| Literature DB >> 30940774 |
Zhi Lv1,2,3, Qian Xu1,2,3, Liping Sun1,2,3, Jing Wen1,2,3, Xinxin Fang1,2,3, Chengzhong Xing4,2,3, Yuan Yuan4,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) HOXA transcript at the distal tip (HOTTIP) as an oncogene in varieties of human cancer including colorectal cancer (CRC) has been extensively researched. The expression and function of lncRNAs could be affected by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are associated with cancer susceptibility and prognosis. However, no investigation has focused on the association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC. The aim of the present study was to explore the association of polymorphisms in the lncRNA HOTTIP gene with CRC risk and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: HOTTIP; colorectal cancer; polymorphism; prognosis; susceptibility
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30940774 PMCID: PMC6504661 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20180573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1The LD plot of tagSNPs in the lncRNA HOTTIP gene
At the top, the white strip and black lines represent the relative physical location and distance of all tagSNPs in the gene. The color shades of each block below represent the level of LD between any two SNPs (red: strongest LD; white: weakest LD). The numbers on the blocks are the r2 values of LD (percent).
The association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC risk1
| SNP genotypes | NCBI Ref | CRC (%) | CON (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | 6 (13.6) | 204 (23.2) | 262 (28.2) | 1 (Ref) | |
| CG | 24 (54.6) | 420 (47.8) | 457 (49.2) | 0.132 | 1.19 (0.95–1.49) |
| GG | 14 (31.8) | 254 (28.9) | 209 (22.5) | ||
| GG+CG vs. CC | |||||
| GG vs. CG+CC | |||||
| | 0.395 | 0.718 | |||
| TT | 39 (90.7) | 805 (91.7) | 860 (91.1) | 1 (Ref) | |
| TG | 4 (9.3) | 71 (8.1) | 82 (8.7) | 0.613 | 0.92 (0.66–1.28) |
| GG | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.2) | 2 (0.2) | 0.986 | 1.02 (0.14–7.28) |
| GG+TG vs. TT | 0.621 | 0.92 (0.66–1.28) | |||
| GG vs. TG+TT | 0.979 | 1.03 (0.14–7.34) | |||
| | 0.749 | 0.975 | |||
| GG | 5 (11.1) | 149 (17.1) | 205 (21.8) | 1 (Ref) | |
| GC | 18 (40.0) | 398 (45.6) | 470 (50.1) | 0.207 | 1.18 (0.92–1.51) |
| CC | 22 (48.9) | 326 (37.3) | 264 (28.1) | ||
| CC+GC vs. GG | |||||
| CC vs. GC+GG | |||||
| | 0.654 | 0.877 | |||
| CC | 5 (11.4) | 133 (15.4) | 199 (21.4) | 1 (Ref) | |
| CA | 16 (36.4) | 400 (46.5) | 450 (48.4) | ||
| AA | 23 (52.2) | 328 (38.1) | 281 (30.2) | ||
| AA+CA vs. CC | |||||
| AA vs. CA+CC | |||||
| | 0.401 | 0.452 |
The results are in bold if P<0.05. Abbreviations: CON, control; NCBI Ref, reference frequency of the SNPs in healthy controls (Beijing Han, China, NCBI database); OR, odds ratio; Pcorr, P-values after Bonferroni correction; PHWE, HWE in control group.
1P was adjusted by gender and age.
The cumulative effect of HOTTIP SNPs associated with CRC risk1
| Number of SNP risk genotypes | CRC (%) | CON (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 130 (15.3) | 193 (21.6) | 1(Ref) | |
| 1 | 398 (46.9) | 447 (49.9) | 0.032 | 1.33 (1.03–1.73) |
| 2 | 83 (9.8) | 56 (6.3) | <0.001 | 2.23 (1.48–3.35) |
| 3 | 237 (27.9) | 199 (22.2) | <0.001 | 1.77 (1.32–2.37) |
The results are in bold if Ptrend<0.05. Abbreviation: CON, control.
1P was adjusted by gender and age.
The association between haplotypes of HOTTIP SNPs and CRC risk1
| Haplotypes | CRC (%) | CON (%) | OR (95% CI)2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-G-C-A | 52.76 (3.1) | 47.54 (2.7) | 0.425 | 1.18 (0.79–1.75) |
| C-T-C-A | 58.07 (3.4) | 41.21 (2.3) | ||
| C-T-G-C | 617.75 (36.6) | 778.38 (44.0) | ||
| G-T-C-A | 875.44 (51.9) | 823.74 (46.6) |
The results are in bold if P<0.05. Abbreviation: CON, control.
Haplotypes for 1rs3807598-rs17501292-rs2067087-rs17427960.
2The reference is the set of all the other haplotypes when one haplotype is regarded as an analyzed item.
