CEBP Grants Targets
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Li, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wei, Q.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Li, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wei, Q.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 15, 2526-2532, December 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Polymorphisms in the DNA Repair Genes XPC, XPD, and XPG and Risk of Cutaneous Melanoma: a Case-Control Analysis

Chunying Li1, Zhibin Hu1, Zhensheng Liu1, Li-E Wang1, Sara S. Strom1, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald2, Jeffrey E. Lee2, Merrick I. Ross2, Paul F. Mansfield2, Janice N. Cormier2, Victor G. Prieto3, Madeleine Duvic4, Elizabeth A. Grimm5 and Qingyi Wei1

Departments of 1 Epidemiology, 2 Surgical Oncology, 3 Pathology, 4 Dermatology, and 5 Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Requests for reprints: Qingyi Wei, Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1365, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: 713-792-3020; Fax: 713-563-0999. E-mail: qwei{at}mdanderson.org


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Sunlight causes DNA damage, including bulky lesions that are removed effectively by the nucleotide-excision repair (NER) pathway. There are at least eight core NER proteins participating in the pathway, and genetic variations in their genes may alter NER functions. We hypothesized that some NER variants are associated with risk of cutaneous melanoma. In a hospital-based case-control study of 602 non-Hispanic White patients with cutaneous melanoma and 603 age- and sex-matched cancer-free controls, we genotyped five common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified to date and assessed their associations with risk of cutaneous melanoma. We found that a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma was associated with XPD 751Lys/Gln [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.55 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.12-2.16] and XPD 751Gln/Gln (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68) genotypes compared with the XPD 751Lys/Lys genotype as well as XPD312Asp/Asn (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.11-2.12) and XPD312Asn/Asn (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.90) genotypes compared with the XPD 312Asp/Asp genotype. This increased risk was not observed in the other three XPC and XPG single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Moreover, the number of the observed XPD at-risk genotypes (i.e., 312Asn/Asn+Asn/Asp and 751Gln/Gln+Lys/Gln) was associated with cutaneous melanoma risk in a dose-response manner (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.97-2.23 for one at-risk genotype; OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.29-2.61 for two at-risk genotypes; Ptrend < 0.001). However, we found no evidence of any interaction between XPD genotypes with XPC and XPG genotypes or the known risk factors. We concluded that genetic variants of the XPD gene might serve as biomarkers for susceptibility to cutaneous melanoma. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(12):2526–32)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Sunlight causes various kinds of DNA damage, including bulky lesions (such as photoproducts) that can lead to mutations, if not repaired efficiently. Therefore, DNA repair is central to maintaining genomic integrity in the skin (1-3). The nucleotide-excision repair (NER) pathway specifically removes bulky DNA lesions, such as pyrimidine dimers caused by UV light, bulky adducts induced by chemical carcinogens, and other helix-distorting DNA lesions (2). When the photoproducts, such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimmers, are not repaired effectively in the skin, as seen in some NER-deficient syndromes (1-4), there will be severe consequences. For example, xeroderma pigmentosum (XP), an autosomal recessive disease characterized by a deficient NER, has a 1,000-fold increased risk of UV-induced skin cancers, including cutaneous melanoma, which is the most lethal malignant skin tumor (4). Recently, several studies have provided clues about the molecular mechanisms underlying the genetic susceptibility to cutaneous melanoma in the general population, and accumulating evidence indicates that sequence variation in NER genes may contribute to cutaneous melanoma susceptibility (for a review, see ref. 5).

At least eight different DNA NER genes (i.e., ERCC1, XPA, XPB/ERCC3, XPC, XPD/ERCC2, XPE, XPF/ERCC4, and XPG/ERCC5), mostly identified from XP complementation groups, play crucial roles in the NER process (6). NER starts with damage recognition done collectively by several proteins, including the XPC-HR23B and the XPA replication protein A complexes and the transcriptions factor IIH (TFIIH) complex. These complexes transiently unwind the DNA duplex, thus creating an open bubble structure around the lesion. The TFIIH complex contains two DNA helicases XPB and XPD that catalyze DNA unwinding, creating a single-strand DNA that is further cut by additional incision enzymes: the ERCC1-XPF complex that cuts at the 5' side of the lesion and XPG that cuts at the 3' side of the lesion (7). However, XP genes contain a number of genetic polymorphisms that can alter their functions and thus may modify risk of cutaneous melanoma induced by UV exposure (5).

Although several previous studies have investigated the association between polymorphisms in NER genes and risk of cutaneous melanoma, most of the study sizes were relatively small, and the results were not consistent (8-14). Given potential roles of XP genes in repairing UV-induced DNA damage, we hypothesized that genetic variants in XP genes may contribute individually or collectively to risk of cutaneous melanoma. We tested our hypothesis by genotyping all known common (minor allele frequency >0.05) non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) of eight core NER genes in a hospital-based study of 602 patients with cutaneous melanoma and 603 cancer-free control subjects who were frequency-matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study Populations
Details of the study population and subject recruitment have been described elsewhere (15, 16). Briefly, patients with newly diagnosed and untreated cutaneous melanoma who had been referred to The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center were recruited between May 1994 and September 2004. There were no restrictions on patients' age or tumor stage, but only those who had no metastases or other cancers and agreed to donate a blood sample were included in the study, and the response rate among the eligible patients was ~85%. All tumors of the patients were histologically classified according to the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer "melanoma staging system" (17). As previously described (15, 16), cancer-free control subjects were also recruited during the same period from self-reported cancer-free visitors to M. D. Anderson Cancer Center who were not seeking medical care but instead accompanied patients to our outpatient clinics, and the response rate among those we approached for recruitment was ~90%. The controls who were not blood related to the patients and agreed to donate a blood sample were frequency matched to the patients by age (±5 years), sex, and ethnicity. After obtaining the informed consent, we interviewed each eligible participant in person to obtain data on age, sex, ethnicity, host characteristics (e.g., color of skin, eyes, and hair), history of sun exposure (e.g., tanning ability, number of lifetime sunburns with blistering, and freckling in the sun as a child), and Fitzpatrick's sun-reactive skin type (18). At the end of the interview, a sample of blood (30 mL) was drawn into a heparinized tube from each subject. The research protocol was approved by the M. D. Anderson institutional review board.

