| Literature DB >> 34769224 |
Anna Skalniak1, Małgorzata Trofimiuk-Müldner1, Elwira Przybylik-Mazurek1, Alicja Hubalewska-Dydejczyk1.
Abstract
Background: Although the disease-causing effect of pathogenic variants in the gene RET has been unambiguously identified, there is a lack of consensus regarding the possible impact of common variants in this gene. Our study aimed to test whether variants in exons 10, 11, and 13-16 that are commonly detected during routine diagnostic testing might have any modifying effect on MTC.Entities:
Keywords: RET variants; medullary thyroid carcinoma; modifier
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34769224 PMCID: PMC8583971 DOI: 10.3390/ijms222111794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Minor allele frequencies.
| Variant | MAF (%) Database 1 | MAF (%) MTC Group | MAF (%) Control Group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| e11 rs1799939 | 18.47 | 17.71 | 15.63 | 0.6990 |
| e13 rs1800861 | 23.32 | 28.13 | 34.38 | 0.3502 |
| e14 rs1800862 | 4.90 | 3.13 | 3.13 | 1.0000 |
| e15 rs1800863 | 18.58 | 18.75 | 15.63 | 0.5667 |
| i14 rs2472737 | 22.56 | 16.67 | 19.79 | 0.5756 |
1 According to the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) v2.1.1 for the European (non-Finnish) population.
Fractions of haplotypes identified in the study population. Order of variants in the haplotypes: e11 rs1799939, e13 rs1800861, e14 rs1800862, e15 rs1800863, i14 rs2472737.
| Haplotype | Control | MTC |
|---|---|---|
| GGCCG | 0.312 | 0.250 |
| GTCCG | 0.302 | 0.365 |
| GTCCA | 0.198 | 0.167 |
| ATCGG | 0.156 | 0.177 |
| GGTCG | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| GTCGG | 0.000 | 0.010 |
Comparison of clinical parameters between given variant carriers and sporadic MTC patients with no RET variant in the analysed regions. p-values for each analysis are shown.
| Analysed Parameter | e11 | e13 | e14 | e15 | i14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis | 0.0682 | 0.0162 | 0.3687 | 0.1258 | 0.0809 |
| Disease stage at diagnosis | 0.6747 | 0.8680 | 0.9261 | 0.6055 | 0.5249 |
| Lymph node metastases | 0.5804 | 0.5879 | 1.0000 | 0.5804 | 1.0000 |
| Distant metastases | 1.0000 | 0.2445 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| Relapses | 0.7394 | 1.0000 | 0.5716 | 0.5761 | 1.0000 |
| Remission state | 0.5594 | 0.0879 | 0.1429 | 0.5594 | 0.1429 |
| CEA concentrations | 0.6879 | 0.8208 | 0.7656 | 0.6671 | 0.8345 |
| Ct/proCt | 0.5938 | 0.9511 | 0.3711 | 0.7595 | 0.4034 |
| TSH concentrations | 0.5934 | 0.1590 | 0.0736 | 0.8541 | 0.0216 |
* Some variants were not represented in an alone-standing setting. Therefore, e11 rs1799939 is represented by patients with this allele and e15 rs1800863; e15 rs1800863 is represented by patients with this allele only and patients with this allele together with e11 rs1799939; and e14 rs1800862 is represented by patients with this variant independently on the presence of other variants.
Figure 1Graphic representation of clusters discriminated by unsupervised k−means clusterisation.
Figure 2Graphic representation of age distributions in the obtained clusters.
Other disorders in the patients of the 3 clusters and their first-degree relatives, with no correction for multiple comparisons.
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other tumours in the patients | No | 11 | 6 | 11 | 0.5110 |
| Yes | 7 | 4 | 3 | ||
| Metabolic disorders in the patients | No | 17 | 6 | 10 | 0.0755 |
| Yes | 1 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Tumours (other than MTC) in first-degree relatives | No | 7 | 5 | 6 | 0.1578 |
| Yes | 6 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Metabolic disorders in first-degree relatives | No | 13 | 5 | 8 | 0.0647 |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Figure 3Correspondence analysis plot−relationship between clusters and remission state.