The interaction effect between HOTTIP SNPs and environmental factors on CRC risk1
| SNP genotypes | Smoking | Drinking | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | No | Yes | Negative | Positive | |
| CG+CC | ||||||
| Case/control | 434/345 | 188/173 | 512/427 | 110/88 | 232/401 | 255/75 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1 (Ref) | 0.86 (0.67–1.11) | 1(Ref) | 1.04 (0.77–1.42) | 1 (Ref) | 5.88 (4.34–7.97) |
| GG | ||||||
| Case/control | 171/94 | 79/51 | 212/115 | 38/31 | 85/112 | 105/26 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1.45 (1.08–1.93) | 1.23 (0.84–1.80) | 1.54 (1.18–2.00) | 1.02 (0.63–1.67) | 1.31 (0.95–1.82) | 6.98 (4.41–11.04) |
| GG+TG | ||||||
| Case/control | 48/43 | 24/21 | 58/55 | 14/9 | 33/51 | 22/3 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1 (Ref) | 1.02 (0.50–2.10) | 1 (Ref) | 1.48 (0.59–3.68) | 1 (Ref) | 11.33 (3.14–40.90) |
| TT | ||||||
| Case/control | 557/406 | 243/205 | 665/498 | 135/111 | 285/472 | 337/101 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1.23 (0.80–1.89) | 1.06 (0.68–1.67) | 1.27 (0.86–1.86) | 1.15 (0.74–1.80) | 0.93 (0.59–1.48) | 5.16 (3.16–8.43) |
| GC+GG | ||||||
| Case/control | 375/326 | 171/160 | 445/399 | 101/84 | 200/372 | 227/76 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1 (Ref) | 0.93 (0.72–1.21) | 1 (Ref) | 1.08 (0.78–1.48) | 1 (Ref) | 5.56 (4.07–7.59) |
| CC | ||||||
| Case/control | 224/120 | 97/67 | 273/152 | 48/36 | 113/147 | 132/27 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1.62 (1.24–2.12) | 1.26 (0.89–1.78) | 1.61 (1.27–2.05) | 1.20 (0.76–1.88) | 1.43 (1.06–1.93) | 9.09 (5.81–14.24) |
| CC | ||||||
| Case/control | 89/89 | 43/50 | 102/118 | 30/20 | 49/106 | 46/20 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1 (Ref) | 0.86 (0.52–1.42) | 1 (Ref) | 1.74 (0.93–3.24) | 1 (Ref) | 4.98 (2.66–9.29) |
| AA+CA | ||||||
| Case/control | 503/351 | 220/174 | 610/429 | 113/95 | 264/407 | 306/81 |
| OR (95% CI) | 1.43 (1.04–1.98) | 1.26 (0.89–1.80) | 1.65 (1.23–2.20) | 1.38 (0.94–2.01) | 1.40 (0.97–2.04) | 8.17 (5.38–12.41) |
The results are in bold if Pinteraction<0.05. Abbreviation: CON, control.
1P for interaction was adjusted by gender and age.
2P-values after Bonferroni correction.
The association between host factors and the OS of CRC patients
| Factors | CRC patients | Death | MST (25%, 75%) | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | |||||
| Gender | 0.815 | ||||
| Male | 384 | 63 | 47.01 (NA, 44.0) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Female | 181 | 32 | 47.61 (NA, 46.0) | 1.01 (0.65–1.56) | |
| Age | 0.101 | ||||
| ≤60 | 322 | 46 | 48.41 (NA, 47.0) | 1 (Ref) | |
| >60 | 243 | 49 | 45.01 (NA, 36.0) | 1.27 (0.84–1.91) | |
| Smoking | 0.129 | ||||
| Ever smoked | 180 | 23 | 49.01 (NA, 48.0) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Never smoked | 383 | 72 | 46.41 (NA, 43.0) | 1.26 (0.78–2.02) | |
| Drinking | 0.176 | ||||
| Drinker | 107 | 14 | 49.61 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Non-drinker | 456 | 81 | 46.61 (NA, 43.0) | 1.11 (0.62–1.97) | |
| TNM stage | |||||
| I+II | 336 | 23 | 52.31 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| III+IV | 223 | 69 | 48 (NA, 24.0) | 2.84 (0.38–21.31) | |
| Macroscopic type | |||||
| Protrude type | 104 | 5 | 53.71 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Ulcerative/invasive type | 458 | 90 | 45.61 (NA, 38.0) | 2.51 (0.97–6.48) | |
| Histological type | |||||
| High/middle differentiation | 367 | 40 | 50.41 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Low differentiation | 196 | 55 | 40.31 (NA, 20.0) | 2.14 (1.39–3.28) | |
| Depth of invasion | |||||
| T1+T2 | 114 | 6 | 53.61 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| T3+T4 | 450 | 89 | 45.41 (NA,36.0) | 1.51 (0.62-3.68) | |
| Growth mode | |||||
| Nest | 236 | 18 | 52.31 (NA, NA) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Invasion | 326 | 77 | 43.21 (NA, 28.2) | 2.28 (1.32–3.94) | |
| Lymphatic metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 217 | 68 | 48 (NA, 24.0) | 1 (Ref) | |
| Negative | 342 | 24 | 52.21 (NA, NA) | 0.87 (0.12–6.35) |
The results are in bold if P<0.05. Abbreviations: MST, median survival time (months); NA, not available.
1Mean survival time was provided when MST could not be calculated.
The association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC prognosis stratified by macroscopic type
| SNP genotypes | CRC patients | Death | MST (M) | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||||||
| Protrude type | |||||||
| CC | 21 | 1 | 51.91 | 1(Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| CG | 54 | 3 | 53.11 | 0.772 | 0.72 (0.07–6.91) | 0.677 | 1.64 (0.16–16.74) |
| GG | 29 | 1 | 52.81 | 0.957 | 0.96 (0.24–3.85) | 0.041 | NA |
| GG+CG vs. CC | 0.796 | 0.75 (0.08–6.75) | 0.918 | 1.12 (0.12–10.60) | |||
| GG vs. CG+CC | 0.762 | 1.19 (0.40–3.56) | 0.371 | 0.33 (0.03–3.71) | |||
| TT | 93 | 3 | 54.51 | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| TG | 10 | 2 | 46.91 | 0.082 | 0.20 (0.03–1.22) | 0.188 | 3.93 (0.51–30.17) |
| GG | 15 | 0 | NA | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| GC | 48 | 2 | 54.41 | 0.618 | NA | 0.784 | NA |
| CC | 39 | 3 | 49.91 | 0.421 | NA | 0.956 | NA |
| CC+GC vs. GG | 0.501 | NA | 0.878 | NA | |||
| CC vs. GC+GG | 0.241 | 0.58 (0.24–1.44) | 0.627 | 1.62 (0.23–11.20) | |||
| CC | 13 | 0 | NA | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| CA | 52 | 3 | 53.61 | 0.562 | NA | 0.988 | NA |
| AA | 38 | 2 | 51.31 | 0.506 | NA | 0.880 | NA |
| AA+CA vs. CC | 0.526 | NA | 0.894 | NA | |||
| AA vs. CA+CC | 0.777 | 0.88 (0.36–2.16) | 0.662 | 0.64 (0.09–4.66) | |||
| Ulcerative/invasive type | |||||||
| CC | 114 | 21 | 45.61 | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| CG | 220 | 42 | 45.91 | 0.910 | 0.97 (0.57–1.64) | 0.273 | 1.35 (0.79–2.32) |
| GG | 123 | 28 | 44.81 | 0.606 | 0.93 (0.70–1.24) | 0.123 | 1.61 (0.88–2.94) |
| GG+CG vs. CC | 0.758 | 0.93 (0.57–1.51) | 0.124 | 1.48 (0.90–2.45) | |||
| GG vs. CG+CC | 0.585 | 0.94 (0.75–1.18) | 0.190 | 1.37 (0.86–2.20) | |||
| TT | 425 | 90 | 45.01 | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| TG | 31 | 1 | 51.21 | 0.048 | NA | ||
| GG | 84 | 15 | 46.01 | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| GC | 212 | 44 | 44.81 | 0.526 | 0.83 (0.46–1.49) | 0.264 | 1.41 (0.77–2.57) |
| CC | 157 | 33 | 45.51 | 0.688 | 0.94 (0.69–1.28) | 0.214 | 1.50 (0.79–2.82) |
| CC+GC vs. GG | 0.555 | 0.85 (0.49–1.47) | 0.194 | 1.45 (0.83–2.55) | |||
| CC vs. GC+GG | 0.975 | 1.00 (0.81–1.25) | 0.489 | 1.17 (0.75–1.83) | |||
| CC | 76 | 14 | 45.61 | 1 (Ref) | 1 (Ref) | ||
| CA | 218 | 46 | 44.61 | 0.587 | 0.85 (0.47–1.54) | 0.350 | 1.34 (0.73–2.46) |
| AA | 148 | 31 | 45.81 | 0.890 | 0.98 (0.71–1.35) | 0.594 | 1.19 (0.62–2.29) |
| AA+CA vs. CC | 0.687 | 0.89 (0.50–1.57) | 0.369 | 1.30 (0.73–2.32) | |||
| AA vs. CA+CC | 0.708 | 1.04 (0.84–1.30) | 0.824 | 0.95 (0.60–1.50) | |||
The results are in bold if P<0.05. Abbreviations: MST(M), median survival time (months); NA, not available; Pcorr, P-values after Bonferroni correction.
1Mean survival time was provided when MST could not be calculated.
The baseline characteristics of the subjects
The association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC risk stratified by host characteristics
The association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC clinicopathological parametersa
The association between HOTTIP SNPs and CRC prognosis
Function prediction results of HOTTIP SNPs