Literature DB >> 31239841

TDG Gene Polymorphisms and Their Possible Association with Colorectal Cancer: A Case Control Study.

Narasimha Reddy Parine1, Ibrahim O Alanazi2, Jilani Purusottapatnam Shaik1, Sooad Aldhaian1, Abdulrahman M Aljebreen3,4, Othman Alharbi3,4, Majid A Almadi3,4, Nahla A Azzam3,4, Mohammad Alanazi1.   

Abstract

Genetic alterations that might lead to colorectal cancer involve essential genes including those involved in DNA repair, inclusive of base excision repair (BER). Thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG) is one of the most well characterized BER genes that catalyzes the removal of thymine moieties from G/T mismatches and is also involved in many cellular functions, such as the regulation of gene expression, transcriptional coactivation, and the control of epigenetic DNA modification. Mutation of the TDG gene is implicated in carcinogenesis. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the association between TDG gene polymorphisms and their involvement in colon cancer susceptibility. One hundred blood samples were obtained from colorectal cancer patients and healthy controls for the genotyping of seven SNPs in the TDG gene. DNA was extracted from the blood, and the polymorphic sites (SNPs) rs4135113, rs4135050, rs4135066, rs3751209, rs1866074, and rs1882018 were investigated using TaqMan genotyping. One of the six TDG SNPs was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer. The AA genotype of the TDG SNP rs4135113 increased the risk of colon cancer development by more than 3.6-fold, whereas the minor allele A increased the risk by 1.6-fold. It also showed a 5-fold higher risk in patients over the age of 57. SNP rs1866074 showed a significant protective association in CRC patients. The GA genotype of TDG rs3751209 was associated with a decreased risk in males. There is a significant relationship between TDG gene function and colorectal cancer progression.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31239841      PMCID: PMC6556271          DOI: 10.1155/2019/7091815

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol        ISSN: 1687-8450            Impact factor:   4.375


1. Introduction

The development of cancer is a multistep process involving aberrations in many cellular processes, including differentiation, cell cycle regulation, cell death, proliferation, and genomic conservation due to functional alterations in a variety of genes. Thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG) is a member of the mismatch uracil glycosylase subfamily. All of these uracil DNA glycosylase (UDG) enzymes have a monofunctional approach of action [1]. UDGs recruit a common base-flipping, DNA intercalation method for substrate identification and catalyze the removal of the N-glycosidic bond of the flipped base, thus creating an abasic site [2]. TDG has a crucial role in DNA repair, particularly BER, in which it specifically identifies G: U and G: T mismatches resulting from the impulsive deamination of 5-methylcytosine. In addition to its DNA repair function, TDG is also involved in other critical cellular processes, such as the regulation of gene expression, transcriptional coactivation, and the regulation of epigenetic DNA modification [3]. TDG has been shown to interact with some transcription factors and especially with nuclear receptors. TDG initiates the BER pathway, which utilizes the base-flipping method to delete the target bases from the DNA forming an AP site. This happens when TDG binds to the promoters of the BER proteins APE, DNA ligase, and Pol β [4]. The role of TDG in cancer progression is a hotly debated issue [5]. Its interaction with tumor suppressor P53 (TP53) proteins initially suggested that TDG merely acts as a tumor suppressor. Overexpression of TDG recruits TP53 proteins to the cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (p21Waf1) gene promoter and increases its transcriptional activity [6]. Moreover, TP53 binding to the TDG promoter will transcriptionally regulate its expression and control the nuclear translocation of TDG [7]. The relationship between TDG and cancer has been studied by a number of research groups who have suggested that genetic variants in TDG and other DNA repair genes confer susceptibility to colorectal cancer [8]. Xu and colleagues showed that TDG positively regulates the Wnt signaling pathway and is a key driver necessary for the progression of CRC [9]. They also reported that hypermethylation of TDG in multiple myeloma cell lines reduced its gene expression. As a result, DNA repair activity became less efficient [10] in pancreatic adenocarcinoma [11]. Finally, a lack of the DNA mismatch repair protein PMS2 (PMS2) and reduced TDG expression in rectal cancer has been found to produce a supermutator phenotype at CpG sites [12]. Recent studies reported that the SNP rs2888805 (Val367Met) in TDG might be implicated in nonmelanoma skin cancer [13]. The TDG SNPs rs167715 and rs4135087 might also be associated with the progression of ovarian cancer in most of the BRCA1/2 mutation carriers [14]. The coding region SNP rs369649741 (Arg66Gly) has been reported to be associated with a high risk in familial colorectal cancer patients [8]. Significant associations have been demonstrated between the risk of cancers, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and gastric cancer, and the rs4135054 SNP in TDG [15]. This study was conducted to determine the association of the DNA repair gene TDG SNPs and colon cancer risk in the Saudi population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population and Patient Selection

