Literature DB >> 24531312

Association of ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms with colorectal cancer risk in a Chinese population.

Min Ni1, Wei-zhong Zhang2, Jin-rong Qiu3, Fei Liu4, Min Li5, Ya-jie Zhang6, Qing Liu5, Jin Bai7.   

Abstract

The ERCC1 and ERCC2 genes are important in repairing DNA damage and genomic instability, and are involved in the nucleotide excision repair pathway. We hypothesized that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in ERCC1 and ERCC2 are associated with the risk of colorectal cancer in a Chinese population. To test this hypothesis, we genotyped four functional SNPs (ERCC1 Asn118Asn, C8092A, ERCC2 Asp312Asn, and Lys751Gln) in a case-control study with 213 colorectal cancer cases and 240 cancer-free controls. We found that the ERCC1 C8092A polymorphism AA and CA/AA variant genotypes were associated with a significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer, compared with the CC genotype (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.10-5.70 for AA versus CC, and OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.08-2.30 for CA/AA versus CC). Furthermore, the effect appeared to be more prominent among men, smokers, drinkers, and patients with rectal cancer. However, no other SNPs were observed for any significant association with colorectal cancer risk. These results suggest that the ERCC1 C8092A polymorphism may contribute to colorectal cancer susceptibility in the Chinese population. Further large and functional studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24531312      PMCID: PMC3925949          DOI: 10.1038/srep04112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


Colorectal cancer is currently one of the most common malignant diseases and is the leading cause of mortality in the world1. During the past few decades, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have been increasing rapidly in China2. The mechanism of this form of carcinogenesis is still not fully understood. Despite environmental agents such as cigarette smoking, dietary, alcohol consumption, and obesity, found to be major risk factors for colorectal cancer, only a fraction of individuals exposed to these factors develop colorectal cancer during their lifetime345, suggesting that genetic factors play an important role in the development of colorectal cancer. DNA is regularly damaged by endogenous and exogenous mutagens. The DNA repair pathways play a vital role in protecting against gene mutation caused by carcinogenesis, among which the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway is one of the important DNA repair systems used in correcting localized small lesions and bulky DNA damage67. Excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) and excision repair cross-complementing group 2/xeroderma pigmentosum group D (ERCC2/XPD) both are located on chromosome 19q13.3 that participate in the key steps of NER. ERCC1 and ERCC2 are two key rate-limiting enzymes in the multistep NER process. Some studies have suggested that low ERCC1 expression is associated with increased chemotherapeutic sensitivity and thus considered a predictive marker for patients with colorectal cancer receiving combination oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy8, while other studies indicated that genetic variants in ERCC2 were associated with the increased risk of early relapse in colorectal cancer9. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as important genetic biomarkers, have been reported to be related with altered gene expression and protein activity. Several SNPs of ERCC1 and ERCC2 have been identified, of which ERCC1 rs11615 and rs3212986 SNPs (Asn118Asn and C8092A) have some effects on ERCC1 mRNA expression10, whereas ERCC2 rs1799793 (Asp312Asn) and rs13181 (Lys751Gln) SNPs are associated with suboptimal DNA repair capacity1112. Given the role of ERCC1 and ERCC2 in carcinogenesis, we hypothesized that genetic variations in the ERCC1 and ERCC2 genes may confer individual susceptibility to colorectal cancer. Here, we performed a hospital-based case-control study to investigate the association of ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms with the risk of colorectal cancer in a Chinese population.

