Powered by OpenAIRE graph
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Genearrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Gene
Article . 2011 . Peer-reviewed
License: Elsevier TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions

Investigation of the 1758G>C and 2880A>G variants within the NCOA3 gene in a breast cancer affected Australian population

Authors: Gabrovska, P.N.; Smith, Robert; O'Leary, G.; Haupt, Larisa; Griffiths, Lyn;

Investigation of the 1758G>C and 2880A>G variants within the NCOA3 gene in a breast cancer affected Australian population

Abstract

NCOA3 is a known low to moderate-risk breast cancer susceptibility gene, amplified in 5-10% and over expressed in about 60% of breast tumours. Additionally, this over expression is associated with Tamoxifen resistance and poor prognosis. Previously, two variants of NCOA3, 1758G>C and 2880A>G have been associated with breast cancer in two independent populations. Here we assessed the influence of the two NCOA3 variants on breast cancer risk by genotyping an Australian case-control study population. 172 cases and 178 controls were successfully genotyped for the 1758G>C variant and 186 cases and 182 controls were successfully genotyped for the 2880A>G variant using high-resolution melt analysis (HRM). The genotypes of the 1758G>C variant were validated by sequencing. χ(2) tests were performed to determine if significant differences exist in the genotype and allele frequencies between the cases and controls. χ(2) analysis returned no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) for genotype frequencies between cases and controls for 1758G>C (χ(2)=0.97, p=0.6158) or 2880A>G (χ(2)=2.09, p=0.3516). Similarly, no statistical difference was observed for allele frequencies for 1758G>C (χ(2)=0.07, p=0.7867) or 2880A>G (χ(2)=0.04, p=0.8365). Haplotype analysis of the two SNPs also showed no difference between the cases and the controls (p=0.9585). Our findings in an Australian Caucasian population composed of breast cancer sufferers and an age matched control population did not support the findings of previous studies demonstrating that these markers play a significant role in breast cancer susceptibility. Here, no significant difference was detected between breast cancer patients and healthy matched controls by either the genotype or allele frequencies for the investigated variants (all p ≥ 0.05). While an association of the two variants and breast cancer was not detected in our case-control study population, exploring these variants in a larger population of the same kind may obtain results in concordance with previous studies. Given the importance of NCOA3 and its involvement in biological processes involved in breast cancer and the possible implications variants of the gene could have on the response to Tamoxifen therapy, NCOA3 remains a candidate for further investigations.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Australia, Genome structure and regulation, Breast Neoplasms, Medical microbiology, Middle Aged, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Nuclear Receptor Coactivator 3, Gene Frequency, 616, Genetics, Humans, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Zoology, Signal Transduction

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    8
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
8
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research