The study population was composed of 100 colorectal cancer patients and 192 control subjects from a Saudi population. Patients were recruited from King Saud Medical City. CRC was confirmed via histopathological examination. The age of the CRC cases varied from 21 to 90 years, with a mean age of 61.10 ± 12.17 years. The main exclusion conditions were autoimmune disorders, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), or a previous history of any other disorders. CRC patients who had undergone prior chemoradiotherapy were also excluded. A total of 192 controls were recruited. The age of the controls varied from 21 to 87 years with a mean of 57.2 ± 8.34 years. The primary details of the volunteers were collected by a prestructured questionnaire. Each participant was informed in detail about the present study and signed standard consent. The Ethics Committee of King Saud Medical City approved the present study.

2.2. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) Selection, DNA Extraction, and Genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from blood samples using a blood DNA kit (QIAGEN DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit). According to previous reports, six SNPs located in the TDG gene were analyzed: rs4135113 (C__31582396_10), rs4135050 (C___1970689_10), rs4135066 (C___1970695_10), rs3751209 (C__11162283_20), rs1866074 (C___3152280_10), and rs1882018 (C__11490839_10). The preliminary data on the SNPs are shown in Table 1. These SNPs were also selected based on literature reviews of SNP associations with various diseases in diverse ethnic groups. The genotyping analysis was conducted using QuantStudio™ 7 Flex Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems) with an endpoint reading of the genotypes [16].
Table 1

Primary information for TDG polymorphisms.

Genotyped SNPrs4135113rs4135050rs4135066rs3751209rs1882018rs1866074

Chromosome121212121212

Chromosome Position103982915103968698103972562103979822103969403103980664

Base changeG>A (Gly199Ser)T>AC>TG>AC>TA>G

MAF in our controls0.100.210.770.310.230.66

p-value for HWE0.110.110.090.40.090.52

MAF: minor allele frequency.

HWE: Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

3. Results

A total of 100 colorectal cancer patients and 192 normal controls from a Saudi Arabia population were included in the present study. The clinical and the demographic features of the study subjects are described in Supplementary Table1 (Suppl. Table1). Both CRC and normal samples were classified based on demographic parameters such as age and gender. Colorectal cancer samples were further classified based on tumor location, namely, colon or rectum. The average age of the CRC samples was 57.10 ± 12.17 years and of the controls was 58.2 ± 8.34 years. All six SNPs in the normal control and CRC patient group obeyed Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) (Table 1). Table 1 depicts the details of the SNPs used in the present study including the minor allele frequency and the HWE p-value. Out of the six SNPs, two SNPs, rs4135113 and rs1866074, showed a significant association with colorectal cancer. The genotypic distribution of rs4135113 was 75% GG, 18% GA, and 7% AA in colorectal cancer patients and 82% GG, 16% GA, and 2% AA in normal samples. SNP rs4135113 (Gly199Ser) showed a significant risk association with colorectal cancer in Saudi patients for its genotype AA (OR: 3.640, CI: 1.034–12.819, p = 0.03286) (Table 2). The frequency of the minor allele A in patient samples also showed a significant difference compared with that in the healthy controls (OR: 1.675, CI: 1.013–2.769, p = 0.04264) (Table 2).
Table 2

Genotype frequencies of TDG gene polymorphism in colorectal cases and controls.

