Open Access

Association between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis

  • Qiliu Peng1,
  • Yu Lu1,
  • Xianjun Lao1,
  • Zhiping Chen2,
  • Ruolin Li3,
  • Jingzhe Sui1,
  • Xue Qin1Email author and
  • Shan Li1
Diagnostic Pathology20149:108

DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-9-108

Received: 23 March 2014

Accepted: 21 May 2014

Published: 3 June 2014

Abstract

Background

The base excision repair (BER) pathway removes DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation, reactive oxidative species and methylating agents. OGG1 and APE1 are two important genes in the BER pathway. Many epidemiological studies have evaluated the association between polymorphisms in the two BER genes (OGG1 Ser326Cys and APE1 Asp148Glu) and breast cancer risk. However, the results are inconsistent.

Methods

We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library for all eligible studies for the period up to February 2014. Data were extracted by two independent authors and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of the association.

Results

A total of 17 studies including 9,040 cases and 10,042 controls were available for OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and 7 studies containing 2,979 cases and 3,111 controls were included for APE1 Asp148Glu polymorphism. With respect to OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism, we did not find a significant association with breast cancer risk when all eligible studies were pooled into the meta-analysis. However, in subgroup analyses by ethnicity and menopausal status, statistical significant increased breast cancer risk was found in Asian populations (Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Ser: OR = 1.157, 95% CI 1.013–1.321, P = 0.011; Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser: OR = 1.113, 95% CI 1.009–1.227, P = 0.014) and postmenopausal patients (Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser: OR = 1.162, 95% CI 1.003–1.346, P = 0.024). In subgroup analysis according to quality score, source of control, and HWE in controls, no any significant association was detected. With respect to APE1 Asp148Glu polymorphism, no significant association with breast cancer risk was demonstrated in the overall and stratified analyses.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis suggests that the OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism may be a risk factor for breast cancer in Asians and postmenopausal patients. Further large and well-designed studies are needed to confirm this association.

Virtual Slides

The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1156934297124915

Keywords

Breast cancer OGG1 APE1 Polymorphism Meta-analysis

Background

Breast cancer is currently the most frequently occurring cancer and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death of females worldwide, which has become a major public health challenge [1, 2]. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease such that they may have different prognoses and respond to therapy differently despite similarities in histological types, grade and stage [3, 4]. Because of the heterogeneity of breast cancer, the mechanism of breast carcinogenesis is still not fully understood. It has been well established that exposure to various endogenous and exogenous mutagens or carcinogens played a critical role in the development of breast cancer [5, 6]. The exposures can lead to DNA damage which, if remained unrepaired, may result in genetic instability and unregulated cell growth, and eventually breast cancer [7]. The DNA repairing systems, composed of many DNA repair genes, play a critical role in removing damaged genes resulting from endogenous and exogenous mutagenic exposures, and maintaining the genomic integrity and preventing carcinogenesis.

The base excision repair (BER) pathway is one of the most important DNA repair mechanisms responsible for the repair of DNA damage. It is the most common route for removal of small lesions from DNA and is an important part of cellular defense against a large variety of structurally unrelated DNA lesions. It is believed to be the predominant pathway used for removal of oxidized and many alkylated bases [8, 9]. BER is initiated by recognition and excision of damaged base by the specific DNA glycosylase. Mammalian cells contain a series of different genes (each with a specialized function), of which 8-oxoguanine glycosylase-1 (OGG1), and apurinic/apyimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1) genes are two key enzymes in this repair pathway [10]. OGG1 maps on chromosome 3p26.2 and encodes the DNA repair enzyme OGGl responsible for the excision of 8-oxo-7, 8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoG) and other oxidatively damaged DNA bases. The APEX1 gene consists of five exons and four introns spanning 2.21 kb. This gene is located on chromosome 14q11.2–q12. By hydrolyzing 3'-blocking fragments from oxidized DNA, APEX1 produces normal 3'-hydroxyl nucleotide termini that are necessary for DNA repair synthesis and ligation at single- or double-strand breaks [11, 12]. Many single nucleotide polymorphisms in the OGG1 and APEX1 gene have been reported, including the commonly occurring Ser326Cys in OGG1 (rs1052133 in dbSNP) and Asp148Glu in APEX1 (rs3136820 in dbSNP). These nonconservative amino acid alterations have been reported to reduce DNA repair activity and consequently increase cancer risk [13, 14].

To date, many epidemiological studies have been performed to evaluate the association between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, but the results remain conflicting rather than conclusive. With respect to APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism, a meta-analysis by Wu et al. [15] found that the APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism may not contribute to breast cancer risk, however, they failed to include all eligible studies in the meta-analysis [16, 17], which make their conclusions questionable. With respect to OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism, two meta-analyses [18, 19] investigating the same hypothesis, quite similar in methods and performed almost at the same time, yielded different conclusions. Furthermore, the two previous meta-analyses did not cover all eligible studies [16, 17, 2022]. The exact relationship between genetic polymorphisms of OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu and breast cancer susceptibility has not been entirely established. To provide the most comprehensive assessment of the associations between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, we performed an updated meta-analysis of all available studies.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for all eligible studies (updated to February 01, 2014) using the following search strategy: (“breast cancer”) and (“OGG1”, “hOGG1”, “APEX1” or “APEX”) and (“polymorphism”, “variation”, “mutation”, “genotype”, or “genetic polymorphism”). There was no restriction on time period, sample size, population, language, or type of report. All eligible studies were retrieved and their references were checked for other relevant studies. The literature retrieval was performed in duplication by two independent reviewers (Qiliu Peng and Shi Yang). When multiple publications reported on the same or overlapping data, we chose the most recent or largest population. When a study reported the results on different subpopulations, we treated it as separate studies in the meta-analysis.

Selection criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) Case–control studies which evaluated the association between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk; (2) had an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or other available data for estimating OR (95% CI); and (3) control population did not contain malignant tumor patients. Studies were excluded if one of the following existed: (1) no control population; (2) duplicate of previous publication; and (3) insufficient information for data extraction; (4) Family-based studies of pedigrees with several affected cases per family were also excluded, because their analysis is based on linkage considerations.

Data extraction

Two investigators (Qiliu Peng and Yu Lu) independently reviewed and extracted data from all eligible studies. To ensure the accuracy of the information extracted, the two investigators checked the data extraction results and reached consensus on all of the items. If different results were generated, they would check the data again and have a discussion to come to an agreement. If these two authors could not reach a consensus, another author (Xue Qin) was consulted to resolve the dispute and a final decision was made by the majority of the votes. Data extracted from eligible studies included the first author, year of publication, country of origin, ethnicity, genotyping method, matching criteria, source of control, breast cancer confirmation, total numbers of cases and controls and genotype frequencies of cases and controls. When data were otherwise unavailable, we contacted the corresponding author by e-mail for original information. Ethnic backgrounds were categorized as Caucasian, Asian, and Africans. When a study did not state the ethnic descendent or if it was impossible to separate participants according to such phenotype, the group reported was termed as “mixed ethnicity”. Menopausal status was divided into premenopausal and postmenopausal and was additionally recorded for the stratified analysis.

Quality score evaluation

The quality of eligible studies was evaluated independently by two authors (Xue Qin and Qiliu Peng) according to a set of predefined criteria (Additional file 1: Table S1) based on the scale of Thakkinstian et al. [23]. The revised criteria cover the representativeness of cases, source of controls, ascertainment of breast cancer, total sample size, quality control of genotyping methods, and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in the control population. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Scores ranged from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Articles with scores equal to or less than 6 were considered “low-quality” studies, whereas those with scores higher than 6 were considered “high-quality” studies.

Statistical analysis

The strength of the association between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk was assessed by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The significance of the pooled OR was determined by Z test and a p value less than 0.05 was considered significant. The association of OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms with breast cancer risk was assessed using additive models, recessive model, and dominant model. Heterogeneity assumption was checked by a chi-square-based Q-test [24]. A P h value equal to or greater than 0.10 for the Q-test indicates a lack of heterogeneity among studies, and so the fixed-effects model was used for the meta-analysis [25]. Otherwise, the random-effects model was used [26]. Subgroup analyses were performed by ethnicity, menopausal status, quality score, source of control, and HWE in controls. Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequential omission of individual studies. For each polymorphism, publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry test. The distribution of the genotypes in the control population was tested for HWE using a goodness-of-fit Chi-square test. All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 12.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX). All p values were two-sided. To ensure the reliability and the accuracy of the results, two authors entered the data into the statistical software programs independently with the same results.

Results

Study characteristics

Based on our search criteria, 24 studies relevant to the role of OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms on breast cancer susceptibility were identified. Seven of these articles were excluded: one was a review [27], one contained overlapping data [28], two did not present sufficient data for calculating OR and 95% CI [29, 30], and three were meta-analysis [15, 18, 19]. Manual search of references cited in the eligible studies identified 1 additional article [16]. As a result, a total of 18 relevant studies [16, 17, 2022, 3143] met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Among them, two studies [32, 42] contained data on two different ethnic groups, and we treated them independently. Therefore, a total of 20 separate comparisons were finally included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1). Of all eligible studies, 13 studies evaluated the OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism, 3 studies evaluated the APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism, and 4 studies evaluated OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms simultaneously. Therefore, a total of 17 studies including 9,040 cases and 10,042 controls were available for hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and 7 studies containing 2,979 cases and 3,111 controls were included for APE1 Asp148Glu polymorphism. Table 1 list all essential information such as the publication year, first author, country, ethnicity, sample size, genotyping methods, source of controls, matching criteria, and breast cancer confirmation for OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms. The genotype distributions of the controls in 2 studies [32, 41] were not consistent with HWE for OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and 1 was not consistent with HWE for APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism [17].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-1596-9-108/MediaObjects/13000_2014_Article_982_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flowchart of selection of studies for inclusion in meta-analysis.

Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis

First author (Year)

Ethnicity

Sample size (case/control)

Genotyping methods

Matching criteria

Source of control

BC confirmation

Quality scores

SNP studied

HWE(P value)

Ser326Cys

Asp148Glu

Vogel [31]

Caucasian

425/434

Sequencing

Age, menopausal status

PB

NA

7

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.175

Choi [32]

Asian

265/284

PCR-RFLP

NA

HB

Histopatho-

6.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.048

Choi [32]

Asian

201/184

PCR-CTPP

Age

HB

Histo-

6

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.914

Huang [16]

Asian

136/232

PCR-RFLP

Age

HB

Patho-

6

OGG1 Ser326Cys APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.525

0.565

Zhang [33]

Caucasian

1571/1244

TaqMan

Age

PB

NA

8

OGG1 Ser326Cys APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.930

0.456

Rossner [34]

Caucasian

1041/1093

FP-TDI

Age

PB

NA

8

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.857

Cai [35]

Asian

1102/1167

TaqMan

Age

PB

NA

8

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.080

Synowiec [36]

Caucasian

41/48

PCR-RFLP

Age

HB

NA

2.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.507

Sangrajrang [37]

Asian

506/424

Capillary PCR

Region, menopausal status, drinking, smoking

HB

Histo-

7

OGG1 Ser326Cys APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.627

0.135

Romanowicz-Makowska [38]

Caucasian

100/106

PCR-RFLP

Age

HB

NA

2.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.988

Loizidou [39]

Caucasian

1108/1174

TaqMan

Age

PB

Patho-

9.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.499

Sterpone [28]

Caucasian

43/34

PCR-SSCP

Age, gender

HB

NA

3

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.577

Ming-Shiean [41]

Asian

401/533

TaqMan

Age

HB

Patho-

6.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.034

Roberts [20]

Caucasian

1054/1887

MALDI-TOF

Age, race

PB

Histo-

8

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.543

Smolarz [22]

Caucasian

70/70

PCR-RFLP

Age

HB

Histo-

5

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.473

Kim [17]

Asian

346/351

ASPE

Age, BMI, smoking, drinking

HB

Histo-

6.5

OGG1 Ser326Cys APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.296

0.012

Xie [21]

Asian

630/777

Sequencing

Age, BMI, menopausal status

HB

Patho-

7

OGG1 Ser326Cys

0.161

Smith [42]

Caucasian

319/405

TaqMan

Age, race

HB

Histopatho-

7

APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.507

Smith [42]

African

53/75

TaqMan

Age, race

HB

Histopatho-

6

APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.566

Jelonek [43]

Caucasian

91/412

PCR-RFLP

Age, gender

PB

NA

5

APEX1 Asp148Glu

0.092

BC, breast cancer; Histopatho-, Histopathologically confirmed; Histo-, Histologically confirmed; Patho-, Pathologically confirmed; NA, Not available; PB, Population–based; HB, Hospital–based; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in control population; PCR–RFLP, Polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism; PCR-CTPP, Polymerase chain reaction with confronting two-pair primers; FP-TDI, Template-directed primer extension and detection by fluorescence polarization; PCR-SSCP, Polymerase chain reaction-single strand conformation polymorphism; MALDI-TOF, Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry; ASPE, Allele-specific primer extension method.

Meta-analysis results

Table 2 lists the main results of meta-analysis of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk. The between-study heterogeneity was not significant in the overall populations and all subgroup analyses (all P h values were larger than 0.1), thus the fixed-effects model was used to pool the results. Overall, significant elevated breast cancer risk was not found when all studies were pooled into the meta-analysis. When stratified by quality score, source of control, and HWE in controls, significant increased breast cancer risk was also not detected in all subgroups. However, in subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significant increased breast cancer risk was found in Asians (Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Ser: OR = 1.157, 95% CI 1.013–1.321, P = 0.011; Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser: OR = 1.113, 95% CI 1.009–1.227, P = 0.014; Figure 2) but not in Caucasians. In stratified analysis by menopausal status, significant increased breast cancer risk was observed in postmenopausal patients (Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser: OR = 1.162, 95% CI 1.003–1.346, P = 0.024; Figure 3) but not in premenopausal subjects.
Table 2

Meta-analysis of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk

Analysis

No. of studies

Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Ser (Homozygote)

Ser/Cys vs. Ser/Ser (Heterozygote)

Cys/Cys + Ser/Cys vs. Ser/Ser (Dominant model)

Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser (Recessive model)

OR (95% CI)

P/Ph

OR (95% CI)

P/Ph

OR (95% CI)

P/Ph

OR (95% CI)

P/Ph

Overall

17

1.073(0.968-1.190)

0.180/0.485

0.986(0.923-1.054)

0.679/0.594

1.001(0.940-1.067)

0.971/0.501

1.079(0.993-1.172)

0.074/0.580

Ethnicity

         

Caucasian

9

0.956(0.812-1.127)

0.595/0.635

0.964(0.891-1.043)

0.357/0.218

0.967(0.897-1.043)

0.388/0.271

0.995(0.850-1.164)

0.945/0.958

Asian

8

1.157(1.013-1.321)

0.011/0.492

1.043(0.922-1.178)

0.505/0.946

1.085(0.967-1.218)

0.166/0.903

1.113(1.009-1.227)

