Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Association between polymorphisms in ERCC2 gene and oral cancer risk: evidence from a meta-analysis

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 3,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
BMC Cancer201313:594

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-594

  • Received: 7 June 2013
  • Accepted: 18 November 2013
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Excision repair cross-complementing group 2 (ERCC2) plays important roles in the repair of DNA damage and adducts. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of ERCC2 gene are suspected to influence the risks of oral cancer. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically summarize the possible association of ERCC2 rs1799793 and rs13181 polymorphisms with oral cancer risks.

Methods

We retrieved the relevant articles from PubMed and Embase databases. Studies were selected using specific criteria. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated to assess the association. All analyses were performed using the Stata software.

Results

Six studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant associations between ERCC2 rs1799793 and rs13181 polymorphism with overall oral cancer risk. In the stratified analysis by ethnicity, no significant associations were found. In the stratified analysis by tumor type, the risk of oral leukoplakia was significant associated with rs13181 polymorphism (AC vs. AA: OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.01-1.62, P = 0.546 for heterogeneity, I2 = 0.0%; CC vs. AA: OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 0.99-3.79, P = 0.057 for heterogeneity, I2 = 60.1%; dominant model AC + CC vs. AA: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.08–1.69, P = 0.303 for heterogeneity, I2 = 17.6%; allele C vs. A: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.04–1.82. P = 0.043 for heterogeneity, I2 = 56.4%).

Conclusion

Rs13181 in ERCC2 gene might be associated with oral leukoplakia risk.

Keywords

  • Oral Cancer
  • Single Nucleotide Polymorphism
  • Rs13181 Polymorphism
  • Nucleotide Excision Repair
  • Oral Leukoplakia

Background

An estimated 263,900 new cases and 128,000 deaths from oral cavity cancer (including lip cancer) occurred in 2008 worldwide [1]. Its increasing incidence and mortality rates during the last two decades pose a big challenge to scientists and doctors. A review highlighted the strength of the association of several of the risk factors (e.g., tobacco and alcohol use, and diet) related to oral and pharyngeal cancers [2]. Early premalignant oral lesions, such as leukoplakia, appear as a white patch in the oral cavity of chewing and tobacco smoking, and five to ten percent of them progress to malignancy [3]. Therefore, the identification of biomarkers for screening the high-risk individuals for increased predisposition to cancer is very important for prevention of cancer.

Environmental carcinogens contained in air pollution or tobacco smoking fumes, which are suggested to be important risk factors for oral cancer, could cause many types of DNA damages such as forming DNA adducts, cross-links and unrepaired DNA damage can result in cell apoptosis or unregulated cell growth and may eventually lead to cancer. The various DNA repair pathways play important roles in the genomic stability, thus defending against carcinogenesis. Individuals with suboptimal DNA repair capacity are at increased risk of smoking-related cancers, such as lung cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [4, 5]. There has been increasing evidence that DNA damage plays a critical role in the carcinogenesis of most cancers and DNA repair genes are considered key genes associated with the onset of cancer [68]. There are at least four pathways of DNA repair on specific types of DNA damage [9]. Tobacco-induced DNA adducts are primarily removed by nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway. The variation in DNA repair capacity may due to the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in DNA repair genes. So it is of utmost importance to investigate the SNPs in genes involved in NER pathway to understand the etiology of oral cancer.

Excision repair cross-complimentary group 2 (ERCC2) is an important DNA repair gene in NER pathway. ERCC2 is located in chromosome 19q13.2-13.3 and codes for an evolutionarily conserved helicase, a subunit of TFIIH complex, which is essential for NER. SNPs in exons of DNA repair genes may influence their protein activity, resulting in differences of individual NER and DNA repair capacity that may affect the susceptibility of diseases. The common polymorphisms in exons of ERCC2 gene is at codon 751 (A > C substitution at nucleotide position 35931, exon 23, Lys > Gln, rs13181) and codon 312 (G > A substitution at position 23951, exon 10, Asp > Asn, rs1799793). To date, there are studies reporting the association between polymorphisms of ERCC2 codon 312 and 751with oral cancer risk but these published data were contradictory [1015]. Until now, there was no meta-analysis or systematic review on the risk of oral cancer with ERCC2 polymorphism. So we perform an updated meta-analysis on all available case–control studies to assess the oral cancer risk with rs13181 and rs1799793 in ERCC2 gene.