SNP VariantPatients CasesControlsORCI χ 2 Valuep-value
rs4135050TT58 (0.58)124 (0.65)Ref
TA34 (0.34)55 (0.29)1.3220.779–2.2441.070.30107
AA8 (0.08)12 (0.06)1.4250.553–3.6760.540.46173
TA+AA42 (0.42)67 (0.35)1.3400.816–2.2011.340.24664
T150 (0.75)303 (0.79)Ref
A50 (0.2579 (0.21)1.2780.853–1.9161.420.23347

rs1882018CC58 (0.58)118 (0.62)Ref
CT32 (0.32)59 (0.31)1.1030.648–1.8800.130.71725
TT10 (0.10)14 (0.07)1.4530.609–3.4700.710.39800
CT+TT42 (0.42)73 (0.38)1.1710.715–1.9160.390.53104
C148 (0.74)295 (0.77)Ref
T52 (0.26)87 (0.23)1.1910.802–1.7710.750.38613

rs4135066CC4 (0.04)14 (0.08)Ref
CT38 (0.38)58 (0.30)2.2930.702–7.4931.960.16114
TT58 (0.58)119 (0.62)1.7060.538–5.4130.840.35998
CT+TT96 (0.96)177 (0.92)1.8980.608–5.9271.250.26277
C46 (0.23)86 (0.23)Ref
T154 (0.77)296 (0.77)0.9730.647–1.4620.020.89402

rs3751209GG51 (0.51)87 (0.46)Ref
GA38 (0.38)88 (0.46)0.7370.441–1.2321.360.24320
AA11 (0.11)16 (0.08)1.1730.505–2.7220.140.71041
GA+AA49 (0.49)104 (0.54)0.8040.495–1.3050.780.37654
G140 (0.70)262 (0.69)Ref
A60 (0.30)120 (0.31)0.9360.645–1.3570.120.72602

rs1866074AA22 (0.22)24 (0.12)Ref
AG39 (0.39)82 (0.43)0.5190.260–1.0373.500.06152
GG39 (0.39)85 (0.45) 0.501 0.251–1.0003.91 0.04799
AG+GG78 (0.78)167 (0.88) 0.510 0.269–0.9644.39 0.03615
A83 (0.42)130 (0.34)Ref
G117 (0.58)252 (0.66)0.7270.511–1.0343.160.07567

rs4135113GG75 (0.75)156 (0.82)Ref
GA18 (0.18)31 (0.16)1.2080.635–2.2970.330.56458
AA7 (0.07)4 (0.02)3.6401.034–12.8194.55 0.03286
GA+AA25 (0.25)35 (0.18)1.4860.830–2.6601.790.18130
G168 (0.84)343 (0.90)Ref
A32 (0.16)39 (0.10)1.6751.013–2.7694.11 0.04264
The genotypic distribution of rs1866074 was 22% AA, 39% AG, and 39% GG in colorectal cancer patients and 12% AA, 43% AG, and 45% GG in the normal samples. The GG allele frequency was low in colorectal cancer patients compared with that in the controls. SNP rs1866074 showed a protective association of the GG allele (OR: 0.501, CI: 0.251–1, p = 0.047) and the additive (AG+GG) allele (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.269–0.964, p = 0.036) (Table 2). The remaining SNPs, rs4135050, rs4135066, rs3751209, and rs1882018, did not show any association with colorectal cancer in the overall analysis (Table 2).

3.1. Stratification Analysis

After an overall analysis, we compared the TDG genotype frequencies based on gender. The genotype distributions of male (n = 58) and female (n = 42) patients were compared with those of matched healthy individuals (Tables 3 and 4). Only rs3751209 showed a protective association in female colon cancer patients with the GA genotype (OR, 0.407; CI: 0.196–0.847, p = 0.01495). The heterozygous GA genotype frequency was low in colorectal cancer patients compared with that in the controls (Table 3). No other SNPs showed any significant association with colorectal cancer based on gender (Tables 3 and 4). The frequency of the A allele in patient samples also showed a significant difference compared with that of the healthy individuals (OR: 2.238, CI: 1.059–4.729, p = 0.03159).
Table 3

Genotype frequencies of TDG gene polymorphisms in male colorectal cases and controls.

SNP VariantPatients Cases ControlsORCI χ 2 Valuep-value
rs4135050TT32 (0.55)60 (0.63)Ref
TA21 (0.36)27 (0.28)1.4580.714–2.9771.080.29910
AA5 (0.09)8 (0.08)1.1720.354–3.8790.070.79493
TA+AA26 (0.45)35 (0.37)1.3930.717–2.7070.960.32771
T85 (0.73)147 (0.77)Ref
A31 (0.27)43 (0.23)1.2470.731–2.1260.660.41728

rs1882018CC35 (0.60)60 (0.63)Ref
CT18 (0.31)27 (0.29)1.1430.552–2.3660.130.71901
TT5 (0.09)8 (0.08)1.0710.325–3.5310.010.90971
CT+TT23 (0.40)35 (0.37)1.1270.576–2.2040.120.72787
C88 (0.76)147 (0.77)Ref
T28 (0.24)43 (0.23)1.0880.631–1.8750.090.76200

rs4135066CC3 (0.05)7 (0.07)Ref
CT21 (0.36)30 (0.32)1.6330.378–7.0540.440.50827
TT34 (0.59)58 (0.61)1.3680.332–5.6430.190.66390
CT+TT55 (0.95)88 (0.93)1.4580.362–5.8770.280.59390
C27 (0.23)44 (0.23)Ref
T89 (0.77)146 (0.77)0.9930.575–1.7160.0010.98108

rs3751209GG36(0.62)44 (0.46)Ref
GA15 (0.26)45 (0.47) 0.407 0.196–0.8475.920.01495
AA7 (0.12)6 (0.07)1.4260.440–4.6220.350.55296
GA+AA22 (0.38)51 (0.54)0.5270.271–1.0273.580.05840
G87 (0.75)133 (0.70)Ref
A29 (0.25)57 (0.30)0.7780.461–1.3110.890.34517

rs1866074AA12 (0.20)12 (0.13)Ref
AG23 (0.40)40 (0.42)0.5750.222–1.4871.320.25137
GG23 (0.40)43 (0.45)0.5350.208–1.3791.700.19227
AG+GG46 (0.80)83 (0.87)0.5540.230–1.3331.770.18362
A47 (0.41)64 (0.34)Ref
G69 (0.59)126 (0.66)0.7460.463–1.2021.450.22776

rs4135113GG45 (0.78)75 (0.79)Ref
GA9 (0.16)18 (0.19)0.8330.345–2.0120.160.68491
AA4 (0.07)2 (0.02)3.3330.587–18.9372.050.15266
GA+AA13 (0.22)20 (0.21)1.0830.492–2.3870.040.84257
G99 (0.85)168 (0.88)Ref
A17 (0.15)22 (0.12)1.3110.664–2.5880.610.43370
Table 4

Genotype frequencies of TDG gene polymorphisms in female colorectal cases and controls.

SNP VariantPatients Cases ControlsORCI χ 2 Valuep-value
rs4135050TT26 (0.62)64 (0.67)Ref
TA13 (0.31)28 (0.29)1.1430.513–2.5440.110.74356
AA3 (0.07)4 (0.04)1.8460.386–8.8280.600.43682
TA+AA16 (0.38)32 (0.33)1.2310.579–2.6150.290.58890
T65 (0.77)156 (0.81)Ref
A19 (0.23)36 (0.19)1.2670.677–2.3700.550.45905

