| Title |
Relationship between IGF2BP2 and IGFBP3 polymorphisms and susceptibility to non-small-cell lung cancer: a case–control study in Eastern Chinese Han population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s169222 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shuchen Chen, Hao Qiu, Chao Liu, Yafeng Wang, Weifeng Tang, Mingqiang Kang |
| Abstract |
IGF2BP2 and IGFBP3 polymorphisms may be associated with cancer risk. With an aim to determine the association of variations in IGF2BP2 and IGFBP3 genes with risk of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IGF2BP2 rs1470579 A>C, rs4402960 G>T and IGFBP3 rs2270628 C>T, rs3110697 G>A, and rs6953668 G>A polymorphisms were selected and genotyped in 521 NSCLC patients and 1,030 controls. We found that there was no difference in IGF2BP2 and IGFBP3 genotype distribution among the NSCLC patients and controls. The stratified analyses suggested that IGF2BP2 rs1470579 A>C polymorphism decreased the risk of NSCLC in some subgroups (female subgroup: CC vs AA: adjusted P=0.032 and CC vs AC/AA: adjusted P=0.028; <60 years subgroup: CC vs AA: adjusted P=0.012 and CC vs AC/AA: adjusted P=0.013; and never drinking subgroup: CC vs AA: adjusted P=0.046 and CC vs AC/AA: adjusted P=0.031). The stratified analyses also found that IGF2BP2 rs4402960 G>T polymorphism decreased the risk of NSCLC in some subgroups (female subgroup: TT vs GG: adjusted P=0.031 and TT vs GT/GG: adjusted P=0.026; <60 subgroup: TT vs GG: adjusted P=0.037 and TT vs GT/GG: adjusted P=0.038; and never drinking subgroup: TT vs GT/GG: adjusted P=0.046). Haplotype analysis indicated Ars1470579Crs2270628Grs3110697Grs4402960Ars6953668 haplotype decreased susceptibility of NSCLC (P=0.007). Our study suggests that IGF2BP2 rs1470579 A>C, rs4402960 G>T single-nucleotide polymorphisms are candidates for decreased susceptibility to NSCLC among female, <60 years, and never drinking subgroups. In the future, more case-control studies with functional analysis are needed to confirm these preliminary findings. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,532,290
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,406
of 2,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,941
of 331,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#68
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,019 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.