| | Hospital-based | 1.07 (0.83, 1.36) | 64% | 0.02 | Random | 0.61 |
| Studies in HWE | 0.97 (0.86, 1.09) | 0% | 0.45 | Fixed | 0.59 |
a: The reference groups are the second genotypes.
Figure 1Overall meta-analysis of the 326Cys allele in the recessive genetic model using a random-effect model.
The ORs of Ser326Cys polymorphisms according smoker status
| 326Cys allele versus 326Ser allele (additive model) a | Smoker subjects | 1.29 (0.97-1.71) | 0% | 0.64 | Fixed | 0.08 |
| Non-smoker subjects | 0% | 0.65 | Fixed | 0.02 | ||
| Cys/Cys versus Ser/Ser (homozygote contrast) a | Smoker subjects | 1.46 (0.84, 2.56) | 0% | 0.66 | Fixed | 0.18 |
| Cys/Cys versus Cys/Ser + Ser/Ser (recessive genetic model) a | Smoker subjects | 1.54 (1.00, 2.37) | 0% | 0.44 | Fixed | 0.05 |
| Cys/Cys + Cys/Ser versus Ser/Ser (dominant genetic model) a | Smoker subjects | 0.72 (0.26, 2.02) | 87% | 0.004 | Random | 0.53 |
| Non-smoker subjects | 1.58 (0.72, 3.50) | 75% | 0.02 | Random | 0.26 |
a: The reference groups are the second genotypes.
Figure 2Overall meta-analysis of the Cys/Cys genotype in the recessive genetic model in the non-smoker population.