Literature DB >> 28915669

Folate metabolism genetic polymorphisms and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults.

Dongming Chen1, Jun Dong1, Ying Huang2, Feng Gao1, Xiaopeng Yang1, Xianglun Gong1, Xiaochen Lv3, Chenghao Chu4, Yonggang Wu1, Yong Zheng5.   

Abstract

Polymorphic variants of genes involved in folate metabolism are implicated in the susceptibility to meningioma and glioma, but the results from published articles are controversial and inconclusive. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis including all studies available to evaluate the relationship between folate metabolism genetic polymorphisms and the susceptibility to meningioma and glioma in adults. We searched the literature in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Library for relevant articles published up to August 2016. The odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%Cls) were used to evaluate the associations of two folate metabolism genetic variants MTRR A66G (rs1801394) and MTHFR A1298C (rs1801131) with the risk of meningioma and glioma in adults. We found significant association of MTHFR A1298C (rs1801131) variant genotypes with increased incidence of meningioma and glioma in this study population (CA vs. AA: OR=1.22, P<0.001; CA+CC vs. AA: OR=1.18, P=0.002). Moreover, we found that MTRR A66G (rs1801394) variant genotypes was associated with increased risk of meningioma and glioma (G vs. A: OR=1.11, P=0.020; GG vs. AA+AG: OR=1.17, P=0.043; GG vs. AA: OR=1.22, P=0.023). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that two folate metabolism genetic variants MTRR A66G (rs1801394) and MTHFR A1298C (rs1801131) contribute to genetic susceptibility to meningioma and glioma in adults.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MTHFR; MTRR; SNP: meta-analysis; glioma; meningioma

Year:  2017        PMID: 28915669      PMCID: PMC5593640          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.18986

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

Based on the GLOBOCAN2012 investigations, approximately 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million deaths were reported worldwide [1]. The overall incidence of brain tumor is estimated at 3.5 case per 100,000 persons, and glioma and meningioma are the most common types of primary brain tumors, accounting for approximately 50% and 20%, respectively [2, 3]. Primary brain tumors mostly occur in familial aggregation, indicating important role of genetic variants in the pathogenesis of brain tumor [4]. Folate metabolism plays an important role in carcinogenesis, due to its involvement in DNA synthesis, methylation and repair. Folate metabolism regulates nucleotide synthesis and DNA methylation via a complex pathway involving at least 30 different enzymes [5]. Therefore, individual genetic variation in these enzymes could change the general balance between DNA synthesis, methylation, and repair. The genes encoding enzymes involved in folate metabolism display several single nucleotide polymorphisms, such as methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR A1298C) and methionine synthase reductase (MTRR A66G). Genetic polymorphisms of folate metabolism pathways have been shown to be associated with diverse tumor types, including pancreatic cancer [6], cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [7], breast cancer [8] and acute leukemia [9-11]. Semmler et al. reported the first case-control study showing that A1298C genetic variant was not significantly associated with brain tumor susceptibility [12]. Up to now, the two most common Folate Metabolism genetic variants A1298C (rs1801131) and A66G (rs1801394) have been studied for their associations with brain tumor susceptibility, but the results from published articles are controversial and inconclusive [12-16]. We hypothesized that the inconsistent results may have been caused by either the relatively small sample sizes of single studies or the genetic heterogeneity of folate metabolism genetic variants in different populations. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis including all studies available to evaluate the relationship between folate metabolism genetic polymorphisms and the susceptibility to meningioma and glioma in adults. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive and systematic meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between genetic polymorphisms of folate metabolism and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults.

RESULTS

Characteristics of eligible publications

After screening the abstracts, titles, or contents through EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library, we identified 72 potentially relevant studies and selected five published studies [12-16]. The flow diagram describing the selection of the studies is shown in Figure 1. All selected studies were case-control study, their population size ranged from 154 to 1,200, and were published from 2006 to 2013. All SNPs tested indicated that genotype frequencies in the controls are consistent with the HWE (P > 0.001). The characteristics of the selected studies are summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1

Flow chart of study selection in this meta-analysis

Table 1

Main characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

AuthorYearCountryEthnicityCancer typeControl sourceGenotyping methodsCaseControlHWE
A1298C
Semmler2008GermanCaucasianMeningiomaPBPCR-RFLP1001000.842
Zhang2013ChinaAsianMeningiomaPBPCR-RFLP6006000.199
Bethke2008UK-NorthCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1731750.219
Bethke2008UK-SoutheastCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1211230.423
Bethke2008SwedenCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1491490.759
Bethke2008DenmarkCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1101130.104
Bethke2008FinlandCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina77770.783
Li2013ChinaAsianMeningiomaPBPCR-RFLP3173200.063
Bethke2008UK-NorthCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina3693690.029
Bethke2008UK-SoutheastCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina2112140.564
Bethke2008SwedenCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina1971960.495
Bethke2008DenmarkCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina991000.798
Bethke2008FinlandCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina1281310.746
Liu2013ChinaAsianGliomaHBPCR2733260.008
A66G
Zhang2013ChinaAsianMeningiomaPBPCR-RFLP6006000.765
Bethke2008UK-NorthCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1741750.733
Bethke2008UK-SoutheastCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1211230.756
Bethke2008SwedenCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1491490.641
Bethke2008DenmarkCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina1101130.9
Bethke2008FinlandCaucasianMeningiomaPBlllumina77770.361
Bethke2008UK-NorthCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina1281310.212
Bethke2008UK-SoutheastCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina3703690.966
Bethke2008SwedenCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina2112140.477
Bethke2008DenmarkCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina1971970.872
Bethke2008FinlandCaucasianGliomaPBlllumina991000.017

PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based; HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based; HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Association between A66G polymorphism and the susceptibility of meningioma and glioma in adults

Meta-analysis of A66G polymorphism in 2,236 cases and 2,248 controls showed a significant association between A66G and the risk of meningioma and glioma (G vs. A: OR=1.11, 95%CI=1.02-1.20; GG vs. AA: OR=1.22, 95%CI=1.03-1.45; GG vs. AA+AG: OR=1.17, 95%CI=1.00-1.36) (Figure 2). Stratification analysis by tumor type showed a significant association of A66G polymorphism with meningioma (G vs. A: OR=1.18, 95%CI=1.05-1.32; GG vs. AA: OR=1.41, 95%CI=1.12-1.77; GG vs. AA+AG: OR=1.32, 95%CI=1.07-1.63; GG+AG vs. AA: OR=1.19, 95%CI=1.01-1.40), but not with glioma. We also implemented stratified analysis by ethnicity, and found a significant association in Asian population (GG vs. AA: OR=1.41, 95%CI=1.02-1.96) (Table 2).
Figure 2

Forest plot on the association between A66G (rs1801394) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults in the allele model

(A) Overall analysis. (B) Subgroup analysis by cancer type.

Table 2

Meta-analysis of the association between A66G polymorphism and brain tumor susceptibility in adults

ComparisonSubgroupStudiesHeterogeneity testAssociation testModelPublication bias
P ValueI2 (%)OR (95%CI)P ValueBeggEgger
G vs. AOverall110.18427.41.11(1.02-1.20)0.02F0.350.262
Meningioma50.44701.18(1.05-1.32)0.004F
Glioma60.18535.51.02(0.90-1.16)0.748F
Caucasian100.15531.71.08(0.98-1.19)0.109F
Asian1NANA1.17(0.99-1.37)0.062F
AG vs. AAOverall110.80601.08(0.95-1.23)0.235F0.7550.52
Meningioma50.44701.12(0.94-1.33)0.226F
Glioma60.89101.04(0.86-1.27)0.669F
Caucasian100.75201.10(0.95-1.29)0.205F
Asian1NANA1.03(0.80-1.32)0.836F
GG vs. AAOverall110.089391.22(1.03-1.45)0.023F0.2130.178
Meningioma50.52701.41(1.12-1.77)0.004R
Glioma60.05457.10.95(0.62-1.44)0.801R
Caucasian100.07941.71.16(0.95-1.41)0.156F
Asian1NANA1.41(1.02-1.96)0.04F
GG+AG vs. AAOverall110.64801.12(0.99-1.27)0.074F0.8760.813
Meningioma50.3943.51.19(1.01-1.40)0.04F
Glioma60.83601.04(0.86-1.25)0.705F
Caucasian100.55401.12(0.97-1.29)0.132F
Asian1NANA1.12(0.89-1.42)0.336F
GG vs. AA+AGOverall110.08339.81.17(1.00-1.36)0.043F0.1610.08
Meningioma50.7074.61.32(1.07-1.63)0.009R
Glioma60.02464.50.93(0.61-1.40)0.711R
Caucasian100.0940.21.10(0.92-1.31)0.294F
Asian1NANA1.39(1.03-1.87)0.029F

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; F, fixed-effects model; R, random-effects model; NA, not available; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based

Forest plot on the association between A66G (rs1801394) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults in the allele model

(A) Overall analysis. (B) Subgroup analysis by cancer type. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; F, fixed-effects model; R, random-effects model; NA, not available; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based

Association between A1298C polymorphism and the susceptibility of meningioma and glioma in adults

Summary of the association of A1298C polymorphic variant with the risk of meningioma and glioma in adults including 2,997 cases and 3,403 controls is shown in Table 3. Pooled risk evaluation showed a significant association between A1298C and the risk of meningioma and glioma (C vs. A: OR=1.08, 95%CI=1.00-1.17; AC vs. AA: OR=1.22, 95%CI=1.09-1.36; CC+AC vs. AA: 0R=1.18, 95%CI=1.06-1.30) (Figure 3). Then we implemented subgroup analysis by cancer type, and found no significant association of A1298C genotypes with meningioma susceptibility. In contrast, we detected a significantly increased risk of glioma (C vs. A: OR=1.13, 95%CI=1.01-1.27; AC vs. AA: OR=1.35, 95%CI=1.15-1.60; CC+AC vs. AA: OR=1.29, 95%CI=1.11-1.51). Further subgroup analysis showed significantly increased risk of meningioma and glioma in heterozygous model (AC vs. AA: OR=1.19, 95%CI=1.06-1.34), and dominant model (CC+AC vs. AA: OR=1.16, 95%CI=1.04-1.29). We also performed stratified analysis by ethnicity, and found a significant association of A1298C and the risk of meningioma and glioma in heterozygous model (AC vs. AA: OR=1.31, 95%CI=1.14-1.51) and dominant model (CC+AC vs. AA: OR=1.25, 95%CI=1.09-1.42) in Caucasian. However, there was no significant association with the risk of meningioma and glioma in Asian under any genetic model (Table 3).
Table 3

Meta-analysis of the association between A1298C polymorphism and brain tumor susceptibility in adults

ComparisonSubgroupStudiesHeterogeneity testAssociation testModelPublication bias
P ValueI2 (%)OR (95%CI)P ValueBeggEgger
C vs. AOverall140.97101.08(1.00-1.17)0.056F0.7430.854
Meningioma80.87901.04(0.93-1.15)0.522F
Glioma60.97701.13(1.01-1.27)0.033F
Caucasian110.97801.10(1.00-1.22)0.059F
Asian30.44701.05(0.93-1.18)0.474F
PB130.95801.07(0.99-1.17)0.097F
HB1NANA1.13(0.90-1.43)0.296F
AC vs. AAOverall140.71701.22(1.09-1.36)<0.001F0.5840.189
Meningioma80.64901.12(0.97-1.30)0.119F
Glioma60.86801.35(1.15-1.60)<0.001F
Caucasian110.98101.31(1.14-1.51)<0.001R
Asian30.13511.11(0.86-1.44)0.413R
PB130.76401.19(1.06-1.34)0.002F
HB1NANA1.50(1.05-2.14)0.025F
CC vs. AAOverall140.94101.03(0.86-1.22)0.771F0.2740.131
Meningioma80.63600.98(0.77-1.24)0.854F
Glioma60.98701.09(0.84-1.40)0.531F
Caucasian110.91600.99(0.79-1.25)0.942F
Asian30.5101.07(0.82-1.40)0.599F
PB130.91401.01(0.84-1.22)0.883F
HB1NANA1.11(0.69-1.77)0.676F
CC+AC vs. AAOverall140.8801.18(1.06-1.30)0.002F0.7430.328
Meningioma80.83601.09(0.95-1.25)0.208F
Glioma60.92101.29(1.11-1.51)0.001F
Caucasian110.99101.25(1.09-1.42)0.001F
Asian30.21235.51.08(0.92-1.27)0.35F
PB130.89301.16(1.04-1.29)0.009F
HB1NANA1.38(0.99-1.93)0.058F
CC vs. AA+ACOverall140.84100.93(0.78-1.09)0.363F0.5110.085
Meningioma80.3944.60.92(0.73-1.16)0.483F
Glioma60.98300.93(0.73-1.19)0.561F
Caucasian110.84400.87(0.70-1.09)0.222F
Asian30.41601.00(0.78-1.29)0.990F
PB130.78600.93(0.78-1.12)0.448F
HB1NANA0.89(0.58-1.36)0.587F

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; F, fixed-effects model; R, random-effects model; NA, not available; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based

Figure 3

Forest plot on the association between A1298C (rs1801311) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults stratified by cancer type in the allele model

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; F, fixed-effects model; R, random-effects model; NA, not available; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based

Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis

Between-study heterogeneity was calculated by using Q statistics. Fixed-effect model was utilized if p-value of heterogeneity tests was more than 0.05 (P>0.05) [17]; otherwise, the random-effect model was applied [18]. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting each eligible study each time. The pooled ORs for the effects of A66G and A1298C on the risk of meningioma and glioma indicated that our results were statistically robust and stable (Figure 4).
Figure 4

Sensitivity analyses of current meta-analysis in the allele model

(A) A66G (rs1801394) and meningioma and glioma risk in adults. (B) A1298C (rs1801311) and meningioma and glioma risk in adults.

Sensitivity analyses of current meta-analysis in the allele model

(A) A66G (rs1801394) and meningioma and glioma risk in adults. (B) A1298C (rs1801311) and meningioma and glioma risk in adults.

Publication bias

Both Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to evaluate the publication bias of the studies [19, 20]. The results showed that there was no obvious publication bias in total population (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 5A, 5B).
Figure 5

Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias test of current meta-analysis in the allele model

(A) A66G (rs1801394). (B) A1298C (rs1801311).

Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias test of current meta-analysis in the allele model

(A) A66G (rs1801394). (B) A1298C (rs1801311).

DISCUSSION

Accumulating evidences indicate that the intake of folic acid has a negative correlation with cancer [21-23], including brain tumors [16]. It is known that folate metabolism will produce intermediate products that participate in nucleotide synthesis, DNA methylation and histone methylation [24-26]. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and methionine synthase reductase (MTRR) are key enzymes of folate metabolism that are involved in two important branches of folate metabolism: nucleotide synthesis and DNA methylation [24]. The polymorphisms of the genes encoding these enzymes will affect the process of folate metabolism and thus disturb DNA synthesis, repair and methylation, contributing to the occurrence of brain tumor [25]. Human MTHFR gene is located on 1p36.3 locus and contains 11 exons and 10 introns, encoding 656 amino acids [27, 28]. MTHFR protein turns 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate into 5-methylenetetrahydrofolate [29]. 5- methylenetetrahydrofolate is a collaborative substrate of homocysteine which is transformed to methionine, and provides methyl groups. MTHFR gene mutation could reduce methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase activity, leading to a higher plasma homocysteine concentration and abnormal metabolism of folic acid, and disturbed DNA synthesis and DNA damage repair [26, 30–33]. MTRR gene is located on the short arm of chromosome 5 (5p15.2-15.3) and contains 15 exons and 14 introns. The most common MTRR mutation is A66G polymorphism, causing the change of isoleucine to methionine, which can reduce enzyme activity and affect the metabolism of homocysteine [32-34]. Although increased number of case-control studies investigated the association of folate metabolism genetic variants with brain tumor susceptibility in adults, the results are inconclusive. Numerous studies have reported that folate metabolism genetic variants are associated with the risk of several cancers, including head and neck [35], lung [36], breast [8], and colorectal cancer [37, 38]. Semmler et al. reported the first case-control study showing that folate metabolism genetic variants was not significantly associated with brain tumor susceptibility [12]. However, Li et al. found that folate metabolism genetic variants may play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of meningioma [15]. In addition, Bethke et al. reported that genetic variants in folate metabolism affected the risk of developing both meningioma and glioma [16]. To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive and systematical meta-analysis to evaluate potential association between two folate metabolism genetic variants (A1298C and A66G) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults [12-16]. Our results showed that A1298C variant significantly increased meningioma and glioma susceptibility in Caucasian. Meanwhile, we observed that A66G variant was associated with increased meningioma and glioma susceptibility in Asian. Our results are consistent with a previous meta-analysis showing that MTRR rs1801394 polymorphism may increase the risk of meningioma [39]. The findings of current study should be interpreted with caution due to several potential limitations. First, the majority of the subjects included in present study were ethnically Caucasian, thus subjects from more diverse ethnicities should be included in future studies. Second, the number of subjects enrolled in certain subgroups was relatively small. Owing to the lack of the original data, we could not estimate meningioma and glioma susceptibility stratified by the gender, age, life-style and other risk factors. Data from large-scale multi-center studies are needed to verify the association between folate metabolism genetic variants (A1298C and A66G) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults. In conclusion, our findings suggest that folate metabolism genetic variants (A1298C and A66G) may increase the susceptibility of meningioma and glioma in adults. Further large-scale, multi-center and well-designed studies are necessary to investigate the potential function of genetic variation of folate metabolism in meningioma and glioma in adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search strategy

We carried out a literature search in EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library up to August 2016. We performed electronic searches using the terms “brain tumor” or “glioma” or “meningioma”, “polymorphism*” or “variant*” or “mutation”, “MTHFR” or “MTRR”.

Selection criteria

Two authors (GXL. and CCH.) independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies. Published case-control studies will be included in current meta-analysis if they reach the following criteria: (a) evaluating the association between folate metabolism genetic variants (A1298C and A66G) and brain tumor susceptibility in adults; (b) case-control studies on human, and published in English; (c) sufficient data for assessing the ORs and 95%CI, and P value. Exclusion criteria were: (a) case reports, letters, and review articles; (b) containing only case groups; (c) duplication of published articles.

Data extraction

Two authors (GXL. and LXC) independently extracted data from all eligible studies. Data such as: (a) the first author name, publication date, country, ethnicity and source of control; (b) cancer types, frequency of cases and controls, involved genes and HWE status in controls. Any disagreements between the two authors were resolved through discussions and agreements

Statistical analyses

The strength of association between folate metabolism genetic variants (A1298C and A66G) and meningioma and glioma susceptibility in adults was calculated by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used dominant, recessive, homozygote, heterozygote, allelic as the models. Stratified analyses were conducted by cancer type, ethnicity and sources of control. The pooled ORs were calculated for these five models. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using Q statistics (significant at p < 0.05). A Fixed-effect model was utilized if p-value of heterogeneity tests were more than 0.05 (P>0.05) [17]; otherwise, the random effect model was applied [18]. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by discarding each eligible study each time to estimate the stability of the results. Potential publication bias was evaluated by Egger’s and Begg’s tests (P < 0.05 was considered significant) [19, 20]. All analyses were conducted by STATA 12.0 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA).
  39 in total

Review 1.  Brain tumors.

Authors:  L M DeAngelis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-01-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Genetic polymorphisms in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and breast cancer risk: a population-based case-control study and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Jolanta Lissowska; Mia M Gaudet; Louise A Brinton; Stephen J Chanock; Beata Peplonska; Robert Welch; Witold Zatonski; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Sue Park; Mark Sherman; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 3.  Brain tumor epidemiology: consensus from the Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium.

Authors:  Melissa L Bondy; Michael E Scheurer; Beatrice Malmer; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Faith G Davis; Dora Il'yasova; Carol Kruchko; Bridget J McCarthy; Preetha Rajaraman; Judith A Schwartzbaum; Siegal Sadetzki; Brigitte Schlehofer; Tarik Tihan; Joseph L Wiemels; Margaret Wrensch; Patricia A Buffler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; M Mazumdar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  A second common mutation in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene: an additional risk factor for neural-tube defects?

Authors:  N M van der Put; F Gabreëls; E M Stevens; J A Smeitink; F J Trijbels; T K Eskes; L P van den Heuvel; H J Blom
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Folic acid: nutritional biochemistry, molecular biology, and role in disease processes.

Authors:  M Lucock
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.797

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer.

Authors:  David Cunningham; Wendy Atkin; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Henry T Lynch; Bruce Minsky; Bernard Nordlinger; Naureen Starling
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) deficiency and infantile epilepsy.

Authors:  Asuri N Prasad; Charles A Rupar; Chitra Prasad
Journal:  Brain Dev       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 1.961

9.  Women with polymorphisms of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and methionine synthase (MS) are less likely to have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3.

Authors:  Olga L Henao; Chandrika J Piyathilake; John W Waterbor; Ellen Funkhouser; Gary L Johanning; Douglas C Heimburger; Edward E Partridge
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism in patients with lung cancer in a Korean population.

Authors:  Lian-Hua Cui; Min-Ho Shin; Hee Nam Kim; Hye-Rim Song; Jin-Mei Piao; Sun-Seog Kweon; Jin-Su Choi; Woo-Jun Yun; Young-Chul Kim; In-Jae Oh; Kyu-Sik Kim
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.103

View more
  2 in total

1.  Genetic variants in the folate metabolic pathway genes predict cutaneous melanoma-specific survival.

Authors:  W Dai; H Liu; Y Liu; X Xu; D Qian; S Luo; E Cho; D Zhu; C I Amos; S Fang; J E Lee; X Li; H Nan; C Li; Q Wei
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 9.302

Review 2.  MTHFR C677T and A1298C Polymorphisms in Breast Cancer, Gliomas and Gastric Cancer: A Review.

Authors:  Igor Petrone; Paula Sabbo Bernardo; Everton Cruz Dos Santos; Eliana Abdelhay
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 4.096

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.