0.014/0.173

Menopausal status

         

Premenopausal

7

1.153(0.957-1.388)

0.134/0.215

1.030(0.897-1.182)

0.677/0.995

1.052(0.923-1.199)

0.449/0.855

1.175(0.929-1.487)

0.178/0.149

Postmenopausal

9

1.154(0.965-1.380)

0.116/0.710

0.962(0.863-1.072)

0.482/0.202

0.994(0.896-1.102)

0.903/0.351

1.162(1.003-1.346)

0.024/0.570

Quality score

         

>6

11

1.093(0.980-1.218)

0.110/0.845

0.993(0.928-1.063)

0.841/0.941

1.007(0.944-1.075)

0.829/0.912

1.086(0.995-1.186)

0.065/0.507

≤6

6

0.916(0.664-1.262)

0.590/0.110

0.879(0.667-1.159)

0.361/0.157

0.910(0.702-1.180)

0.478/0.170

1.017(0.789-1.310)

0.899/0.446

Source of control

         

HB

11

1.134(0.975-1.320)

0.104/0.164

0.966(0.842-1.107)

0.615/0.384

1.029(0.904-1.170)

0.669/0.238

1.166(0.945-1.307)

0.107/0.462

PB

6

1.023(0.889-1.178)

0.750/0.997

0.992(0.920-1.071)

0.845/0.656

0.993(0.923-1.067)

0.843/0.802

0.987(0.874-1.114)

0.829/0.987

HWE in controls

         

Yes

15

1.071(0.960-1.195)

0.218/0.343

0.989(0.924-1.059)

0.757/0.468

1.002(0.939-1.069)

0.961/0.362

1.068(0.976-1.168)

0.465/0.154

No

2

1.086(0.803-1.471)

0.592/0.993

0.929(0.693-1.244)

0.620/0.717

0.993(0.755-1.307)

0.961/0.765

1.142(0.923-1.413)

0.223/0.726

Ph P values of Q-test for heterogeneity test. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; HB, Hospital–based studies; PB, Population-based studies; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-1596-9-108/MediaObjects/13000_2014_Article_982_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Forest plots of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk in subgroup analysis by ethnicity using a fixed-effect model (Recessive model Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-1596-9-108/MediaObjects/13000_2014_Article_982_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Forest plots of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal patients using a fixed-effect model (Recessive model Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser).

Table 3 lists the main results of meta-analysis of APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and breast cancer risk. When all 7 studies were pooled into the meta-analysis, there was no evidence of significant association between APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and breast cancer risk (Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Asp: OR = 0.948, 95% CI = 0.817–1.101, P = 0.486; Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp: OR = 0.975, 95% CI = 0.790–1.204, P = 0.814; Glu/Glu + Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp: OR = 0.959, 95% CI = 0.803–1.146, P = 0.646; Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Glu + Asp/Asp: OR = 0.961, 95% CI = 0.846–1.091, P = 0.540). In stratified analyses by ethnicity, menopausal status, quality score, source of control, and HWE in controls, statistically significant association was also not found in all subgroups.
Table 3

Meta-analysis of APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and breast cancer risk

Analysis

No. of studies

Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Asp (Homozygote)

Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp (Heterozygote)

Glu/Glu + Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp (Dominant model)

Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Glu + Asp/Asp (Recessive model)

OR (95% CI)

P/Ph

OR (95% CI)

P/ P h

OR (95% CI)

P/ P h

OR (95% CI)

P/ P h

Overall

7

0.948(0.817-1.101)

0.486/0.508

0.975(0.790-1.204)

0.814/0.028

0.959(0.803-1.146)

0.646/0.074

0.961(0.846-1.091)

0.540/0.572

Ethnicity

         

Caucasian

3

1.019(0.850-1.221)

0.842/0.395

0.928(0.670-1.285)

0.651/0.071

0.955(0.717-1.271)

0.751/0.097

1.042(0.897-1.211)

0.590/0.839

Asian

3

0.813(0.620-1.066)

0.135/0.455

1.031(0.681-1.560)

0.886/0.017

0.968(0.680-1.378)

0.855/0.035

0.873(0.604-1.091)

0.142/0.847

African

1

0.948(0.817-1.101)

0.794/—

0.870(0.404-1.870)

0.720/—

0.870(0.426-1.774)

0.701/—

0.933(0.353-2.469)

0.889/—

Menopausal status

         

Premenopausal

2

0.895(0.662-1.209)

0.469/0.509

0.938(0.744-1.181)

0.584/0.688

0.921(0.741-1.145)

0.460/0.602

0.927(0.716-1.201)

0.567/0.556

Postmenopausal

2

0.882(0.515-1.510)

0.648/0.096

1.046(0.847-1.290)

0.678/0.644

1.021(0.839-1.243)

0.835/0.323

0.972(0.782-1.208)

0.797/0.113

Quality score

         

>6

4

0.946(0.806-1.109)

0.491/0.351

0.999(0.760-1.313)

0.994/0.008

0.973(0.779-1.215)

0.807/0.031

0.952(0.831-1.091)

0.479/0.266

≤6

3

0.968(0.637-1.472)

0.880/0.368

0.898(0.642-1.256)