Results

The distributions of selected variables between cases and controls are summarized in Table 1. Briefly, there was no significant differences in the distributions of age (P = 0.534), sex (P = 0.743) and smoking status (P = 0.777) between the cases and controls. However, colorectal cancer cases were significantly more likely to report a family history of cancer than the controls in their first-degree relatives (P < 0.001). Among 213 colorectal cancer cases, 109 (51.2%) had colon cancer and 104 (48.8%) had rectal cancer. Regarding tumor stage, 17, 98, 66, and 32 patients classified as stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively.
Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of colorectal cancer cases and controls

 Cases (n = 213)Controls (n = 240)P
Age (mean ± SD), years59.9 ± 12.560.8 ± 15.60.534
Gender     
Male12156.8%14058.3%0.743
Female9243.2%10041.7% 
Smoking habit     
Never14266.7%16367.9%0.777
Ever7133.3%7732.1% 
Family history of cancer     
No15673.2%22192.1%<0.001
Yes5726.8%197.9% 
Tumor site     
Colon10951.2%   
Rectum10448.8%   
Tumor stages     
I178.0%   
II9846.0%   
III6631.0%   
IV3215.0%   
The primary information and minor allele frequencies (MAFs) of the ERCC1 and ERCC2 SNPs are summarized in Table 2. The genotype distributions in the control subjects were all in agreement with the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for all four SNPs (P = 0.315 for ERCC1 Asn118Asn, P = 0.426 for ERCC1 C8092A, P = 0.060 for ERCC2 Asp312Asn, and P = 0.573 for ERCC2 Lys751Gln). Furthermore, the MAFs of ERCC1 Asn118Asn, C8092A, ERCC2 Asp312Asn, and Lys751Gln is 0.268, 0.271, 0.067, and 0.081 in the HapMap-CHB database (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), respectively, which were about the same as that in our study.
Table 2

Genotype and allele frequencies of ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms among cases and controls and their associations with the risk of colorectal cancer

 CasesControlsPOR (95% CI)c
 n%n%
ERCC1 Asn118Asn      
CC11754.9%13556.3%0.767a1.00
CT8238.5%8635.8% 1.13 (0.78–1.67)
TT146.6%197.9% 0.93 (0.44–1.97)
T allele 25.8% 25.8%0.997b 
ERCC1 C8092A      
CC10448.8%14259.2%0.037a1.00
CA9142.7%8836.7% 1.47 (0.99–2.18)
AA188.5%104.1% 2.50 (1.10–5.70)
CA/AA10951.2%9840.8%0.027a1.58 (1.08–2.30)
A allele 29.8% 22.5%0.012b 
ERCC2 Asp312Asn      
GG18285.4%21087.5%0.634a1.00
GA2612.2%2711.3% 1.16 (0.65–2.07)
AA52.4%31.2% 1.76 (0.41–7.51)
A allele 8.5% 6.9%0.372b 
ERCC2 Lys751Gln      
AA17682.6%20183.8%0.776a1.00
AC3516.4%3815.8% 1.13 (0.68–1.87)
CC21.0%10.4% 3.10 (0.27–35.4)
C allele 9.2% 8.3%0.662b 

aTwo-sided chi-squared test for genotype distributions between cases and controls.

bTwo-sided chi-squared test for allele frequencies between cases and controls.

cORs were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status.

As shown in Table 2, logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 C8092A AA genotype, but not the CA genotype, was associated with a significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer, compared with the CC genotype (P = 0.037) (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.10–5.70 for AA versus CC; and OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.99–2.18 for CA versus CC). The ERCC1 C8092A A allele was associated with the increased risk of colorectal cancer between the cases and controls (P = 0.012). Furthermore, a significant increased risk of colorectal cancer was found in the combined variant genotype CA/AA compared with the CC genotype (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.08–2.30). However, no significant association was observed between variant genotype of the other three SNPs (ERCC1 Asn118Asn, ERCC2 Asp312Asn, and ERCC2 Lys751Gln) and colorectal cancer risk. We further evaluated the effect of the ERCC1 C8092A polymorphism on colorectal cancer risk in the subgroups stratified by age, sex, and smoking status. As shown in Table 3, we found that, compared with the C8092A CC genotype, the CA/AA genotype was associated with a significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer risk among men (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.16–3.23), smokers (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.06–2.67), drinkers (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.05–2.51), and patients with rectal cancer (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.08–2.76). However, no significant gene-environment interaction was observed.
Table 3

Stratified analyses on association between the ERCC1 C8092A polymorphism and risk of colorectal cancer