Methods

Data sources

We retrieved the articles using the following terms “Excision repair cross-complimentary group 2 or ERCC2 or Xeroderma pigmentosum D or XPD” and “oral cancer or oral carcinoma” from PubMed and Embase (Last search was updated on May 2013). We evaluated potentially relevant publications by examining their titles and abstracts and all studies matching the eligible criteria were retrieved.

Study selection and data extraction

Eligible studies were selected according to the following explicit inclusion criteria: (a) evaluation of the rs13181 and/or rs1799793 polymorphism and oral cancer or oral leukoplakia risks, (b) using the methodology of a case–control study. (c) There was sufficient published data for the computation of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), for example there are number of cases and controls with different genotypes or alleles in published paper to calculate ORs and their 95% CIs.

Duplicate and obviously unrelated articles were eliminated by a single author (E.Z.). Abstracts of the remaining articles were examined independently by two authors (E.Z. and Z.C.) to determine whether the full-text article should be sought. The following information was obtained from each publication: first author’s name, publication year, country origin, ethnicity, case characteristics, total number of cases and controls, and numbers of each group with rs13181 and rs1799793 genotypes, respectively.

Statistical methods

We first assessed Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium using Chi-square test in control groups for each included study. ORs and their 95% CIs were calculated to evaluate the association between ERCC2 SNPs and cancer risks. Pooled ORs were calculated from combination of each study by heterozygote comparison (GA vs. GG for rs1799793; AC vs. AA for rs13181), homozygote comparison (AA vs. GG for rs1799793; CC vs. AA for rs13181), dominant model (GA + AA vs. GG for rs1799793; AC + CC vs. AA for rs13181), recessive model (AA vs. GA + GG for rs1799793; CC vs. AC + AA for rsrs13181) and allelic model (A vs. G for rs1799793; C vs. A for rs13181) respectively. For each genetic comparison model, subgroup analysis according to ethnicity was investigated to estimate ethnic-specific ORs for Asian population, but not for Caucasian population because there was only one paper in Caucasians. Meanwhile stratified analyses by tumor type were also applied for each genetic comparison model. Values of Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) are reported for model comparison, with the best models showing the smallest AIC [16].

We assessed the between-study heterogeneity by Cochran’s Q test and quantified by I2 (a significance level of P < 0.10 and/or I2 ≥ 50%). If the P value is >0.05 of the Q test, the summary OR estimate of each study was calculated by the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, the random-effect model was used. The effect of publication bias was examined by inverted funnel plots and the Egger’s test. The significance of the intercept was determined by the t test as suggested by Egger’s test. All of P values were two-sided and all analyses were performed using the Stata software version 11.0 (Stata Corp, College station, TX).

Results

Characteristics of included studies

According to these criteria, a total of 17 articles were eligible. One study of review, two studies on cancer prognosis and three studies about cell line were excluded. Five studies were excluded because of no cancer risk and data missing. Finally 6 articles were included and used in quantitative synthesis for systematic review [1015]. Flow chart of the study selection process was shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Flow chart of the study selection process.

The characteristics of selected studies are summarized in Table 1. There were one study of European and five studies of Asians. There are three studies about ERCC2 rs1799793 SNP, including 742 cases and 738 controls. There were 1202 cases and 1145 controls in 6 studies for ERCC2 rs13181 SNP. Among three studies of ERCC2 rs1799793 polymorphisms, one study included the association between this polymorphism with oral cancer risk and all of the three studies contain the association between the polymorphism and oral leukoplakia risk. For rs13181 polymorphism, data sets about the risk of oral cancer and oral leukoplakia were both four. The polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method was the most common technique used for analyzing the genotype frequencies of the two SNPs. The distributions of genotypes in the controls were all in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).
Table 1

Characteristics of all studies in meta-analysis

Author, year

Country

Ethnicity

Age (case/control)

Case gender

Control gender

SNP

Case type

No. (case/control)

Case

Control

 
         

GG/AA

GA/AC

AA/CC

GG/AA

GA/AC

AA/CC

HWE(P)

    

(Male/female)

(Male/female)

          

Mahimkar MB (2010) [10]

India

Asian

39.0 ± 13.0/39.0 ± 13.0

60/6

60/2

Rs1799793

OL

66/62

23

13

4

23

21

1

0.13

      

Rs13181

OL

66/62

26

20

10

29

23

2

0.32

Wang Y (2007) [11]

America

Caucasian

58.3 ± 12.8/59.7 ± 11.0

81/63

162/126

Rs1799793

OL

144/288

50

59

16

140

109

29

0.26

      

Rs13181

OL

144/288

46

77

21

120

132

28

0.34

Majumder M (2007) [12]

India

Asian

49.0 ± 11.9/47.0 ± 10.3

196/28

302/87

Rs1799793

OL

224/388

117

89

18

205

146

36

0.18

       

OSCC

308/388

152

119

34

205

146

36

0.18

       

Total

532/388

269

208

52

205

146

36

0.18

      

Rs13181

OL

224/388

105

98

21

190

158

40

0.40

       

OSCC

308/388

158

125

26

190

158

40

0.40

       

Total

532/388

263

223

47

190

158

40

0.40

Kietthubthew S (2006) [13]

Thailand

Asian

67.1/68.4

77/29

91/73

Rs13181

OSCC

112/192

83

21

1

126

36

2

0.75

Bau DT (2007) [14]

China

Asian

53.0 ± 10.1/ 54.4 ± 12.1

None

None

Rs13181

OC

154/105

134

18

2

89

15

1

0.68

Ramachandran S (2006) [15]

India

Asian

None

None

None

Rs13181

OC

110/110

49

46

15

71

31

8

0.09

       

OL

84/110

41

29

14

71

31

8

0.09

       

Total

194/110

90

75

29

71

31

8

0.09

OL: Oral leukoplakia, OSCC: Oral squamous cell cancer, OC: oral cancer.

Total is the sum of different case type about the same SNP in each study.

ERCC2 rs1799793 SNP

The A allele frequency of the ERCC2 rs1799793 polymorphism among the controls across different ethnicities ranged from 0.26 to 0.30. The average A allele frequencies in Asian and Caucasians populations were 27.0 and 30.0%, respectively. Heterogeneity between studies was not observed so the fixed-effect model was conducted. The overall ORs with its 95% CIs didn’t show statistically association between rs1799793 polymorphism and oral cancer risk (GA vs. GG: OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91-1.43, P = 0.182 for heterogeneity, I2 = 41.2%; AA vs. GG: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.87-1.86, P = 0.436 for heterogeneity, I2 = 0%; dominant model GA + AA vs. GG: OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.94-1.44, P = 0.268 for heterogeneity, I2 = 24.0%; recessive model AA vs. GA + GG: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.82-1.70, P = 0.406 for heterogeneity, I2 = 0%; allele A vs. G: OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.96–1.34, P = 0.491 for heterogeneity, I2 = 0%) (Table 2). Because there was only one study among Caucasian population and one study on oral squamous cell cancer, the stratified analyses were not conducted in rs1799793 polymorphism.
Table 2

Association between ERCC2 polymorphisms with oral cancer risks

 

No of studies

Fixed-effect

Random-effect

Phet

I-squared (%)

Rs1799793

     

GA vs. GG

3

1.14[0.91,1.43]

1.13[0.80,1.61]

0.182

41.2

AA vs. GG

3

1.27[0.87,1.86]

1.24[0.87,1.85]

0.436

0.0

GA + AA vs. GG

3

1.16[0.94,1.44]

1.17[0.89,1.55]

0.268

24.0

AA vs. GA + GG

3

1.18[0.82,1.70]

1.16[0.81,1.68]

0.406

0.0

A vs. G

3

1.13[0.96,1.34]

1.13[0.96,1.34]

0.491

0.0

Rs13181

     

AC vs. AA

6

1.16[0.96,1.40]

1.17[0.90,1.51]

0.171

35.5

CC vs. AA

6

1.42[1.03,1.96]

1.71[0.92,3.20]

0.044

56.1

AC + CC vs. AA

6

1.19[1.00,1.43]

1.24[0.92,1.67]

0.045

55.8

CC vs. AC + AA

6

1.29[0.95,1.76]

1.48[0.87,2.52]

0.101

45.7

C vs. A

6

1.17[1.02,1.34]

1.23[0.94,1.62]

0.011

66.1

Phet: P value for heterogeneity test.

No publication bias was detected by either the inverted funnel plot or Egger’s test. The shapes of the funnel plot for the comparison of the G allelic and the A allelic of rs1799793 SNP seemed approximately symmetrical and P value of the Egger’ test was not statistical significant (t = 0.08, P = 0.940).

ERCC2 rs13181 SNP

The C allele frequency of ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism among the controls across different ethnicities ranged from 0.08 to 0.34. The average C allele frequencies in Asian and Caucasians populations were 19.4% and 34.0%, respectively. There was almost no significant heterogeneity in the analyses. The associations between rs13181 polymorphism and overall oral cancer risk were not statistically significant (AC vs. AA: OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.96-1.40, P = 0.171 for heterogeneity, I2 = 35.5%; CC vs. AA: OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 0.92-3.20, P = 0.044 for heterogeneity, I2 = 56.1%; dominant model AC + CC vs. AA: OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.92–1.67, P = 0.045 for heterogeneity, I2 = 55.8%; recessive model CC vs. AC + AA: OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.95–1.76, P = 0.101 for heterogeneity, I2 = 45.7%; allele C vs. A: OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.94–1.62, P = 0.011 for heterogeneity, I2 = 66.1%). The AIC values of heterozygote model, variant homozygote model, dominant model, recessive model and allelic model were 88.4, 104.6, 109.2, 87.2 and 118.0, showing that the recessive model may be better than other models.

Stratified analyses were conducted for rs13181 polymorphism by ethnicity and tumor type (Table 3). In the stratified analysis by ethnicity, no significant associations were found among Asians. However, the subgroup analysis in Caucasians was not further performed because there was only one study from Caucasians. In the stratified analysis by tumor type, the risk of oral leukoplakia was significant associated with rs13181 polymorphism (AC vs. AA: OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.01-1.62, P = 0.546 for heterogeneity, I2 = 0.0%; CC vs. AA: OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 0.99-3.79, P = 0.057 for heterogeneity, I2 = 60.1%; dominant model AC + CC vs. AA: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.08–1.69, P = 0.303 for heterogeneity, I2 = 17.6%; allele C vs. A: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.04–1.82. P = 0.043 for heterogeneity, I2 = 56.4%). There was no evidence for the influence of rs13181 polymorphism on oral cancer susceptibility. Figure 2 showed the meta-analysis results of the association between ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism and oral cancer risk stratified by case type under the allele model (C versus A) from random effects analysis. Figure 3 are the results of the association under the dominant model (AC + CC versus AA) from fixed effects analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2

Meta-analysis of the association between ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism and oral cancer risk stratified by case type under the allele model (C versus A).

Figure 3
Figure 3

Meta-analysis of the association between ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism and oral cancer risk stratified by case type under the dominant model (AC + CC versus AA).

Table 3

Pooled ORs and 95% CIs for ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism of stratified meta-analysis

Subgroup

Genotype

No of studies

Test of association

Test of heterogeneity

   

OR(95% CI)

Z

P-value

Model

χ 2

P-value

I2(%)

Asian

AC vs. AA

4

1.16[0.88,1.36]

0.83

0.405

F

5.81

0.121

48.3

 

CC vs. AA

4

1.33[0.59,3.01]

0.69

0.489

R

1.41

0.098

52.3

AC + CC vs. AA

4

1.13[0.75,1.71]

0.59

0.555

R

8.79

0.032

65.9

CC vs. AC + AA

4

1.08[0.74,1.56]

0.39

0.694

F

4.36

0.225

61.2

 

C vs. A

4

1.12[0.76,1.65]

0.56

0.576

R

10.90

0.012

72.5

Oral leukoplakia

AC vs. AA

4

1.28[1.01,1.62]

2.01

0.045

F

2.13

0.546

0.0

 

CC vs. AA

4

1.94[0.99,3.79]

1.95

0.052

R

7.52

0.057

60.1

AC + CC vs. AA

4

1.35[1.08,1.69]

2.60

0.009

F

3.64

0.303

17.6

CC vs. AC + AA

4

1.67[0.90,3.13]

1.63

0.102

R

7.20

0.066

58.3

 

C vs. A

4

1.38[1.04,1.82]

2.26

0.024

R

6.88

0.043

56.4

Oral cancer

AC vs. AA

4

1.10[0.73,1.65]

0.45

0.656

R

7.02

0.071

57.3

 

CC vs. AA

4

1.07[0.69,1.69]

0.31

0.758

F

5.26

0.154

43.0

AC + CC vs. AA

4

1.11[0.71,1.75]

0.46

0.643

R

9.29

0.026

67.7

CC vs. AC + AA

4

1.01[0.66,1.55]

0.06

0.951

F

3.13

0.371

4.3

 

C vs. A

4

1.09[0.73,1.64]

0.44

0.661

R

10.22

0.064

55.0

OR, odds ratio; vs, versus; R, random effect model; F, fixed effect model.

No publication bias was indicated according to the results of the inverted funnel plot, Begg’s test and Egger’s test (data not shown).

Discussion

It is well known that individual susceptibility plays important role in the development of most cancers. Polymorphisms of genes involved in carcinogenesis may have accounted for the susceptibility. Therefore, genetic susceptibility, especially single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), to cancer has been a research focus in scientific community. Understanding the genetic background and etiology of oral cancer is essential for both the risk assessment and findings of effective methods of prevention and treatment. Recent genetic association studies on oral cancer risks have focused on the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms in Excision repair cross-complimenting group 2 (ERCC2) gene, namely Xeroderma pigmentosum D (XPD), is an important DNA repair gene in nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway which could repair a wide variety of structurally DNA lesions, including bulky adducts, cross-links [17], oxidative DNA damage, thymidine dimers [18] and alkylating damage [19]. SNPs in exons of DNA repair genes may influence their protein activity, resulting in differences of individual NER and DNA repair capacity (DRC) that may affect the susceptibility of oral cancer. The two SNPs analyzed in the present study were the common SNPs in exons of ERCC2 gene. SNP rs1799793 is G > A substitution at ERCC2 codon 312 (exon 10, Asp > Asn) and rs13181 is A > C substitution at ERCC2 codon 751 (exon 23, Lys > Gln). Growing number of studies have been done to examine the relationship between these two SNPs and the risks of oral cancer [1015]. However, the results are inconclusive. For the associations of ERCC2 polymorphisms with cancers, the negative findings may result from the low statistical power of available studies now. To better understanding of the association between these polymorphisms and oral cancer risk, a meta-analysis with larger sample and subgroup analysis is necessary. In the present meta-analysis, the statistical power was increased by combining the results of six included studies. The findings from this meta-analysis suggested that there was a significant association between rs13181 polymorphism in ERCC2 gene and risk of oral cancer, which provided new evidence for the susceptibility and etiology of oral cancer.

The current study is the first meta-analysis of the association between ERCC2 rs1799793 and rs13181 polymorphisms with the risk of oral cancer. This meta-analysis suggested that rs13181 (ERCC2 Lys751Gln) might be associated with oral leukoplakia risk. There were studies suggesting that SNP at amino acid 751 of ERCC2 may play an important role in ERCC2 protein activity [20]. The ERCC2 751 polymorphism (rs13181) was associated with higher levels of chromatic aberrations [21] and DNA adducts levels [22]. It was reported that ERCC2 751(rs13181) AC/CC genotypes were significantly defective in NER [23] and had a modulating effect on DRC [24]. These results suggested that ERCC2 751 polymorphism (rs13181) could result in a defect in NER and deficient DRC that may be responsible for increased susceptibility of oral cancer.

Despite our efforts in performing a comprehensive analysis, some limitations exist in our meta-analysis. First, our analysis used published international studies, which could arise publication bias, although the results for publication bias in our study were not statistically significant. Second, lack of the original data of available studies limited our further evaluation of potential interactions, such as age, gender, family history, environmental factors and lifestyle. Third, in stratified analysis we only studied the association between ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphism and oral cancer in Asians but could not evaluate the association in Caucasians because of the limited studies from Caucasian population. Until now, there was only one relevant study found from Caucasians, and a precise estimation on the association in Caucasians is difficult to make. Therefore, more studies are needed to provide more evidence on the association between ERCC2 polymorphisms and oral cancer risks in Caucasians and other ethnic populations.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis supported that the rs13181 polymorphism in ERCC2 gene more likely contribute to the increasing risk of oral leukoplakia. Future well-designed and larger population studies, especially in Caucasians and other ethnic populations are of great value to confirm these findings. Moreover, combination of genetic factors together with environmental exposures should also be considered.

Conclusion

Rs13181 in ERCC2 gene might be associated with oral leukoplakia risk.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are most grateful to all the participants in the present study. This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81102194) and Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province (No. 2008225029).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Nanjing North Street, Shenyang, Heping District, 110002, People’s Republic of China
(2)
China Medical University, Shenyang, PR 110001, China
(3)
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, PR 110001, China

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011, 61: 69-90. 10.3322/caac.20107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Saman DM: A review of the epidemiology of oral and pharyngeal carcinoma: update. Head Neck Oncol. 2012, 4: 1-10.1186/1758-3284-4-1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Gupta PC, Mehta FS, Pindborg JJ, Bhonsle RB, Murti PR, Daftary DK, Aghi MB: Primary prevention trial of oral cancer in india: a 10-year follow-up study. J Oral Pathol Med. 1992, 21: 433-439. 10.1111/j.1600-0714.1992.tb00970.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng L, Eicher SA, Guo Z, Hong WK, Spitz MR, Wei Q: Reduced DNA repair capacity in head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998, 7: 465-468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng L, Spitz MR, Hong WK, Wei Q: Reduced expression levels of nucleotide excision repair genes in lung cancer: a case–control analysis. Carcinogenesis. 2000, 21: 1527-1530. 10.1093/carcin/21.8.1527.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Poirier MC: Chemical-induced DNA damage and human cancer risk. Discov Med. 2012, 14: 283-288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jin B, Robertson KD: DNA methyltransferases, DNA damagen repair, and cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013, 754: 3-29. 10.1007/978-1-4419-9967-2_1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Berwick M, Vineis P: Markers of DNA repair and susceptibility to cancer in humans: an epidemiologic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000, 92: 874-897. 10.1093/jnci/92.11.874.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedberg EC, Walker GC, Siede W: DNA Repair and Mutagenesis, Chapters 1–7. 1995, Washington, DC: ASM PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Mahimkar MB, Samant TA, Kannan S, Patil T: Influence of genetic polymorphisms on frequency of micronucleated buccal epithelial cells in leukoplakia patients. Oral Oncol. 2010, 46: 761-766. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.08.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang Y, Spitz MR, Lee JJ, Huang M, Lippman SM, Wu X: Nucleotide excision repair pathway genes and oral premalignant lesions. Clin Cancer Res. 2007, 13: 3753-3758. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1911.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Majumder M, Sikdar N, Ghosh S, Roy B: Polymorphisms at XPD and XRCC1 DNA repair loci and increased risk of oral leukoplakia and cancer among NAT2 slow acetylators. Int J Cancer. 2007, 120: 2148-2156. 10.1002/ijc.22547.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kietthubthew S, Sriplung H, Au WW, Ishida T: Polymorphism in DNA repair genes and oral squamous cell carcinoma in Thailand. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006, 209: 21-29. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2005.06.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bau DT, Tsai MH, Huang CY, Lee CC, Tseng HC, Lo YL, Tsai Y, Tsai FJ: Relationship between polymorphisms of nucleotide excision repair genes and oral cancer risk in Taiwan: evidence for modification of smoking habit. Chin J Physiol. 2007, 50: 294-300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramachandran S, Ramadas K, Hariharan R, Rejnish Kumar R, Radhakrishna Pillai M: Single nucleotide polymorphisms of DNA repair genes XRCC1 and XPD and its molecular mapping in Indian oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2006, 42: 350-362. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2005.08.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Akaike H: Fitting autoregressive models for prediction. Ann Inst Stat Math. 1969, 21: 243-247. 10.1007/BF02532251.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. De Silva IU, McHugh PJ, Clingen PH, Hartley JA: Defining the roles of nucleotide excision repair and recombination in the repair of DNA interstrand cross-links in mammalian cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2000, 20: 7980-7990. 10.1128/MCB.20.21.7980-7990.2000.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Braithwaite E, Wu X, Wang Z: Repair of DNA lesions: mechanisms and relative repair efficiencies. Mutat Res. 1999, 424: 207-219. 10.1016/S0027-5107(99)00020-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen ZP, Malapetsa A, McQuillan A, Marcantonio D, Bello V, Mohr G, Remack J, Brent TP, Panasci LC: Evidence for nucleotide excision repair as a modifying factor of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase-mediated innate chloroethylnitrosourea resistance in human tumor cell lines. Mol Pharmacol. 1997, 52: 815-820. 10.1124/mol.52.5.815.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Benhamou S, Sarasin A: ERCC2/XPD gene polymorphisms and cancer risk. Mutagenesis. 2002, 17: 463-469. 10.1093/mutage/17.6.463.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lunn RW, Helzlsouer KJ, Parshad R, Umbach DM, Harris EL, Sanford KK, Bell DA: XPD polymorphisms: effect on DNA repair proficiency. Carcinogenesis. 2000, 21: 551-555. 10.1093/carcin/21.4.551.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hou SM, Falt S, Angelini S, Yang K, Nyberg F, Lambert B, Hemminki K: The XPD variant alleles are associated with increased aromatic DNA adduct level and lung cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2002, 23: 599-603. 10.1093/carcin/23.4.599.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Au WW, Salama SA, Sierra-Torres CH: Functional characterization of polymorphisms in DNA repair genes using cytogenetic challenge assays. Environ Health Perspect. 2003, 111: 1843-1850. 10.1289/ehp.6632.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Spitz MR, Wu X, Wang Y, Wang LE, Shete S, Amos CI, Guo Z, Lei L, Mohrenweiser H, Wei Q: Modulation of nucleotide excision repair capacity by XPD polymorphisms in lung cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2001, 61: 1354-1357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/13/594/prepub

Copyright

© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

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/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement