We tested whether the polymorphisms of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene, MTHFR C677T and A1298C, the methionine synthase gene, MTR A2756G, the methionine synthase reductase gene, MTRR A66G, and the thymidylate synthase gene, TYMS 2R-->3R, involved in folate and methionine metabolism, altered the risk for multiple myeloma (MM). Genomic DNA from 123MM patients and 188 controls was analysed by polymerase chain reaction and restriction digestion for the polymorphism analyses. The frequency of the MTR 2756 AG plus GG genotype was higher in patients than in controls (39.8% versus 23.4%, P=0.001). Individual carriers of the variant allele G had a 2.31 (95% CI: 1.38-3.87)-fold increased risk for MM compared with others. In contrast, similar frequencies of the MTHFR, the MTRR and the TYMS genotypes were seen in patients and controls. These results suggest, for the first time, a role for the MTR A2756G polymorphism in MM risk in our country, but should be confirmed by large-scale epidemiological studies with patients and controls age matched.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Case-control studies investigating associations between multiple myeloma (MM) and the C677T and A1298C polymorphisms of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) have provided controversial results. In an attempt to interpret these results, a meta-analysis of all available studies was performed. In the meta-analysis the pooled odds ratios (OR) were estimated using fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) models. The heterogeneity between studies, the sources of potential bias and the consistency of genetic effects across ethnicities were explored. Cumulative meta-analysis was also performed. The meta-analysis revealed non-significant heterogeneity between studies (Pq ≥ 0.65). The dominant model for the effect of 677T allele produced significant association overall [FE OR = 1.23 (1.04–1.47)] and in Caucasians [FE OR = 1.54 (1.14–2.08)], but not in East Asians [FE OR = 1.05 (0.82–1.34)]. Although the cumulative meta-analysis for the dominant model of 677T allele showed a downward trend of RE OR for the period 2000–2007, the association still remained significant. Analysis of the A1298C polymorphisms revealed lack of association both in Caucasians and in East Asians. There is an indication of potential bias: a differential magnitude of effect in large versus small studies emerged. In conclusion, the accumulated evidence indicated an association between MTHFR
C677T polymorphism and MM in Caucasians under a dominant model.
Journal of Human Genetics 06/2008; 53(6):499-507. DOI:10.1007/s10038-008-0277-z · 2.46 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to investigate the association between cervical cancer risk and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in three one-carbon metabolism genes, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), methionine synthase (MTR), and methionine synthase reductase (MTRR) in Korean women. Twelve SNPs were identified in MTHFR, MTR, and MTRR in the 927 case-control samples, which included 165 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (CIN1), 167 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and 3 (CIN2/3), 155 cervical cancer patients, and 440 normal controls. The frequencies of the genotypes and haplotypes were assessed in the controls, CINs, and cervical cancers. Individual carriers of the variant allele C of MTHFR A1298C (rs1801131) had a 0.64-fold [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.98] decreased risk for CIN2/3 compared with common homozygotes. However, no significant association was found between most other variants and cervical cancer risk. The results also identified an increased CIN1 risk in carriers with at least one copy of haplotype 3 in the MTHFR gene (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI: 1.03-3.42). In conclusion, there was no significant association between most SNPs in MTHFR, MTR, or MTRR and the risk of CIN and cervical cancer in Korean women. In addition, there was no significant association of MTHFR haplotypes with risk of CIN2/3 and cervical cancer.
Cancer Causes and Control 09/2009; 21(1):23-30. DOI:10.1007/s10552-009-9430-z · 2.74 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Folate-pathway gene polymorphisms have been implicated in several cancers and investigated inconclusively in relation to prostate cancer. We conducted a systematic review, which identified nine case-control studies (eight included, one excluded). We also included data from four genome-wide association studies and from a case-control study nested within the UK population-based Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment study. We investigated by meta-analysis the effects of eight polymorphisms: MTHFR C677T (rs1801133; 12 studies; 10,745 cases; 40,158 controls), MTHFR A1298C (rs1801131; 5 studies; 3,176 cases; 4,829 controls), MTR A2756G (rs1805087; 8 studies; 7,810 cases; 37,543 controls), MTRR A66G (rs1801394; 4 studies; 3,032 cases; 4,515 controls), MTHFD1 G1958A (rs2236225; 6 studies; 7,493 cases; 36,941 controls), SLC19A1/RFC1 G80A (rs1051266; 4 studies; 6,222 cases; 35,821 controls), SHMT1 C1420T (rs1979277; 2 studies; 2,689 cases; 4,110 controls), and FOLH1 T1561C (rs202676; 5 studies; 6,314 cases; 35,190 controls). The majority (10 of 13) of eligible studies had 100% Caucasian subjects; only one study had <90% Caucasian subjects. We found weak evidence of dominant effects of two alleles: MTR 2756A>G [random effects pooled odds ratio, 1.06 (1.00-1.12); P = 0.06 (P = 0.59 for heterogeneity across studies)] and SHMT1 1420C>T [random effects pooled odds ratio, 1.11 (1.00-1.22); P = 0.05 (P = 0.38 for heterogeneity across studies)]. We found no effect of MTHFR 677C>T or any of the other alleles in dominant, recessive or additive models, or in comparing a/a versus A/A homozygous. Neither did we find any difference in effects on advanced or localized cancers. Our meta-analysis suggests that known common folate-pathway single nucleotide polymorphisms do not have significant effects on susceptibility to prostate cancer.
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.