rs1882018CC23 (0.55)58 (0.60)Ref
CT14 (0.33)32 (0.34)1.1030.500–2.4360.060.80789
TT5 (0.12)6 (0.06)2.1010.584–7.5681.330.24858
CT+TT19 (0.45)38 (0.40)1.2610.606–2.6230.390.53475
C60 (0.71)148 (0.77)Ref
T24 (0.29)44 (0.23)1.3450.753–2.4051.010.31578

rs4135066CC1 (0.02)8 (0.08)Ref
CT17 (0.40)28 (0.29)4.8570.558–42.32.400.12134
TT24 (0.57)60 (0.63)3.2000.379–26.9831.260.26149
CT+TT41 (0.98)88 (0.92)3.7270.451–30.7941.700.19254
C19 (0.23)44 (0.23)Ref
T65 (0.77)148 (0.77)1.0170.552–1.8760.00120.95677

rs3751209GG15 (0.36)43 (0.45)Ref
GA23 (0.54)43 (0.45)1.5330.706–3.3311.170.27879
AA4 (0.10)10 (0.10)1.1470.313–4.2070.040.83645
GA+AA27 (0.64)53 (0.55)1.4600.691–3.0870.990.32021
G53 (0.63)129 (0.67)Ref
A31 (0.37)63 (0.33)1.1980.701–2.0470.440.50919

rs1866074AA10 (0.24)12 (0.14)Ref
AG16 (0.38)42 (0.44)0.4570.165–1.2652.320.12761
GG16 (0.38)42 (0.44)0.4570.165–1.2652.320.12761
AG+GG32 (0.76)84 (0.88)0.4570.180–1.1622.790.09493
A36 (0.43)66 (0.34)Ref
G48 (0.57)126 (0.66)0.6980.413–1.1801.800.17917

rs4135113GG30 (0.71)81 (0.84)Ref
GA9 (0.21)13 (0.14)1.8690.725–4.8211.710.19133
AA3 (0.07)2 (0.02)4.0500.645–25.4392.560.10991
GA+AA12 (0.29)15 (0.16)2.1600.908–5.1403.110.07773
G69 (0.82)175 (0.91)Ref
A15 (0.18)17 (0.09)2.2381.059–4.7294.620.03159
The TDG genotype distribution was further correlated with the age at colon cancer diagnosis and tumor location. To assess the association of the analyzed SNPs with age at colon cancer diagnosis, we divided the patients into two groups based on the median age of the samples: ≤57 (n = 53) or >57 (n = 47) years of age. The distributions of genotype and allele frequencies for each SNP are shown in Tables 5 and 6. SNP rs4135113, which showed a significant association with CRC in the overall analysis, showed a significant risk association in CRC patients in the group of individuals above 57 years of age. The AA genotype frequency was higher in patients than in healthy individuals. This genotype showed a 5-fold increased risk of colon cancer in the Saudi Arabian population (OR: 5.588; CI: 1.032–30.254; p = 0.02745). In addition to this, the rs4135113 minor allele A also showed a 2-fold increased risk for colorectal cancer in the Saudi population (OR: 2.184, CI: 1.077–4.431; p = 0.02778) (Table 6). A linkage disequilibrium analysis revealed that there was a difference in strength among the SNP associations in cases and controls (Figure 1).
Table 5

Genotype frequencies of TDG gene polymorphisms in colorectal cases and controls in the below-57-year-old group.

SNP VariantPatients Cases ControlsORCI χ 2 Valuep-value
rs4135050TT31 (0.58)67 (0.68)Ref
TA19 (0.36)25 (0.25)1.6430.789–3.4181.780.18271
AA3 (0.06)7 (0.07)0.9260.224–3.8240.010.91567
TA+AA22 (0.42)32 (0.32)1.4860.745–2.9621.270.25944
T81 (0.76)159 (0.80)Ref
A25 (0.24)39 (0.20)1.2580.712–2.2230.630.42813

rs1882018CC30 (0.57)61 (0.62)Ref
CT17 (0.32)31 (0.31)1.1150.534–2.3270.080.77161
TT6 (0.11)7 (0.07)1.7430.538–5.6420.870.34986
CT+TT23 (0.43)38 (0.38)1.2310.625–2.4230.360.54797
C77 (0.73)153 (0.77)Ref
T29 (0.27)45 (0.23)1.2810.745–2.2000.800.36989

rs4135066CC2 (0.04)9 (0.09)Ref
CT21 (0.40)31 (0031)3.0480.598–15.5471.930.16466
TT30 (0.56)59 (0.60)2.2880.465–11.2651.080.29768
CT+TT51 (0.96)90 (0.91)2.5500.530–12.2601.450.22791
C25 (0.24)49 (0.25)Ref
T81 (0.76)149 (0.75)1.0660.613–1.8510.050.82191

rs3751209GG26 (0.49)46 (0.46)Ref
GA20 (0.38)44 (0.44)0.8040.394–1.6430.360.54978
AA7 (0.13)9 (0.10)1.3760.459–4.1280.330.56807
GA+AA27 (0.51)53 (0.54)0.9010.462–1.7580.090.76037
G72 (0.68)136 (0.69)Ref
A34 (0.32)62 (0.31)1.0360.624–1.7190.020.89161

rs1866074AA13 (0.25)13 (0.13)Ref
AG22 (0.42)42 (0.42)0.5240.208–1.3221.900.16815
GG18 (0.33)44 (0.43)0.4090.159–1.0523.530.06029
AG+GG40 (0.75)86 (0.87)0.4650.198–1.0943.160.07536
A48 (0.45)68 (0.34)Ref
G58 (0.55)130 (0.66)0.6320.390–1.0233.500.06132

rs4135113GG41 (0.77)80 (0.81)Ref
GA10 (0.19)17 (0.17)1.1480.482–2.7320.100.75528
AA2 (0.04)2 (0.02)1.9510.265–14.350.450.50442
GA+AA12 (0.23)19 (0.19)1.2320.546–2.7840.250.61496
G92 (0.87)177 (0.89)Ref
A14 (0.13)21 (0.11)1.2830.623–2.6390.460.49826
Table 6

Genotype frequencies of TDG gene polymorphisms in colorectal cases and controls in the above-57-year-old group.

SNP VariantPatients Cases ControlsORCI χ 2 Valuep-value
rs4135050TT27 (0.57)57 (0.62)Ref
TA15 (0.32)30 (0.33)1.0560.488–2.2810.020.89062
AA5 (0.11)5 (0.05)2.1110.563–7.9141.270.25994
TA+AA20 (0.43)35 (0.38)1.2060.590–2.4660.260.60699
T69 (0.73)144 (0.78)Ref
A25 (0.27)40 (0.22)1.3040.733–2.3210.820.36543

rs1882018CC28 (0.60)57 (0.62)Ref
CT15 (0.32)28 (0.30)1.0910.503–2.3630.050.82605
TT4 (0.08)7 (0.08)1.1630.314–4.3070.050.82075
CT+TT19 (0.40)35 (0.38)1.1050.539–2.2670.070.78518
C71 (0.76)142 (0.77)Ref
T23 (0.24)42 (0.23)1.0950.612–1.9620.090.75960

rs4135066CC2 (0.04)5 (0.05)Ref
CT17 (0.36)27 (0.29)1.5740.274–9.0450.260.60894
TT28 (0.60)60 (0.65)1.1670.213–6.3870.030.85883
CT+TT45 (0.94)87 (0.95)1.2930.241–6.9300.090.76356
C21 (0.22)37 (0.20)Ref
T73 (0.78)147 (0.80)0.8750.478–1.6020.190.66485

rs3751209GG25 (0.53)41 (0.45)Ref
GA18 (0.38)44(0.47)0.6710.320–1.4071.120.28959
AA4 (0.09)7 (0.08)0.9370.249–3.5270.010.92351
GA+AA22 (0.47)51 (0.55)0.7070.349–1.4320.930.33531
G68 (0.72)126 (0.68)Ref
A26 (0.28)58 (0.32)0.8310.480–1.4380.440.50706

rs1866074AA9 (0.19)11 (0.12)Ref
AG17 (0.36)4 (0.43)0.5190.182–1.4811.520.21694
GG21 (0.45)41 (0.45)0.6260.224–1.7470.810.36892
AG+GG38 (0.81)81 (0.88)0.5730.219–1.5001.310.25305
A35 (0.37)62 (0.34)Ref
G59 (0.63)122 (0.66)0.8570.510–1.4380.340.55817

rs4135113GG34 (0.72)76 (0.83)Ref
GA8 (0.17)14 (0.15)1.2770.490–3.330.250.61607
AA5 (0.11)2 (0.02) 5.588 1.032–30.2544.860.02745
GA+AA13 (0.28)16 (0.17)1.8160.787–4.1911.990.15870
G76 (0.81)166 (0.90)Ref
A18 (0.19)18 (0.10) 2.184 1.077–4.4314.840.02778
Figure 1

Pairwise LD among the six SNPs in colon cancer and controls. The bright red color indicates a high D′.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have been reported which correlate variation in the TDG gene with cancer [16-18]. With the aim of studying the role played by the polymorphisms in the TDG gene in CRC risk, we investigated six SNPs (rs4135113, rs4135050, rs4135066, rs3751209, rs1866074, and rs1882018) distributed in different regions of the TDG gene. The SNPs were selected based on their location in the TDG gene: rs4135113 is located in exon 5; rs4135050, rs4135066, and rs1882018 are in intron 1; and rs3751209 and rs1866074 are in intron 2 and intron 3, respectively. We chose these SNPs to study the effect of mutations in exons and introns. Mutations in an exon might affect the synthesized protein, whereas intron mutations might affect the RNA processing machinery and RNA splicing and stability, which could impact the level of expression and/or protein output [17]. Five of the SNPs were located in intronic region and four of them are in regulatory regions. SNPs rs4135066, rs4135050, and rs1882018 are located in aligned intronic regions flanking alternative conserved exon region (ACE). SNPs rs4135050 and rs1882018 are in exonic splicing silencer (ESS) region, and rs1866074 is in exonic splicing enhancer region. All six SNPs in the normal control and CRC patient group obeyed the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE). Out of the six SNPs, two showed a significant association with CRC. SNP rs4135113 showed a significant risk association of its genotype AA (OR: 3.640, CI: 1.0341–2.819, p = 0.03286) and of the minor allele A (OR: 1.675, CI: 1.013–2.769, p = 0.04264) with colorectal cancer in Saudi patients. The SNP rs1866074 showed a protective association of the GG allele (OR: 0.501, CI: 0.251–1, p = 0.047) and the additive (AG+GG) allele (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.269–0.964, p = 0.036). Our genotyping results showed that there was no association of the other four SNPs (rs4135050, rs4135066, rs3751209, and rs1882018) with CRC patients in the Saudi population in the overall analysis. The SNP located in the coding region of the TDG gene, rs4135113, a G/A transition (missense mutation, Gly199Ser), was studied to detect if there was any association with CRC. There is recent evidence supporting an association between this polymorphism and the development of cancer. Sjolund et al. [15] reported that the Gly199Ser polymorphism occurs in approximately 10% of the global population and the expression of TDG with the G199S variant in human breast epithelial cells might lead to an increased number of DNA double-strand breaks. Thus, it initiates and activates DNA damage that induces cellular transformation and chromosomal aberrations [18]. Our results showed that the A/A genotype variation increases the risk of CRC by approximately fourfold in Saudi patients and is statistically significant (OR= 3.64, p-value = 0.03) (Table 2). Further investigation was conducted to explore the correlation of this polymorphic site with the clinicopathological factors and we observed that rs4135113 showed a fivefold increased risk in old aged patients. A study carried out by Wen-Bin and colleagues (2009) on a Chinese population showed a significant association of rs4135113 with an increased micronucleus in the Chinese population. A few other studies have reported that this SNP has no association with an increased risk of lung cancer, rectal cancer, or gastric adenocarcinoma in a Polish population and a Chinese population [19-21]. We also investigated the effect of rs4135050 on the risk of CRC when the T was substituted by A. The genotype AA in our study showed an elevated CRC risk, although the difference was not statistically significant (Table 2). In an urban Puerto Rican population, the one-carbon nutrient status was not associated with the DNA uracil concentration in this SNP [22]. The SNP rs4135066 has the C substituted by a T. In this investigation, the homozygous TT showed an increased risk of CRC; however, this was not statistically significant (Table 2). A recent study by Barry et al. in an American population showed that the SNP rs4135066 was not statistically associated with prostate cancer [23]. In the rs3751209 polymorphism, the A/G variation in our study showed a reduction in the CRC risk, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). A recent study by Osorio et al. showed that this SNP was not associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers [14]. Another SNP studied was rs1866074, which is located in the intronic region and results from a transition mutation where A is substituted by G. A recent case control study showed that the increase in the frequency of micronuclei in bladder cancer among the AG and GG carriers improved patient prognosis [24]. In this investigation, we observed that the GG genotype and the AG+GG additive genotype decreased the risk of CRC (Table 2). Finally, rs1882018 was studied during this investigation, which is also located in the intronic region and is produced as a result of a transition mutation where A is substituted by G. Our results showed that the GG genotype increased the risk of BC, but the finding did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). A previous study carried out by Wei et al. showed that this SNP had a protective effect against the development of bladder cancer [25].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study showed a significant association between the TDG gene and colorectal cancer progression in a Saudi population. One of the six TDG SNPs showed an increased risk of colon cancer. TDG rs4135113 increased the risk of colon cancer development by more than 3.6- and 1.6-fold in CRC patients in general, and 5-fold in patients aged more than 57 years. SNP rs1866074 showed a significant protective association in CRC patients. The GA genotype of TDG rs3751209 showed a decreased risk of CRC in males. Thus, there is a significant relationship between TDG gene function and colorectal cancer progression. However, further studies are required to determine the exact effect of amino acid (Gly199Ser) replacement using in vitro methods.
  2 in total