0.528/0.389

0.907(0.661-1.245)

0.547/0.303

1.024(0.719-1.456)

0.897/0.716

Source of control

         

HB

5

0.821(0.659-1.025)

0.081/0.809

0.921(0.669-1.268)

0.612/0.011

0.898(0.697-1.157)

0.405/0.055

0.864(0.709-1.052)

0.146/0.642

PB

2

1.070(0.874-1.309)

0.513/0.398

1.049(0.882-1.248)

0.589/0.538

1.055(0.896-1.242)

0.521/0.450

1.037(0.878-1.226)

0.667/0.562

HWE in controls

         

Yes

6

0.941(0.803-1.104)

0.456/0.390

0.930(0.818-1.057)

0.268/0.264

0.929(0.824-1.048)

0.232/0.258

0.989(0.864-1.132)

0.869/0.650

No

1

1.001(0.654-1.531)

0.997/—

1.345(0.904-2.162)

0.211/—

1.362(0.994-1.868)

0.055/—

0.774(0.532-1.126)

0.180/—

Ph P values of Q-test for heterogeneity test. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; HB, Hospital–based studies; PB, Population-based studies; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequential omission of individual studies for both OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms. For analyses of pooling more than three individual studies, the significance of ORs was not influenced excessively by omitting any single study (data not shown). For the OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism, sensitivity analysis was further performed by omitting the studies by Choi et al. [32] and Ming-Shiean et al. [41] in which the control populations were not in accordance with HWE. The significance of all ORs was not altered after excluding these two studies. For the APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism, a sensitivity analysis was also further performed by omitting the study by Kim et al. [17] in which the control populations were deviated from HWE, and the significance of all ORs was also not altered.

Publication bias

Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test were performed to access the publication bias in this meta-analysis. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry. Then, the Egger’s test was used to provide statistical evidence of funnel plot symmetry. The results still did not suggest any evidence of publication bias in OGG1 Ser326Cys (P = 0.104 for Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Ser; P = 0.187 for Ser/Cys vs. Ser/Ser; P = 0.560 for recessive model Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser, Figure 4A; and P = 0.339 for dominant model Cys/Cys + Ser/Cys vs. Ser/Ser) and APEX1 Asp148Glu (P = 0.535 for Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Asp; P = 0.789 for Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp; P = 0.504 for recessive model Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Glu + Asp/Asp, Figure 4B; and P = 0.766 for dominant model Glu/Glu + Asp/Glu vs. Asp/Asp) polymorphisms.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1746-1596-9-108/MediaObjects/13000_2014_Article_982_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias. Each point represents a separate study for the indicated association. A Funnel plot for recessive model Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism in the overall analysis (P = 0.560); B Funnel plot for recessive model Glu/Glu vs. Asp/Glu + Asp/Asp of APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism in overall analysis (P = 0.504).

Discussion

Maintenance of genomic integrity by DNA repair genes is an essential component of normal cell homeostasis necessary to cell growth, differentiation, and apoptosis [7, 44]. Previous evidence indicated that reduced DNA repair capacity, due to various DNA repair gene polymorphisms, is associated with increased risk and susceptibility to cancers [45, 46]. BER pathway is one of the most important DNA repair mechanisms responsible for the repair of DNA damage. It was initiated by recognition and excision of damaged base by the specific DNA glycosylase. OGG1 and APEX1 are both central players in the BER pathway. Many epidemiological studies have been performed to evaluate the role of OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms on breast cancer risk; however, the results remained conflicting and contradictory. The conflicting results are possibly because of the small effect of OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms on cancer risk or the relatively low statistical power of individual published studies. To provide the most comprehensive assessment of the association between OGG1 Ser326Cys and APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, we performed this meta-analysis of all available studies. Our results suggested that the OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism was significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk in Asian populations and postmenopausal patients. However, our data did not support a significant association between APEX1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and breast cancer risk both in the pooled analysis and stratified analyses.

This finding may be biologically plausible. Oxidative DNA damage induced by reactive oxygen species (ROS) is involved in the process of carcinogenesis. Reactive oxygen species could be generated from estrogen metabolism through catechol estrogen redox cycling [47, 48]. If not quenched, these reactive oxygen species may cause oxidative DNA damage and increase breast cancer risk. It has been suggested that 8-hydroxyguanine, a major product of oxidative DNA damage, plays an important role in carcinogenesis given its abundant and highly mutagenic properties [49]. 8-Hydroxyguanine is subjected to BER, especially via the 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (OGG1) catalyzing the release of 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine and the cleavage of DNA at the AP site. Variants in the OGG1 gene might alter protein structure or function or create alternatively spliced proteins which may influence BER efficiency and hence affect individual susceptibility to cancers. It was reported that the OGG1 326Cys variant enzyme have lower activity than the 326Cys enzyme [50]. More importantly, the homozygous variant genotype OGG1 326Cys has been shown associated with increased risk for many different types of cancers, including colorectal cancer [51], hepatocellular carcinoma [52] and lung cancer [53].

In the stratification analysis of ethnicity, we found an evidence for the association between the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility among Asians but not Caucasians. A possible reason for the differences might be the different genetic backgrounds and gene–environment interactions. We observed a wide variation of the Cys allele frequencies of control resources in Asian (0.52) and Caucasian (0.24) population that were very close to that obtained from the HapMap Project (0.50 for CHB and 0.22 for CEU), and this different allele frequency might account for the discrepancies between the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility among different ethnicity.

Previous evidence suggested that the menopausal status was one of the important risk factors for the development of breast cancer. So we carried out subgroup analysis according to menopausal status in this meta-analysis. Our results suggested a significant increased breast cancer risk in postmenopausal patients (Cys/Cys vs. Ser/Cys + Ser/Ser: OR = 1.162, 95% CI 1.003–1.346, P = 0.024) but not in premenopausal subjects. Though results from available studies investigating OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent, our results are consistent with the results of the large sample study by Sangrajrang et al. [37]. The most possible reason for this discrepancy in premenopausal and postmenopausal patients is that the OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism plays different roles in repairing oxidative DNA damage resulting from estrogen metabolism in patients with different menopausal status.

Some limitations of this meta-analysis should be addressed. First, in subgroup analysis by ethnicity, the included studies regarded only Asians and Caucasians for OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism. Data concerning other ethnicities such as Africans were not found. Thus, additional studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of this functional polymorphism on breast cancer risk in different ethnicities, especially in Africans. Second, our results were based on unadjusted estimates. We did not perform the analysis adjusted for other covariates such as age, obesity, drinking and smoking status, use of contraceptives, environment factors, and so on, because of the unavailable original data of the eligible studies.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis provided a more precise estimation based on larger sample size compared with the individual studies and previous meta-analysis. Our study suggested that OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism might contribute to breast cancer risk, especially in Asian populations and postmenopausal patients. In order to further verify our findings, large well designed epidemiological studies are warranted.

Abbreviations

HWE: 

Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium

BER: 

Base excision repair

OGG1: 

Human 8-oxogunaine glycosylase-1

APEX1: 

Apurinic/apyrimidinic-endonuclease-1

SNP: 

Single nucleotide polymorphism

OR: 

Odds ratio

CI: 

Confidence interval.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was supported by the National Natural Science Fundation (No. 81260302), Guangxi education and innovation projects for graduate student in 2014 (No. YCBZ2014031).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Clinical Laboratory, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University
(2)
Department of Occupational Health and Environmental Health, School of Public Health at Guangxi Medical University
(3)
Department of Medicine Research, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University

References

  1. Wang S, Li H, Wang J, Wang D: Expression of microRNA-497 and its prognostic significance in human breast cancer. Diagn Pathol. 2013, 8: 172-10.1186/1746-1596-8-172.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheng H, Qin Y, Fan H, Su P, Zhang X, Zhang H, Zhou G: Overexpression of CARM1 in breast cancer is correlated with poorly characterized clinicopathologic parameters and molecular subtypes. Diagn Pathol. 2013, 8: 129-10.1186/1746-1596-8-129.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. El Fatemi H, Chahbouni S, Jayi S, Moumna K, Melhouf MA, Bannani A, Mesbahi O, Amarti A: Luminal B tumors are the most frequent molecular subtype in breast cancer of North African women: an immunohistochemical profile study from Morocco. Diagn Pathol. 2012, 7: 170-10.1186/1746-1596-7-170.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Oger M, Allaoui M, Elie N, Marnay J, Herlin P, Plancoulaine B, Chasle J, Becette V, Bor-Angelier C: Impact of tumor heterogeneity on disease-free survival in a series of 368 patients treated for a breast cancer. Diagn Pathol. 2013, 8: S43-10.1186/1746-1596-8-S1-S43.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Wakeford R: The cancer epidemiology of radiation. Oncogene. 2004, 23: 6404-6428. 10.1038/sj.onc.1207896.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE: Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Res. 2005, 7: 21-32. 10.1186/bcr970.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoeijmakers JH: Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature. 2001, 411: 366-374. 10.1038/35077232.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Marnett LJ: Oxyradicals and DNA damage. Carcinogenesis. 2000, 21: 361-370. 10.1093/carcin/21.3.361.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Barzilai A, Yamamoto K: DNA damage responses to oxidative stress. DNA Repair (Amst). 2004, 3: 1109-1115. 10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.03.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hung RJ, Hall J, Brennan P, Boffetta P: Genetic polymorphisms in the base excision repair pathway and cancer risk: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 925-942. 10.1093/aje/kwi318.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Izumi T, Hazra TK, Boldogh I, Tomkinson AE, Park MS, Ikeda S, Mitra S: Requirement for human AP endonuclease 1 for repair of 3'-blocking damage at DNA single-strand breaks induced by reactive oxygen species. Carcinogenesis. 2000, 21: 1329-1334. 10.1093/carcin/21.7.1329.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelley MR, Cheng L, Foster R, Tritt R, Jiang J, Broshears J, Koch M: Elevated and altered expression of the multifunctional DNA base excision repair and redox enzyme Ape1/ref-1 in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2001, 7: 824-830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Park J, Chen L, Tockman MS, Elahi A, Lazarus P: The human 8-oxoguanine DNA N-glycosylase 1 (hOGG1) DNA repair enzyme and its association with lung cancer risk. Pharmacogenetics. 2004, 14: 103-109. 10.1097/00008571-200402000-00004.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Lo YL, Jou YS, Hsiao CF, Chang GC, Tsai YH, Su WC, Chen KY, Chen YM, Huang MS, Hu CY, Chen CJ, Hsiung CA: A polymorphism in the APE1 gene promoter is associated with lung cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009, 18: 223-229. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0749.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Wu B, Liu HL, Zhang S, Dong XR, Wu G: Lack of an association between two BER gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e50857-10.1371/journal.pone.0050857.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang CS, Chen JJ, Yang SY, Cheng CW, Chern HD, Chang KJ, Wu PE, Shen CY: Breast Cancer Risk Associated with Genotypic Polymorphism of Oxidative DNA Damage Repair Genes - A Multigenic Study of Base Excision Repair and Transcription-Coupled Repair in Cancer Susceptibility. J Genet Mole Biol. 2004, 15: 116-136.Google Scholar
  17. Kim KY, Han W, Noh DY, Kang D, Kwack K: Impact of genetic polymorphisms in base excision repair genes on the risk of breast cancer in a Korean population. Gene. 2013, 532: 192-196. 10.1016/j.gene.2013.09.069.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu D, Wang M, Zhang Z, Chen J: Lack of association between the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk: evidence from 11 case–control studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010, 122: 527-531. 10.1007/s10549-009-0723-4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Yuan W, Xu L, Feng Y, Yang Y, Chen W, Wang J, Pang D, Li D: The hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010, 122: 835-842. 10.1007/s10549-009-0722-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts MR, Shields PG, Ambrosone CB, Nie J, Marian C, Krishnan SS, Goerlitz DS, Modali R, Seddon M, Lehman T, Amend KL, Trevisan M, Edge SB, Freudenheim JL: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and association with breast cancer risk in the web study. Carcinogenesis. 2011, 32: 1223-1230. 10.1093/carcin/bgr096.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Xie H, Xia K, Rong H, Chen X: Genetic polymorphism in hOGG1 is associated with triple-negative breast cancer risk in Chinese Han women. Breast. 2013, 22: 707-712. 10.1016/j.breast.2012.12.016.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Smolarz B, Makowska M, Samulak D, Michalska MM, Mojs E, Wilczak M, Romanowicz H: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of ERCC2, hOGG1, and XRCC1 DNA repair genes and the risk of triple-negative breast cancer in Polish women. Tumour Biol. 2014, 35: 3495-3502. 10.1007/s13277-013-1461-0.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Thakkinstian A, McEvoy M, Minelli C, Gibson P, Hancox B, Duffy D, Thompson J, Hall I, Kaufman J, Leung TF, Helms PJ, Hakonarson H, Halpi E, Navon R, Attia J: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between {beta}2-adrenoceptor polymorphisms and asthma: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 201-211. 10.1093/aje/kwi184.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Mantel N, Haenszel W: Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959, 22: 719-748.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Goode EL, Ulrich CM, Potter JD: Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002, 11: 1513-1530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sterpone S, Mastellone V, Padua L, Novelli F, Patrono C, Cornetta T, Giammarino D, Donato V, Testa A, Cozzi R: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in BER and HRR genes, XRCC1 haplotypes and breast cancer risk in Caucasian women. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010, 136: 631-636. 10.1007/s00432-010-0791-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Sapkota Y, Mackey JR, Lai R, Franco-Villalobos C, Lupichuk S, Robson PJ, Kopciuk K, Cass CE, Yasui Y, Damaraju S: Assessing SNP-SNP interactions among DNA repair, modification and metabolism related pathway genes in breast cancer susceptibility. PLoS One. 2013, 8: e64896-10.1371/journal.pone.0064896.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ali MF, Meza JL, Rogan EG, Chakravarti D: Prevalence of BER gene polymorphisms in sporadic breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2008, 19: 1033-1038.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vogel U, Nexo BA, Olsen A, Thomsen B, Jacobsen NR, Wallin H, Overvad K, Tjonneland A: No association between OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003, 12: 170-171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Choi JY, Hamajima N, Tajima K, Yoo KY, Yoon KS, Park SK, Kim SU, Lee KM, Noh DY, Ahn SH, Choe KJ, Han W, Hirvonen A, Kang D: hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk among Asian women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003, 79: 59-62. 10.1023/A:1023305826726.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Y, Newcomb PA, Egan KM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Chanock S, Welch R, Brinton LA, Lissowska J, Bardin-Mikolajczak A, Peplonska B, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Zatonski W, Garcia-Closas M: Genetic polymorphisms in base-excision repair pathway genes and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 353-358. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0653.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossner P, Terry MB, Gammon MD, Zhang FF, Teitelbaum SL, Eng SM, Sagiv SK, Gaudet MM, Neugut AI, Santella RM: OGG1 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 811-815. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0659.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Cai Q, Shu XO, Wen W, Courtney R, Dai Q, Gao YT, Zheng W: Functional Ser326Cys polymorphism in the hOGG1 gene is not associated with breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 403-404. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0868.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Synowiec E, Stefanska J, Morawiec Z, Blasiak J, Wozniak K: Association between DNA damage, DNA repair genes variability and clinical characteristics in breast cancer patients. Mutat Res. 2008, 648: 65-72. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2008.09.014.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Sangrajrang S, Schmezer P, Burkholder I, Waas P, Boffetta P, Brennan P, Bartsch H, Wiangnon S, Popanda O: Polymorphisms in three base excision repair genes and breast cancer risk in Thai women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, 111: 279-288. 10.1007/s10549-007-9773-7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Romanowicz-Makowska H, Smolarz B, Makowski M, Polac I, Pertynski T: Ser326Cys polymorphism in DNA repair genes hOGG1 in breast cancer women. Pol J Pathol. 2008, 59: 201-204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Loizidou MA, Michael T, Neuhausen SL, Newbold RF, Marcou Y, Kakouri E, Daniel M, Papadopoulos P, Malas S, Hadjisavvas A, Kyriacou K: DNA-repair genetic polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer in Cyprus. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009, 115: 623-627. 10.1007/s10549-008-0084-4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterpone S, Cornetta T, Padua L, Mastellone V, Giammarino D, Testa A, Tirindelli D, Cozzi R, Donato V: DNA repair capacity and acute radiotherapy adverse effects in Italian breast cancer patients. Mutat Res. 2010, 684: 43-48. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2009.11.009.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ming-Shiean H, Yu JC, Wang HW, Chen ST, Hsiung CN, Ding SL, Wu PE, Shen CY, Cheng CW: Synergistic effects of polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and endogenous estrogen exposure on female breast cancer risk. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010, 17: 760-771. 10.1245/s10434-009-0802-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith TR, Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Akman SA, Allen GO, Hoang KN, Liu-Mares W, Hu JJ: Polygenic model of DNA repair genetic polymorphisms in human breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2008, 29: 2132-2138. 10.1093/carcin/bgn193.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Jelonek K, Gdowicz-Klosok A, Pietrowska M, Borkowska M, Korfanty J, Rzeszowska-Wolny J, Widlak P: Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms of selected genes involved in the response to DNA damage and risk of colon, head and neck, and breast cancers in a Polish population. J Appl Genet. 2010, 51: 343-352. 10.1007/BF03208865.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood RD, Mitchell M, Sgouros J, Lindahl T: Human DNA repair genes. Science. 2001, 291: 1284-1289. 10.1126/science.1056154.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang L, Zhang Z, Yan W: Single nucleotide polymorphisms for DNA repair genes in breast cancer patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2005, 359: 150-155. 10.1016/j.cccn.2005.03.047.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Garcia-Closas M, Malats N, Real FX, Welch R, Kogevinas M, Chatterjee N, Pfeiffer R, Silverman D, Dosemeci M, Tardon A, Serra C, Carrato A, Garcia-Closas R, Castano-Vinyals G, Chanock S, Yeager M, Rothman N: Genetic variation in the nucleotide excision repair pathway and bladder cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 536-542. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0749.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Roy D, Liehr JG: Estrogen, DNA damage and mutations. Mutat Res. 1999, 424: 107-115. 10.1016/S0027-5107(99)00012-3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Yoshie Y, Ohshima H: Synergistic induction of DNA strand breakage by catechol-estrogen and nitric oxide: implications for hormonal carcinogenesis. Free Radic Biol Med. 1998, 24: 341-348. 10.1016/S0891-5849(97)00269-4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Floyd RA: The role of 8-hydroxyguanine in carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 1990, 11: 1447-1450. 10.1093/carcin/11.9.1447.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Kohno T, Shinmura K, Tosaka M, Tani M, Kim SR, Sugimura H, Nohmi T, Kasai H, Yokota J: Genetic polymorphisms and alternative splicing of the hOGG1 gene, that is involved in the repair of 8-hydroxyguanine in damaged DNA. Oncogene. 1998, 16: 3219-3225. 10.1038/sj.onc.1201872.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Canbay E, Cakmakoglu B, Zeybek U, Sozen S, Cacina C, Gulluoglu M, Balik E, Bulut T, Yamaner S, Bugra D: Association of APE1 and hOGG1 polymorphisms with colorectal cancer risk in a Turkish population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011, 27: 1295-1302. 10.1185/03007995.2011.573544.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Yuan T, Wei J, Luo J, Liu M, Deng S, Chen P: Polymorphisms of base-excision repair genes hOGG1 326cys and XRCC1 280His increase hepatocellular carcinoma risk. Dig Dis Sci. 2012, 57: 2451-2457. 10.1007/s10620-012-2192-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Okasaka T, Matsuo K, Suzuki T, Ito H, Hosono S, Kawase T, Watanabe M, Yatabe Y, Hida T, Mitsudomi T, Tanaka H, Yokoi K, Tajima K: hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and risk of lung cancer by histological type. J Hum Genet. 2009, 54: 739-745. 10.1038/jhg.2009.108.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Peng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement