Baker, S. G. & Kaprio, J. Common susceptibility genes for cancer: search for the end of the rainbow. BMJ 332, 1150-1152

University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 17.45). 06/2006; 332(7550):1150-2. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1150
Source: PubMed
7 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Human Genome Project and the ensuing International HapMap Project were largely motivated by human health issues. But the distance from a DNA sequence variation to a novel disease gene is considerable; for complex diseases, closing this gap hinges on the premise that they arise mainly from heritable causes. Using cancer as an example of complex disease, we examine the scientific evidence for the hypothesis that human diseases result from interactions between genetic variants and the environment.
    Nature Reviews Genetics 01/2007; 7(12):958-65. DOI:10.1038/nrg2009 · 36.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence is accumulating that individual risk of neoplasia depends on complex interactions among genetic inheritance, a range of exposures both in utero and in postnatal life, and the play of chance. Knowledge of the portfolio of genetic variants that confer susceptibility or resistance to cancer is limited, and there is potential for genome-wide scans and hypothesis-driven studies to reveal novel polymorphisms and haplotypes that modify risk. There is only fragmentary evidence of the scale and nature of diet-gene interactions that modulate risk of neoplasia, but it seems probable that such interactions will play a significant role as they do in other complex diseases including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. All existing evidence about diet-gene interactions and cancer risk comes from observational studies, and it will be necessary to undertake intervention studies to test the hypotheses generated by epidemiologic investigations. Because it is very unlikely that primary cancer will be an endpoint in dietary intervention studies in the foreseeable future, development of robust surrogate endpoints is a high priority. Emerging biological science using epigenomics, proteomics, and other molecular technologies appears to offer novel approaches to the discovery and validation of surrogate endpoints.
    Journal of Nutrition 02/2007; 137(1 Suppl):253S-258S. · 3.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the evidence implicating the deregulation of cyclin D1 in the pathogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to discuss the opportunities for targeted clinical intervention. Data published until June 2006 are summarized, and previously unpublished results from our own research are included. In normal cells, cyclin D1 complexes with and activates cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) and acts as a transcriptional regulator. The protein is frequently overexpressed in a wide range of cancers, sometimes coincident with CCND1 (cyclin D1) gene amplification (5-20% of tumours). A low level of somatic mutations have been seen in certain tumours. CCND1 is amplified in NSCLC and cyclin D1 is frequently overexpressed in tumours and pre-invasive bronchial lesions, generally from one parental allele. Mutation analyses revealed a frequent CCND1 gene polymorphism (A870G) that modulates alternative splicing and allows expression of an alternative cyclin D1 transcript (transcript cyclin D1b). The encoded cyclin D1b protein lacks a specific phosphorylation site required for nuclear export. Genotype has been correlated with the risk and/or severity of disease or drug response across a range of malignancies, including lung cancer. Together, these findings suggest a strong pathological role for cyclin D1 deregulation in bronchial neoplasia. Current data indicate that cyclin D1 overexpression is not a consequence of, but rather a pivotal element in the process of malignant transformation in the lung and other tissues. This understanding may open new avenues for lung cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
    Lung Cancer 02/2007; 55(1):1-14. DOI:10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.09.024 · 3.96 Impact Factor
Show more


7 Reads
Available from