 Cases (n = 213)Controls (n = 240)Adjusted OR (95%CI)a
CharacteristicsCCCA/AACCCA/AA
Age     
≤60495253351.50 (0.80–2.82)
>60555789631.52 (0.92–2.54)
Sex     
Male576488521.94 (1.16–3.23)
Female474554461.20 (0.65–2.22)
Smoking status     
Never353642351.18 (0.60–2.33)
Ever6973100631.69 (1.06–2.67)
Drinking status     
Never293128231.45 (0.62–3.42)
Ever7578114751.62 (1.05–2.51)
Tumor site     
Colon5653142981.48 (0.93–2.36)
Rectum4856142981.72 (1.08–2.76)

aORs and P value were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the associations between four common, potentially functional genetic variants (ERCC1 Asn118Asn, C8092A, ERCC2 Asp312Asn, and Lys751Gln) and the risk of colorectal cancer in a Chinese population. We found that ERCC1 C8092A seemed to be associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. In contrast, ERCC1 Asn118Asn, ERCC2 Asp312Asn and Lys751Gln SNPs did not observe any significant association with the risk of colorectal cancer in the Chinese population. Decreased efficiency of DNA repair is considered as a crucial role in carcinogenesis as such defects accelerate genetic instability and the rate of genetic change1314. As genes in the NER pathway, ERCC1 and ERCC2 are essential to the repair of DNA adducts in colorectal cancer15161718. For example, a multitude of studies have focused on the relationship between ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms and the prognostics for the treatment with platinum agents in colorectal cancer patients, and the meta-analyses of these data found that two SNPs in ERCC1 and ERCC2 might be useful prognostic factors for assessing clinical outcomes of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies in colorectal cancer17. The mutations or polymorphisms of these two genes could alter DNA repair capacity, so it was biologically plausible to assume that the ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms might have functional significance in colorectal cancer. The present study investigated the associations of the ERCC1 Asn118Asn, C8092A, ERCC2 Asp312Asn and Lys751Gln polymorphisms with risk of colorectal cancer in the Chinese population. The ERCC1 C8092A A allele appeared to be the risk allele for developing colorectal cancer, which was more frequent in cases than in controls. The precise mechanism for the positive association of the C8092A polymorphism remains unclear, as there are no direct functional data available for this polymorphism. Because the SNP is located at the 3′-untranslated region (3′-UTR) which can be regulated by regulatory proteins and microRNAs, the C8092A polymorphism in the 3′-UTR region could affect the stability and translation of the mRNA and further influence the amount of receptor protein expressed by a cell1920. In fact, like other complex diseases, colorectal cancer is a complex trait caused by both genetic and environmental factors212223. Although our results suggest that the SNPs of ERCC2 do not directly contribute to the susceptibility to colorectal cancer, they may perhaps affect colorectal cancer risk by combining with additional polymorphisms in other genes or non-inherited risk factors. Further, a recent meta-analysis involving 22 eligible case-control studies failed to observe significant associations of these two SNPs with the risk of colorectal cancer, suggesting other genetic variants may be associated with the carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer24. Although the clinical practice of ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk is not yet established, our results with the integration of clinical, epidemiological, and genetic data could rationalize the individualized prevention. If validated, it could be effective to select the optimal intervention according to different genotypes of the ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms that would predict who will benefit most in the general population from colorectal cancer screening. Several limitations of this study should be addressed. Firstly, the sample size may limit the statistical power of our study, especially for subgroup analyses. Secondly, our patients were from hospitals and controls were randomly selected from the surrounding community population, therefore inherent selection bias cannot be completely excluded. Thirdly, dietary factors appear to be among the most important determinants of colorectal cancer risk25. Because the dietary data was not complete, we did not analyze stratification of dietary factors on colorectal cancer risk. Further studies with dietary information are needed. Finally, although we had 80% power at a 0.05 or smaller with level to detect an OR of 1.80 or greater and 0.49 or smaller with an exposure frequency of 22.5% given our current study sample size (data not shown), the sample was relatively small, which greatly decreased statistical power of the analysis. In conclusion, our results indicate that the ERCC1 C8092A SNP may be involved in the susceptibility of colorectal cancer in the Chinese population. Future studies with larger samples and functional evaluation are warranted to validate our findings.

Methods

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the institutional review board of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine. The informed written consent was obtained from all subjects.

Study populations

A total of 213 colorectal cancer cases and 240 cancer-free controls were included. In brief, the cases were incident colorectal cancer patients and were consecutively recruited from the Nanjing Hospital of T.C.M and Xuzhou First People Hospital, Jiangsu, China, starting in September 2010. Controls were randomly selected from a pool of healthy volunteers who visited the general health check-up center. The cancer-free control subjects were genetically unrelated to the cases and had no individual history of cancer. After written informed consent was obtained, demographic data and environmental exposure history were obtained from the patients using a standardized face-to-face questionnaire.

Genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from a leukocyte pellet by traditional proteinase K digestion followed by phenol-chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation. SNPs were genotyped by using the TaqMan allelic discrimination assay on the platform of 7900HT Real-time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City,CA). Genotyping was performed without knowing each subject's case or control status, and two negative controls (no DNA) included in each 384-well plate were used for quality control. The genotyping results were determined by using SDS 2.3 Allelic Discrimination Software (Applied Biosystems). Genotype analysis was performed by two persons independently in a blind fashion. In addition, 10% of randomly selected samples were repeated independently to verify genotyping results.

Statistical analyses

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was tested by a goodness-of-fit χ2-test to compare the observed genotype frequencies to the expected ones among the controls. Student's t-test or χ2-test was used to evaluate differences in the distribution of characteristics of selected variables and genotypes between the cases and controls. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by unconditional logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex, and cigarette smoking. The statistical power was calculated by using the PS software (http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/PowerSampleSize). All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS statistical package, version 13.0. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A value of P < 0.05 was taken as significant (2 tailed).

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: N.M. and Z.W. Performed the experiments: N.M. and Z.W. Analyzed the data: L.F. and L.M. Contributed reagents/material/analysis tools: Z.Y., Q.J., L.Q. and B.J. Wrote the manuscript: N.M. and Z.W. Reference collection and data management: J.W., Q.J., H.H. and Y.Z. Statistical analyses and paper writing: N.M. and Z.W. Study design: N.M., Z.W. and B.J.
  25 in total

1.  Colorectal cancer epidemiology: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors.

Authors:  Fatima A Haggar; Robin P Boushey
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2009-11

Review 2.  ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms predict clinical outcomes of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies in gastric and colorectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ming Yin; Jingrong Yan; Eva Martinez-Balibrea; Francesco Graziano; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Hyo-Jin Kim; Jacques Robert; Seock-Ah Im; Wei-Shu Wang; Marie-Christine Etienne-Grimaldi; Qingyi Wei
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  ERCC1 and thymidylate synthase mRNA levels predict survival for colorectal cancer patients receiving combination oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Authors:  Y Shirota; J Stoehlmacher; J Brabender; Y P Xiong; H Uetake; K D Danenberg; S Groshen; D D Tsao-Wei; P V Danenberg; H J Lenz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Comparison of two human ovarian carcinoma cell lines (A2780/CP70 and MCAS) that are equally resistant to platinum, but differ at codon 118 of the ERCC1 gene.

Authors:  J J Yu; K B Lee; C Mu; Q Li; T V Abernathy; F Bostick-Bruton; E Reed
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.650

5.  The changing epidemiology of colorectal cancer and its relevance for adapting screening guidelines and methods.

Authors:  Paul Rozen; Irena Liphshitz; Micha Barchana
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  MicroRNA expression profiles classify human cancers.

Authors:  Jun Lu; Gad Getz; Eric A Miska; Ezequiel Alvarez-Saavedra; Justin Lamb; David Peck; Alejandro Sweet-Cordero; Benjamin L Ebert; Raymond H Mak; Adolfo A Ferrando; James R Downing; Tyler Jacks; H Robert Horvitz; Todd R Golub
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Repair of DNA lesions: mechanisms and relative repair efficiencies.