1.  Low-frequency variation near common germline susceptibility loci are associated with risk of Ewing sarcoma.

Authors:  Shu-Hong Lin; Joshua N Sampson; Thomas G P Grünewald; Didier Surdez; Stephanie Reynaud; Olivier Mirabeau; Eric Karlins; Rebeca Alba Rubio; Sakina Zaidi; Sandrine Grossetête-Lalami; Stelly Ballet; Eve Lapouble; Valérie Laurence; Jean Michon; Gaelle Pierron; Heinrich Kovar; Udo Kontny; Anna González-Neira; Javier Alonso; Ana Patino-Garcia; Nadège Corradini; Perrine Marec Bérard; Jeremy Miller; Neal D Freedman; Nathaniel Rothman; Brian D Carter; Casey L Dagnall; Laurie Burdett; Kristine Jones; Michelle Manning; Kathleen Wyatt; Weiyin Zhou; Meredith Yeager; David G Cox; Robert N Hoover; Javed Khan; Gregory T Armstrong; Wendy M Leisenring; Smita Bhatia; Leslie L Robison; Andreas E Kulozik; Jennifer Kriebel; Thomas Meitinger; Markus Metzler; Manuela Krumbholz; Wolfgang Hartmann; Konstantin Strauch; Thomas Kirchner; Uta Dirksen; Lisa Mirabello; Margaret A Tucker; Franck Tirode; Lindsay M Morton; Stephen J Chanock; Olivier Delattre; Mitchell J Machiela
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 2.  The Role of Thymine DNA Glycosylase in Transcription, Active DNA Demethylation, and Cancer.

Authors:  Oladapo Onabote; Haider M Hassan; Majdina Isovic; Joseph Torchia
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 6.639

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.