07.01.2014 Views

LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute

LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute

LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Synopsis<br />

and develop a correlation. We genotyped 22 SNPs in 17 genes falling in important<br />

carcinogenesis pathways viz. carcinogen metabolism, DNA damage/repair, cell cycle<br />

regulation and apoptosis. To understand genotyping data we calculated a consolidated<br />

G Score on the basis of whether the subject had homozygous variant, heterozygous or<br />

homozygous wildtype form of a gene. A high G Score designated more number of risk<br />

alleles in an individual. Our assumption was that individuals with a high G Score might<br />

have a higher probability of MPN development as compared to those with the low G<br />

Score. Hence a higher G Score indicated magnitude of cancer predisposing genotype.<br />

A total G Score with all 22 SNPs, G Score of only DNA repair genes and G<br />

Score of MPN risk association signature, which included SNPs in genes that could<br />

predict the outcome of tobacco related MPN in our previous study 8 , was calculated and<br />

was found to be higher in MPN patient group as compared to control group. Although<br />

total G Score was not statistically significant between the two groups at the 5% level<br />

(p=0.12), G Score of DNA repair genes and MPN risk association signature was<br />

statistically significant, indicating that indeed there existed inter-individual difference<br />

at genetic level between MPN patients and controls at least in a subset of important<br />

genes falling in carcinogenesis pathways. A comparison of total G Score in all 22<br />

SNPs, G Score of DNA repair genes and MPN risk association signature showed a<br />

negative correlation with percent cell death and percent G2 delay. This correlation was<br />

statistically significant for most of the groups. While a positive correlation was<br />

observed between G Score (all three groups) and percent H2AX positive cells at 4 h<br />

time point, although it was not significant.<br />

Our findings emphasize the importance of assessing the collective effects of a<br />

panel of polymorphisms in modulating phenotypic effects after genotoxic exposure.<br />

The genotype-phenotype correlation observed in this study supports our hypothesis that<br />

variations in important genes may alter phenotypic response and may contribute to<br />

UADT MPN risk. In the present state for understanding UADT MPN pathogenesis it is<br />

important to find association between multiple genetic combinations and cancer risks,<br />

which may otherwise remain undetectable in single SNP analysis.<br />

In summary our results clearly suggest that extent of DNA repair, percent cell<br />

death and cell cycle delay might be potentially useful in identifying susceptibility to<br />

UADT MPN. It also demonstrates that identifying distinctive polymorphism based G<br />

Score signature can differentiate the study participants into two separate subsets, and its<br />

correlation with various phenotypic effects (indicating a gene-environment interaction)<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!