Li Zhang1, Xinghua Long1. 1. Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Abstract
The associations of SNPs in TOX3 gene with breast cancer risk were investigated by some Genome-wide association studies and epidemiological studies, but the study results were contradictory. To derive a more precise estimate of the associations, we conducted a meta-analysis. ORs with 95% CI were used to assess the strength of association between TOX3 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in fixed or random effect model. A total of 37 publications with 97275 cases and 128686 controls were identified. We observed that the rs3803662 C > T, rs12443621 A > G and rs8051542 C > T were all correlated with increased risk of breast cancer. In the stratified analyses by ethnicity, significantly elevated risk was detected for all genetic models of the three SNPs in Caucasians. In Asian populations, there were significant associations of rs3803662 and rs8051542 with breast cancer risk. Whereas there was no evidence for statistical significant association between the three SNPs and breast cancer risk in Africans. Additionally, we observed different associations of rs3803662 with breast cancer risk based on different ER subtype and BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. In conclusion, the meta-analysis suggested that three SNPs in TOX3 were significantly associated with breast cancer risk in different populations.
The associations of SNPs in TOX3 gene with breast cancer risk were investigated by some Genome-wide association studies and epidemiological studies, but the study results were contradictory. To derive a more precise estimate of the associations, we conducted a meta-analysis. ORs with 95% CI were used to assess the strength of association between TOX3 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in fixed or random effect model. A total of 37 publications with 97275 cases and 128686 controls were identified. We observed that the rs3803662 C > T, rs12443621 A > G and rs8051542 C > T were all correlated with increased risk of breast cancer. In the stratified analyses by ethnicity, significantly elevated risk was detected for all genetic models of the three SNPs in Caucasians. In Asian populations, there were significant associations of rs3803662 and rs8051542 with breast cancer risk. Whereas there was no evidence for statistical significant association between the three SNPs and breast cancer risk in Africans. Additionally, we observed different associations of rs3803662 with breast cancer risk based on different ER subtype and BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. In conclusion, the meta-analysis suggested that three SNPs in TOX3 were significantly associated with breast cancer risk in different populations.
Breast cancer is the most generally diagnosed cancer and the most common cause of cancer death for females all over the world, particularly in the economically developing countries1. It is well known that breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, not only in the aspect of various pathogenesis, but also in diversified clinical manifestation and outcome. Meanwhile, breast carcinoma is multifactorial disease, from a certain perspective, along with the combination of polygenic inheritance factor and environmental factor. Accompany with technological advances, more studies related with the genomic variation were conducted, in order to improve diagnosis and treatment for breast cancerpatients. Mutations in some high and moderate penetrate genes, such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and ATM, were verified to be connected with the increased risk of breast cancer23. Nonetheless, these mutations constitute a part of the disease risk and it remains unclarified for the majority of genetic variations related with breast cancer susceptibility, particularly for low penetrate genes. It is noteworthy that genome-wide association studies (GWASs) about hundreds of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provide strong evidences in elaborating the associations between low penetrate genes and breast cancer risk.The TOX3 gene, formerly known as trinucleotide repeat containing 9 (TNRC9), is located in the chromosome 16q 12 and has a tri-nucleotide repeat motive. The gene encoded a protein containing a putative high mobility group (HMG) box4, indicating that it might play a potential role in calcium dependent transcription as a transcription factor5. In the recent years, the associations between genetic variants in TOX3 region and breast cancer susceptibility have been validated by GWASs and epidemiological studies in European, Asian and African American populations678910111213. The SNP rs3803662 is located in 8 kb upstream of TOX3, and the rs12443621 and rs8051542 are both lied in an linkage disequilibrium (LD) block containing the 5′ end of TOX36.The TOX3rs3803662 was identified to exhibit association with breast cancer by GWASs6710, with ascertainment of the association in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women by Slattery et al.11. However, no significant association was found between rs3803662 and breast cancer risk in Asian and African ancestry813. Analogously, there was no evidence for the association between rs12443621 or rs8051542 and increased risk of breast cancer in Chinese women141516. Whereas, Shan et al. reported that rs8051542 was significantly correlated with breast cancer risk in Tunisians17. Additionally, some studies found different relationships of three SNPs and breast cancer risk among different populations, which might result from different sample size or diverse allele frequencies and LD pattern among populations.Meanwhile, the most recent meta-analysis related to the associations between the above-mentioned 3SNPs with breast cancer risk omitted some important studies18, and thus had limited statistical power to demonstrate the associations. Therefore, we performed an updated meta-analysis to aim to come up with the highest level of evidence for the associations between three SNPs in TOX3 gene and breast cancer risk among diverse ancestry populations and distinct tumor subtypes stratified by estrogen receptor (ER) or BRCA1/BRCA2.
Materials and Methods
Literature search strategy
We carried out a comprehensive literature search from PubMed and EMBASE databases up to March 2015, using the following search terms “TOX3” or “TNRC9” and “polymorphism” or “genetic variant” or “rs3803662” or “rs12443621” or “rs8051542” and “breast cancer” or “breast carcinoma” or “breast tumor” . First, we retrieved all potentially relevant articles, whose abstracts contained information related to our research purpose. Second, the references from eligible studies were carefully checked for additional relevant literature. Finally, only the comprehensive or the most recent study was brought into this meta-analysis, in the case that the same study population was included in several different articles.
Selection criteria
Eligible studies had to fulfill the following criteria: (1) case-control studies or cohort studies evaluating the association between TOX3 polymorphism (rs3803662, rs12443621 or rs8051542) and breast cancer risk; (2) odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) or genotype data of rs3803662, rs12443621 or rs8051542 in breast cancerpatients and cancer-free female to calculate OR and 95% CI; (3) studies were confined to human female groups; (4) articles in English.
Data extraction
A standard protocol was applied to extract data. For every eligible study, the following data were extracted: First author’s surname, year of publication, country of origin, population ethnicity, genotyping method, the genotype counts in cases and control (TT, CT and CC genotypes for TOX3rs3803662; GG, AG and AA genotypes for rs12443621; TT, CT and CC genotypes for rs8051542) and P-value for the HWE in control groups. Two investigators independently extracted the above relative data with any disagreement resolved by discussion. If no consensus wasn’t reached, another investigator joined in the discussion. And the final decision was made by the majority of the votes.
Statistical methods
The strength of associations between TOX3 polymorphisms and breast carcinoma risk were estimated by OR with corresponding 95% CI. For all studies, we assessed the association under five different genetic models for calculating OR. Those were homozygote codominant model, heterozygote codominant model, dominant model, recessive model and allele model. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was assessed by using χ2 test to compare expected and actual genotype frequencies among controls of each study. Q-statistic was applied to investigate heterogeneity among studies. P-value greater than 0.1 for Q test suggested a lack of statistically significant heterogeneity, and the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method)19 was used to calculate pooled ORs. Otherwise, heterogeneity was present and the random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method)20 was more appropriate. In addition, the I-test was employed to accurately measure the degree of heterogeneity. Furthermore, the I-value less than 25% was equivalent to mild heterogeneity, and values between 25% and 50% was equivalent to moderate heterogeneity, whereas values greater than 50% was equivalent to large heterogeneity among studies. Potential publication bias was estimated by symmetry of funnel plot of OR versus the standard error of log (OR) and the visual symmetrical plot indicated that there was no publication bias among studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by eliminating each study in turn to show whether the individual data set influenced the pooled OR. Stratified analyses were conducted in terms of ethnicity, estrogen receptor (ER) status, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were two-tailed and P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant unless otherwise noted. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.2 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration and Comprehensive Meta Analysis V2 software.
Result
Study Characteristics
Based on the above selection criteria, a total of 37 eligible studies were included in the pooled analyses, involving 97275 cases and 128686 controls for rs3803662 polymorphism78910111213141516172122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546. For rs12443621, 14 studies812141516172428293141424546 involved a total of 17750 cases and 19488 controls. Moreover, there were 13 studies8121516172829313941424546 with 20965 cases and 21580 controls for rs8051542. Of particular note was that it’s smaller than 0.05 for the P-value of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the controls of two studies, Campa et al. and Garcia-Closas et al.3738, but we still included the two studies after sensitivity analyses were done. Additionally, in three included studies, genotype frequencies were shown separately according to different ethnic groups73139. Therefore, the corresponding genotype counts in the study were separately considered for analyses. For rs3803662, five studies1115162638 concerned with ER subtype of breast cancers and three studies263035 related with BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were analysed as subgroups. The Fig. 1 expounded the study selection process. The Table 1 and 2 described the main features of these studies, especially for the genotype counts.
Figure 1
The flowchart of the study selection process.
Table 1
Characteristics of studies for the association of TOX3 rs3803662 with breast cancer risk included in the meta-analysis.
Genotypes and PWHE for TOX3 rs12443621 and rs8051542 polymorphisms included in the study.
Author
rs12443621 Genotypes
PHWE
rs8051542 Genotypes
PHWE
Cases
Controls
Cases
Controls
GG
AG
AA
GG
AG
AA
TT
CT
CC
TT
CT
CC
He8 2014
110
304
209
115
304
201
0.809
25
199
399
18
175
427
0.989
Udler12 2010
527
1111
546
497
1099
681
0.176
455
1089
611
425
1067
736
0.274
Jiang14 2011
170
239
84
162
251
97
0.990
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Li15 2009
106
138
54
97
141
55
0.766
15
82
198
9
90
209
0.854
Liang16 2010
347
507
186
338
519
204
0.850
48
314
670
47
309
708
0.078
Shan17 2012
190
301
147
98
180
85
0.894
138
289
208
46
176
146
0.529
Chan242012
404
573
198
532
669
262
0.419
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Long28 2010
546
1448
960
554
1469
974
0.998
246
1971
3941
118
1080
2460
0.968
Long29 2010
286
573
286
274
571
297
0.989
336
788
463
279
709
451
0.991
Barnholtz-Sloan31 2010
164
370
208
165
329
164
0.999
87
342
313
59
304
295
0.121
Barnholtz-Sloan31 2010
337
580
313
242
574
302
0.319
257
587
386
201
559
358
0.501
Barzan39 2013
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
43
327
614
72
651
1483
0.957
Barzan39 2013
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
81
155
75
186
473
301
0.994
Zheng41 2009
189
405
216
423
891
470
0.986
80
349
381
170
762
852
0.984
Butt42 2012
165
338
195
275
657
451
0.203
149
338
192
272
637
443
0.119
Zheng45 2010
1001
1486
552
1008
1509
565
0.995
118
961
1960
96
898
2088
0.963
Tamimi46 2010
151
337
193
130
366
241
0.659
132
359
194
135
380
220
0.193
PHWE: P value of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for control groups.
Meta-analysis results
The mixtures of adjusted and crude estimates were used to calculate pooled ORs. The available adjusted variables of included studies were listed in supplementary table 1. Owing to large heterogeneity among studies, we used random-effect model to calculate pooled ORs for the associations of rs3803662 and rs12443621 with breast cancer risk. In contrast, fix-effect model was applied to calculate pooled ORs for rs8051542. In aggregate, T-rs3803662 and T-rs8051542 were all statistically associated with increased risk of breast cancer in all genetic models. However, the association between G-rs12443621 and breast cancer risk was only observed in Caucasians under all genetic models. The pooled ORs and 95%CI for these associations in all genetic models were shown in detail in Table 3, 4, 5, respectively. Forest plots related to the association of rs3803662, rs12443621 and rs8051542 with breast cancer susceptibility in homozygote model were shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.
Table 3
Stratified analysis of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism on breast cancer.
Variables
N
TT versus CC
CT versus CC
TT + CT versus CC
TT versus CT + CC
T versus C
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
Total
43
1.311 (1.221–1.407)
<0.001
1.151 (1.103–1.201)
<0.001
1.160 (1.088–1.237)
<0.001
1.200 (1.140–1.263)
<0.001
1.145 (1.106–1.186)
<0.001
Ethnicity
Asian
13
1.245 (1.076–1.440)
<0.001
1.121 (1.013–1.241)
<0.001
1.162 (1.030–1.311)
<0.001
1.133 (1.049–1.223)
<0.001
1.112 (1.034–1.195)
<0.001
Caucasian
19
1.483 (1.371–1.604)
0.029
1.212 (1.153–1.275)
0.005
1.259 (1.194–1.327)
<0.001
1.347 (1.280–1.418)
0.332
1.220 (1.171–1.271)
<0.001
African
6
0.929 (0.837–1.032)
0.240
0.961 (0.841–1.099)
0.044
0.989 (0.877–1.116)
0.048
0.952 (0.878–1.032)
0.52
0.962 (0.914–1.012)
0.296
Mixed
5
1.440 (1.288–1.611)
0.017
1.200 (1.109–1.298)
0.004
1.084 (0.927–1.268)
<0.001
1.358 (1.294–1.425)
0.265
1.202 (1.126–1.282)
<0.001
ER (+)
4
1.493 (1.391–1.603)
0.696
1.241 (1.188–1.297)
0.468
1.312 (1.262–1.364)
0.284
1.410 (1.321–1.505)
0.594
1.225 (1.189–1.262)
0.524
ER (−)
4
1.104 (0.885–1.376)
0.073
1.134 (1.066–1.206)
0.491
1.135 (1.008–1.278)
0.079
1.282 (1.163–1.414)
0.327
1.118 (1.064–1.175)
0.519
ER (+) vs. ER (−)
5
1.382 (0.998–1.915)
0.016
1.073 (1.002–1.149)
0.582
1.086 (1.019–1.157)
0.668
1.093 (0.986–1.212)
0.883
1.067 (1.016–1.121)
0.468
BRCA1
3
1.249 (1.087–1.436)
0.811
1.107 (1.022–1.198)
0.933
1.130 (1.048–1.219)
0.888
1.194 (1.044–1.365)
0.833
1.113 (1.050–1.181)
0.822
BRCA2
3
1.102 (0.921–1.319)
0.911
1.276 (1.018–1.599)
0.030
1.310 (1.039–1.650)
0.017
1.207 (1.018–1.432)
0.458
1.230 (1.037–1.459)
0.023
N: Numbers of data sets; PH: P-value of Q-test for heterogeneity test; PH < 0.1 indicates that there is heterogeneity and random-effect model is used to calculate pooled ORs and 95% CI. Otherwise, fixed-effect model is used.
Table 4
Stratified analysis of TOX3 rs12443621 polymorphism on breast cancer.
Variables
N
GG versus AA
AG versus AA
GG + AG versus AA
GG versus AG + AA
G versus A
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
Total
15
1.072 (0.975–1.180)
0.005
1.033 (0.958–1.113)
0.020
1.049 (0.983–1.121)
0.047
1.061 (0.996–1.131)
0.069
1.033 (0.985–1.083)
0.003
Ethnicity
Asian
7
1.006 (0.927–1.092)
0.885
1.002 (0.936–1.073)
0.663
1.006 (0.941–1.075)
0.696
1.007 (0.945–1.072)
0.802
1.000 (0.956–1.046)
0.843
Caucasian
6
1.264 (1.143–1.398)
0.201
1.156 (1.062–1.258)
0.281
1.163 (1.078–1.256)
0.147
1.181 (1.089–1.280)
0.273
1.125 (1.070–1.183)
0.190
African
2
0.854 (0.720–1.012)
0.117
0.863 (0.658–1.132)
0.062
0.931 (0.803–1.079)
0.355
0.926 (0.794–1.080)
0.371
0.928 (0.853–1.009)
0.145
N: Numbers of data sets; PH: P-value of Q-test for heterogeneity test; PH <0.1 indicates that there is heterogeneity and random-effect model is used to calculate pooled ORs and 95% CI. Otherwise, fixed-effect model is used.
Table 5
Stratified analysis of TOX3 rs8051542 polymorphism on breast cancer.
Variables
N
TT versus CC
CT versus CC
TT + CT versus CC
TT versus CT + CC
T versus C
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
OR (95% CI)
PH
Total
15
1.304 (1.210–1.405)
0.378
1.125 (1.076–1.175)
0.647
1.159 (1.112–1.208)
0.689
1.198 (1.121–1.280)
0.420
1.135 (1.099–1.171)
0.388
Ethnicity
Asian
6
1.370 (1.185–1.584)
0.886
1.141 (1.075–1.211)
0.812
1.164 (1.101–1.231)
0.917
1.200 (1.041–1.383)
0.708
1.148 (1.093–1.206)
0.786
Caucasian
7
1.29 (1.181–1.425)
0.107
1.128 (1.046–1.215)
0.281
1.199 (1.116–1.288)
0.557
1.226 (1.082–1.389)
0.079
1.138 (1.086–1.191)
0.137
African
2
1.186 (0.941–1.494)
0.189
1.030 (0.896–1.183)
0.917
1.030 (0.913–1.161)
0.996
1.145 (0.970–1.351)
0.407
1.066 (0.964–1.179)
0.318
N: Numbers of data sets; PH: P-value of Q-test for heterogeneity test; PH <0.1 indicates that there is heterogeneity and random-effect model is used to calculate pooled ORs and 95% CI. Otherwise, fixed-effect model is used.
Figure 2
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk.
Random-effect model was used for the analysis (homozygote codominant model TT vs. CC). The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the specific OR and 95% CI for every study. The area of the squares reflects the study specific weight. The diamond stands for the pooled OR and 95% CI.
Figure 3
Forest plot of TOX3 rs12443621 polymorphism and breast cancer risk.
Random-effect model was used for the analysis (homozygote codominant model GG vs. AA).
Figure 4
Forest plot of TOX3 rs8051542 polymorphism and breast cancer risk.
Fixed-effect model was used for the analysis (homozygote codominant model TT vs. CC).
In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, our results indicated statistically significant associations between the three SNPs and breast cancer susceptibility in Caucasians under all genetic models. Nevertheless, as for Asian populations, T-rs3803662 and T-rs8051542 were shown to be statistically significant correlated with increased risk of breast cancer in all genetic models. In addition, there was no evidence for the statistical significant associations between the three SNPs and increased risk of breast cancer in African population which were almost African-American in our study. The pool ORs and 95%CI for these stratified analyses were detailedly shown in Table 3, 4, 5 for all genetic modes.When stratified by ER status for rs3803662, statistically significant increased risk was found in ER+ and ER− tumor (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6). Moreover, a stronger association was identified in ER+ than ER− subtype for breast cancer risk (Fig. 7). Additionally, our analysis demonstrated that there were significant relationships between elevated risk of breast cancer and BRCA1/2 mutation carriers for rs3803662 (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9). And the details about ORs and 95% CI under all genetic models were shown in Table 3.
Figure 5
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk stratified by ER (+).
Fixed-effect model was used for the analysis (allele model T vs. C).
Figure 6
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk stratified by ER (−).
Fixed-effect model was used for the analysis (allele model T vs. C).
Figure 7
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk in ER+ subtype compared with ER− tumors.
Fixed-effect model was used for the analysis (allele model T vs. C).
Figure 8
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk stratified by BRCA1 mutation.
Fixed-effect model was used for the analysis (allele contrast model T vs. C).
Figure 9
Forest plot of TOX3 rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk stratified by BRCA2 mutation.
Fix -effect model was used for the analysis (allele contrast model T vs. C).
Sensitivity analyses and publication bias
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by eliminating each study in turn and all the results were not essentially altered, suggesting that the results of our meta-analysis were statistically stable. Publication bias of the eligible literature was evaluated by funnel plots and the shapes of funnel plots for literature about association between three SNPs and breast cancer risk were mostly symmetrical, indicating that no publication bias was detected.
Discussion
The TOX3 gene encoded a protein with an HMG box that is considered to be implicated in modification of DNA and chromatin structure47. Moreover, increased expression of TOX3 was relevant to bone metastasis in breast cancer patients48. Whereas, precise biological function of TOX3 is undetermined. Some GWASs and epidemiological studies have identified the associations of TOX3 polymorphisms with breast cancer susceptibility. However, study results were not consistent. Hence, in order to resolve the conflict, we performed this meta-analysis of the associations between the TOX3rs3803662, rs12443621 and rs8051542 polymorphism and breast cancer risk.The three SNPs locate in the 5’ end of TOX3 gene and a hypothetical gene LOC643714 on 16q12, and the region is contained in a 133kb linkage disequilibrium (LD) block12. Based on the International HapMap database, different LD patterns were observed between Asian and European ancestry. SNP rs3803662 was in moderate LD with rs12443621, with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.29 in the HapMap CEU population for European ancestry, but very weak LD was found between these two SNPs (r2 = 0.06) in Chinese8. Similarly, there was very weak association (r2 = 0.08) between rs3803662 and rs8051542 located 52 kb apart from each other in Chinese women45. However, the two SNPs showed moderate association (r2 = 0.15) with each other in European populations8. The substantial differences in genetic architecture among races, such as allele frequencies and LD structures, may partly account for our results which confirmed different association of the three SNPs with breast cancer risk in Caucasians, Asians and African-Americans. Rs3803662-T allele, rs12443621-G allele and rs8051542-T allele were statistically significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer in Caucasians. Meanwhile, T-rs3803662 and T-rs8051542 were identified as risk factors of breast cancer in Asian populations. However, there was no evidence to prove that the three SNPs in African-Americans and G-rs12443621 in Asians were implicated in the breast tumor susceptibility, which was in line with the previous studies4145. It’s worth mentioning that our study showed that T-rs3803662 and G-rs12443621 were protective factors in African-Americans in spite of no statistical significance.In general, our study proved that the T-rs3803662 and T-rs8051542 in TOX3 were correlated with elevated breast cancer risk in all genetic models. It is notable that a previous meta-analysis directed by Chen et al.18 has showed that rs3803662 polymorphism was significantly associated with breast cancer risk, but no significant associations were observed for the rs12443621 and rs8051542. In addition, it only included eight case-control studies without stratified analyses. Compared with the previous meta-analysis, our study had more powerful and detailed analyses to prove our results. First and most obviously, more eligible literature and larger sample size were included. Second, the associations between breast cancer risk and rs3803662 polymorphism were considered with respect to ER status and BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Third, stratified analyses were performed based on Caucasians, Asians and Africans, which was in favor of a more comprehensive understanding the associations in diverse populations. Finally and most importantly, we used mixture of adjusted and crude ORs rather than unadjusted estimates to calculate the pooled ORs. Meanwhile, the original genotype counts of eligible studies were also used to calculate the crude ORs. Supplementary table 2 showed the pooled ORs of the associations between the 3SNPs and breast cancer risk by using crude estimates. And there was no significant difference among the two results of pooled ORs based on different estimates, except for rs12443621. The crude ORs were incorporated to result in marginally association of rs12443621 with breast cancer risk under homozygote, dominant and allele genetic mode, but no association was found by using mixture ORs. That was probably because that adjusted estimates could yield more accurate results. Nevertheless, the two ways both demonstrated the relationship between rs12443621 and elevated risk of breast cancer in Caucasians.To date, more attention has been paid to the heterogeneity of associations between common genetic variants and breast cancer subtypes. The two large-scale studies3738 and our result identified that rs3803662 polymorphism was associated with both ER+ and ER− subtype of breast cancer, in spite of the slightly weaker association for ER− breast cancer. Additionally, our study demonstrated that T-rs3803662 was statistically significant associated with increased risk in ER+ breast cancer compared with ER− subtype, which was accordance with the researches done by Stacey et al. and Broeks et al.749. Intriguingly, T-rs8051542 allele and rs12443621 AG/GG genotypes, rather than rs3803662, were significantly associated with elevated risk of ER+ breast cancer in Chinese women816. By contrast, the significant associations of rs8051542 and rs12443621 were observed with luminal A (ER/PR+, Her2−) and Her2+/ER− breast cancer only among whites, respectively50. Furthermore, the association was strongly confirmed between rs3803662 and triple-negative tumors2549. Taken together, these studies indicated that there were somehow connections between the three SNPs in TOX3 gene and pathological subtype of breast tumor among different populations. And in another aspect, these studies provided further support for the hypothesis that different subtypes stem from diverse etiological pathways. Additionally, rs3803662 SNP in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers was significantly associated with the increased risk of breast cancer in our analysis, which was in consistent with previous studies2635. While Latif et al. confirmed that the genetic variant was only associated with breast tumor in BRCA2 mutation carriers30. Therefore, it’s necessary to further elucidate the relevance of rs3803662 to breast cancer risk with BRAC1 and BRCA2 mutation.Despite the advantage of large sample size and stratified analyses, the meta-analysis had several limitations that should be taken into account. First, there was extreme heterogeneity for the outcomes of the association between rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Although we reduced the degree of heterogeneity by stratified analyses based on ethnicity, other sources of heterogeneity were not verified, such as different genotyping methods or tumor types. Second, the sample size of African populations (5462 cases and 7155 controls) was relatively small. Therefore there was insufficient statistical power to demonstrate the associations between the 3SNPs and breast cancer risk in Africans. Third, the criterion of control groups was not uniformly defined. The design of eligible studies was based on population or/and hospital patients, thus there were potential risks of breast cancer in control groups. Fourth, the mixtures of crude and adjusted publish estimates, rather than incorporation of adjusted ORs, were used in the meta-analysis. Because of the lack of some individual data, we were unable to adjust effect size with possible confounders related with lifestyle risk factors, such as age, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption and menopausal status. Furthermore, we were unable to examine the interaction between genetic variables and environment. In recent years, some studies for gene-environment interactions showed that relative risks of breast cancer correlated with low-penetrance susceptibility variants (including rs3803662) didn’t vary significantly with established environmental risk factors, such as reproductive history, menopausal status and body mass index515253. Nevertheless, more and more researches have elaborated combined effect of low-penetrance susceptibility loci with breast cancer risk. And the obviously elevated risk stemming from combining many low-penetrant risk alleles supports the polygenic inheritance model of breast cancer44. Finally, owing to merely include English articles, there might be language bias on some level. Additionally, positive reports are tended to be published, which might make certain bias.In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that there were different associations between the 3SNPs in TOX3 gene and breast cancer risk in different ethnic groups or subtype tumor. The 3SNPs were associated with the increased risk of breast cancer in Caucasians, while weren’t correlated in Africans. Additionally, rs3803662 and rs8051542 were risk factors for breast cancer in Asians. Furthermore, there were stronger associations between rs3803662 polymorphism and breast cancer risk in ER+ subtype than ER− tumors. Increased risk of breast cancer associated with rs3803662 was confirmed in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. However, studies with larger sample size, which use uniform genotyping methods and criterion of control groups, have sufficiently corresponding individual data and consider the interactions of gene-gene and gene-environment will be needed to verify our results for TOX3rs3803662, rs12443621 and rs8051542 as predisposition markers to breast cancer in clinical application.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Zhang, L. and Long, X. Association of three SNPs in TOX3 and breast cancer risk: Evidence from 97275 cases and 128686 controls. Sci. Rep.
5, 12773; doi: 10.1038/srep12773 (2015).
Authors: Daniele Campa; Rudolf Kaaks; Loïc Le Marchand; Christopher A Haiman; Ruth C Travis; Christine D Berg; Julie E Buring; Stephen J Chanock; W Ryan Diver; Lucie Dostal; Agnes Fournier; Susan E Hankinson; Brian E Henderson; Robert N Hoover; Claudine Isaacs; Mattias Johansson; Laurence N Kolonel; Peter Kraft; I-Min Lee; Catherine A McCarty; Kim Overvad; Salvatore Panico; Petra H M Peeters; Elio Riboli; Maria José Sanchez; Fredrick R Schumacher; Guri Skeie; Daniel O Stram; Michael J Thun; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Shumin Zhang; Regina G Ziegler; David J Hunter; Sara Lindström; Federico Canzian Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Annegien Broeks; Marjanka K Schmidt; Mark E Sherman; Fergus J Couch; John L Hopper; Gillian S Dite; Carmel Apicella; Letitia D Smith; Fleur Hammet; Melissa C Southey; Laura J Van 't Veer; Renate de Groot; Vincent T H B M Smit; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Sebastian Jud; Arif B Ekici; Arndt Hartmann; Alexander Hein; Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Barbara Burwinkel; Frederik Marme; Andreas Schneeweiss; Hans-Peter Sinn; Christof Sohn; Sandrine Tchatchou; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Henrik Flyger; David D Ørsted; Diljit Kaur-Knudsen; Roger L Milne; Jose I Arias Pérez; Pilar Zamora; Primitiva Menéndez Rodríguez; Javier Benítez; Hiltrud Brauch; Christina Justenhoven; Yon-Dschun Ko; Ute Hamann; Hans-Peter Fischer; Thomas Brüning; Beate Pesch; Jenny Chang-Claude; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Michael Bremer; Johann H Karstens; Peter Hillemanns; Thilo Dörk; Heli A Nevanlinna; Tuomas Heikkinen; Päivi Heikkilä; Carl Blomqvist; Kristiina Aittomäki; Kirsimari Aaltonen; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jaana M Kauppinen; Vesa Kataja; Päivi Auvinen; Matti Eskelinen; Ylermi Soini; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Helene Holland; Diether Lambrechts; Bart Claes; Thijs Vandorpe; Patrick Neven; Hans Wildiers; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Rebecca Hein; Thomas Löning; Matthew Kosel; Zachary S Fredericksen; Xianshu Wang; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Gianluca Severi; Catriona McLean; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel; Grethe Grenaker Alnæs; Vessela Kristensen; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; Irene L Andrulis; Anna Marie Mulligan; Frances P O'Malley; Peter Devilee; Petra E A Huijts; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Christi J Van Asperen; Caroline S Seynaeve; Stephen J Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise Brinton; Beata Peplonska; Jonine Figueroa; Xiaohong R Yang; Maartje J Hooning; Antoinette Hollestelle; Rogier A Oldenburg; Agnes Jager; Mieke Kriege; Bahar Ozturk; Geert J L H van Leenders; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Keith Humphreys; Jianjun Liu; Angela Cox; Daniel Connley; Helen E Cramp; Simon S Cross; Sabapathy P Balasubramanian; Malcolm W R Reed; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Manjeet K Humphreys; Carlos Caldas; Fiona Blows; Kristy Driver; Elena Provenzano; Jan Lubinski; Anna Jakubowska; Tomasz Huzarski; Tomasz Byrski; Cezary Cybulski; Bohdan Gorski; Jacek Gronwald; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Chen-Yang Shen; Chia-Ni Hsiung; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Shou-Tung Chen; Giu-Cheng Hsu; Ming-Feng Hou; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Paul D P Pharoah; Montserrat Garcia-Closas Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Martha L Slattery; Kathy B Baumgartner; Anna R Giuliano; Tim Byers; Jennifer S Herrick; Roger K Wolff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Dezheng Huo; Yonglan Zheng; Temidayo O Ogundiran; Clement Adebamowo; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek; Timothy R Rebbeck; Michael S Simon; Esther M John; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Suh-Yuh Wu; M Cristina Leske; Stefan Ambs; Qun Niu; Jing Zhang; Nancy J Cox; Olufunmilayo I Olopade Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Kristen N Stevens; Celine M Vachon; Adam M Lee; Susan Slager; Timothy Lesnick; Curtis Olswold; Peter A Fasching; Penelope Miron; Diana Eccles; Jane E Carpenter; Andrew K Godwin; Christine Ambrosone; Robert Winqvist; Hiltrud Brauch; Marjanka K Schmidt; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Elinor Sawyer; Arndt Hartmann; Matthias W Beckmann; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Arif B Ekici; William J Tapper; Susan M Gerty; Lorraine Durcan; Nikki Graham; Rebecca Hein; Stephan Nickels; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Judith Heinz; Hans-Peter Sinn; Irene Konstantopoulou; Florentia Fostira; Dimitrios Pectasides; Athanasios M Dimopoulos; George Fountzilas; Christine L Clarke; Rosemary Balleine; Janet E Olson; Zachary Fredericksen; Robert B Diasio; Harsh Pathak; Eric Ross; JoEllen Weaver; Thomas Rüdiger; Asta Försti; Thomas Dünnebier; Foluso Ademuyiwa; Swati Kulkarni; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Yon-Dschun Ko; Erik Van Limbergen; Hilde Janssen; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Senno Verhoef; Ian Tomlinson; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jonathan Beesley; Dario Greco; Carl Blomqvist; Astrid Irwanto; Jianjun Liu; Fiona M Blows; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Diether Lambrechts; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Gianluca Severi; Ute Hamann; Paul Pharoah; Douglas F Easton; Jenny Chang-Claude; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Heli Nevanlinna; Xianshu Wang; Fergus J Couch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: S Harlid; M I L Ivarsson; S Butt; E Grzybowska; J E Eyfjörd; P Lenner; A Försti; K Hemminki; J Manjer; J Dillner; J Carlson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anna Marie Mulligan; Fergus J Couch; Daniel Barrowdale; Susan M Domchek; Diana Eccles; Heli Nevanlinna; Susan J Ramus; Mark Robson; Mark Sherman; Amanda B Spurdle; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Andrew Lee; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Ramunas Janavicius; Thomas vO Hansen; Finn C Nielsen; Bent Ejlertsen; Ana Osorio; Iván Muñoz-Repeto; Mercedes Durán; Javier Godino; Maroulio Pertesi; Javier Benítez; Paolo Peterlongo; Siranoush Manoukian; Bernard Peissel; Daniela Zaffaroni; Elisa Cattaneo; Bernardo Bonanni; Alessandra Viel; Barbara Pasini; Laura Papi; Laura Ottini; Antonella Savarese; Loris Bernard; Paolo Radice; Ute Hamann; Martijn Verheus; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Juul Wijnen; Encarna B Gómez García; Marcel R Nelen; C Marleen Kets; Caroline Seynaeve; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Rob B van der Luijt; Theo van Os; Matti Rookus; Debra Frost; J Louise Jones; D Gareth Evans; Fiona Lalloo; Ros Eeles; Louise Izatt; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Jackie Cook; Alan Donaldson; Huw Dorkins; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Catherine Houghton; Julian Barwell; Lucy E Side; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Susan Peock; Andrew K Godwin; Rita K Schmutzler; Kerstin Rhiem; Christoph Engel; Alfons Meindl; Ina Ruehl; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Christian Sutter; Helmut Deissler; Dorothea Gadzicki; Karin Kast; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ines Schoenbuchner; Britta Fiebig; Wolfram Heinritz; Dieter Schäfer; Heidrun Gevensleben; Virginie Caux-Moncoutier; Marion Fassy-Colcombet; François Cornelis; Sylvie Mazoyer; Mélanie Léoné; Nadia Boutry-Kryza; Agnès Hardouin; Pascaline Berthet; Danièle Muller; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Isabelle Mortemousque; Pascal Pujol; Isabelle Coupier; Marine Lebrun; Caroline Kientz; Michel Longy; Nicolas Sevenet; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Claudine Isaacs; Trinidad Caldes; Miguel de la Hoya; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Ignacio Blanco; Conxi Lazaro; Rosa B Barkardottir; Penny Soucy; Martine Dumont; Jacques Simard; Marco Montagna; Silvia Tognazzo; Emma D'Andrea; Stephen Fox; Max Yan; Tim Rebbeck; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Henry T Lynch; Patricia A Ganz; Gail E Tomlinson; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Vernon S Pankratz; Noralane M Lindor; Csilla Szabo; Kenneth Offit; Rita Sakr; Mia Gaudet; Jasmine Bhatia; Noah Kauff; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich; Anneliese Fink-Retter; Phuong L Mai; Mark H Greene; Evgeny Imyanitov; Frances P O'Malley; Hilmi Ozcelik; Gordon Glendon; Amanda E Toland; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Mads Thomassen; Torben A Kruse; Uffe Birk Jensen; Anne-Bine Skytte; Maria A Caligo; Maria Soller; Karin Henriksson; von Anna Wachenfeldt; Brita Arver; Marie Stenmark-Askmalm; Per Karlsson; Yuan Chun Ding; Susan L Neuhausen; Mary Beattie; Paul D P Pharoah; Kirsten B Moysich; Katherine L Nathanson; Beth Y Karlan; Jenny Gross; Esther M John; Mary B Daly; Saundra M Buys; Melissa C Southey; John L Hopper; Mary Beth Terry; Wendy Chung; Alexander F Miron; David Goldgar; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Irene L Andrulis; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 6.466