Authors:  E Braithwaite; X Wu; Z Wang
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1999-03-08       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Cancer trends in China.

Authors:  Ping Zhao; Min Dai; Wanqing Chen; Ni Li
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  The impact of dietary and lifestyle risk factors on risk of colorectal cancer: a quantitative overview of the epidemiological evidence.

Authors:  Rachel R Huxley; Alireza Ansary-Moghaddam; Peter Clifton; Sebastien Czernichow; Christine L Parr; Mark Woodward
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Very low prevalence of XPD K751Q polymorphism and its association with XPD expression and outcomes of FOLFOX-4 treatment in Asian patients with colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Jiun-I Lai; Cheng-Hwai Tzeng; Po-Min Chen; Jen-Kou Lin; Tzu-Chen Lin; Wei-Shone Chen; Jeng-Kae Jiang; Huann-Sheng Wang; Wei-Shu Wang
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 6.716

View more
  16 in total

1.  ERCC polymorphisms and prognosis of patients with osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Jinsong Li; Shaohua Liu; Weiguo Wang; Kexiang Zhang; Zhendong Liu; Chaoyue Zhang; Shijie Chen; Song Wu
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-07-15

2.  The R156R ERCC2 polymorphism as a risk factor of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Magdalena M Michalska; Dariusz Samulak; Filip Jabłoński; Hanna Romanowicz; Beata Smolarz
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-09-09

Review 3.  Association between the ERCC2 Asp312Asn polymorphism and risk of cancer.

Authors:  Feifan Xiao; Jian Pu; Qiongxian Wen; Qin Huang; Qinle Zhang; Birong Huang; Shanshan Huang; Aihua Lan; Yuening Zhang; Jiatong Li; Dong Zhao; Jing Shen; Huayu Wu; Yan He; Hongtao Li; Xiaoli Yang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-18

4.  The Differential Expression of Core Genes in Nucleotide Excision Repair Pathway Indicates Colorectal Carcinogenesis and Prognosis.

Authors:  Jingwei Liu; Hao Li; Liping Sun; Xue Feng; Zhenning Wang; Yuan Yuan; Chengzhong Xing
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  CYP1A1 Ile462Val polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk in Polish patients.

Authors:  Justyna Gil; Paweł Gaj; Błażej Misiak; Jerzy Ostrowski; Pawel Karpinski; Alicja Jarczyńska; Wojciech Kielan; Maria Malgorzata Sasiadek
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.064

6.  ERCC1 single nucleotide polymorphism C8092A, but not its expression is associated with survival of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients from Fujian province, China.

Authors:  Wan-Hua Chen; Pei-Ling Xin; Qun-Xiong Pan; Ya-Yun Chen; Cong-Ren Wang; Zhi-Shan Zhang; Yi-Feng Chen; Chao-Yang Zhang; Wen-Jie Cai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Lack of association between the XPD Lys751Gln polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tao Zhang; Dong-Ming Zhang; Da Zhao; Xiao-Ming Hou; Shou-Cheng Ma; Xiao-Jun Liu
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  An Association between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms of Lys751Gln ERCC2 Gene and Ovarian Cancer in Polish Women.

Authors:  Magdalena M Michalska; Dariusz Samulak; Hanna Romanowicz; Maciej Sobkowski; Beata Smolarz
Journal:  Adv Med       Date:  2015-10-07

Review 9.  Meta-analysis showing that ERCC1 polymorphism is predictive of osteosarcoma prognosis.

Authors:  Xueyong Liu; Zhan Zhang; Chunbo Deng; Yihao Tian; Xun Ma
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-19

10.  Association of DNA repair gene variants with colorectal cancer: risk, toxicity, and survival.

Authors:  Hamideh Salimzadeh; Elinor Bexe Lindskog; Bengt Gustavsson; Yvonne Wettergren; David Ljungman
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.