Polymorphism Selection
We searched the National Institute of Environmental Health Science database (http://egp.gs.washington.edu) and related literature to identify all nsSNPs with a minor allele frequency >0.05 in persons of European descent in the eight core NER genes. We excluded the XPF Ser662Pro (rs2020955) SNP because, although its Pro allele was reported to have a minor allele frequency of 0.06 in a mixed population, its allele frequency has been shown to be <0.05 in White populations (http://snp500cancer.nci.nih.gov). Therefore, we included five common SNPs from three XP genes: Ala499Val (rs2228000) and Lys939Gln (rs2228001) from XPC on chromosome 3p25, Asp312Asn (rs1799793) and Lys751Gln (rs13181) from XPD on chromosome 19q13.3, and His1104Asp (rs17655) from XPG on chromosome 13q22.

Laboratory Assays
A leukocyte pellet was obtained from the buffy coat of cells by centrifugation of 1 mL of whole blood. The cell pellet was used for genomic DNA extraction with the Qiagen DNA Blood Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). The DNA purity and concentration were determined by spectrophotometric measurement of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm. The DNA quality of three cases out of all cases we recruited was not sufficiently good for the PCR assays, whereas the DNA samples from other 602 patients and 603 controls were good enough for genotyping. A PCR was used to amplify the fragments of XPC containing the Ala499Val and Lys939Gln sites, the fragments of XPD containing the Lys751Gln and Asp312Asn sites, and the fragment of XPG containing the His1104Asp site. The previously described primers, PCR annealing time, restriction enzymes (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA), and assay conditions for XPC Ala499Val, XPC Lys939Gln (19), XPD Asp312Asn (20), XPD Lys751Gln (21), and XPG His1104Asp (22) were followed. The sequencing-confirmed heterozygous samples were used as positive controls for the genotyping assays, ~10% of the samples were repeated, and the genotyping results were 100% concordant.

Statistical Analysis
The {chi}2 test was used to evaluate differences between patients with cutaneous melanoma and control subjects in the frequency distributions of selected demographic variables, including known risk factors and each allele and genotype of the selected polymorphisms. Because skin color had been self-assessed on a screening questionnaire on a scale of 1 (light) to 10 (dark), we categorized skin color scale values of 1 to 3 as fair skin, 4 to 6 as brown skin, and 7 to 10 as dark skin, to obtain similar numbers of observations in each stratum and thus facilitate a further stratification analysis. Univariate and multivariate unconditional logistic regression analyses were used to obtain the crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) for the risk of cutaneous melanoma and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Multivariate adjustments were made, where appropriate, for age, sex, host characteristics, sun exposure history, Fitzpatrick's sun-reactive skin type, presence of moles or dysplastic nevi, and family history of cancer, for further stratification of the genotype data. To facilitate the assessment of potential interactions of the selected polymorphisms with cutaneous melanoma risk, we combined the genotypes of the XPC and XPD genes and dichotomized the variables by assuming a given genetic model (i.e., recessive, codominant, or dominant based on the observed data). We used the LDA software to calculate the linkage disequilibrium for the pairs of two XPC and two XPD polymorphisms (23) and the Phase software (version 2.0.2; University of Washington, Seattle, WA) to reconstruct the XPC and XPD haplotypes for each study participant based on their known XPC and XPD genotypes (24, 25). Finally, we assessed potential locus-locus interactions for the observed genotypes and locus-risk factor interactions for selected risk factors (e.g., color of skin, eyes, and hair; tanning ability; lifetime number of sunburns with blistering; freckling in the sun as a child; Fitzpatrick's sun-reactive skin type; the presence of moles or dysplastic nevi; and a family history of cancer). To assess any evidence of a departure from a multiplicative model, we fit the interaction terms for the pair of variables of interest by using standard unconditional logistic regression. ORs, 95% CIs, and Ps for interactions and trend tests were obtained from multivariate logistic regression models, in which an interactive term was created as the product of each of the dichotomized genotypes and each of the dichotomized risk factors. A more-than-multiplicative interaction (i.e., OR11 > OR01*OR10) was suggested when OR11 was greater than OR01*OR10. Statistical significance was established at a P of ≤0.05, and all tests were two sided and done with the SAS software (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Because non-Caucasian subjects represented <1% and thus were excluded from the analyses, all subjects were non-Hispanic Whites. As a result of frequency matching, there was no difference in the frequency distribution of age and sex between the patients and control subjects. Among the patients, tumor sites included 14% on the head and neck, 26% on an upper extremity, 21% on a lower extremity, 36% on the trunk, and 3% on other sites. Based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer T-category criteria and Breslow thickness (17), 47% had tumors <1.0 mm (T1), 24% had tumors 1.01 to 2.0 mm (T2), 16% had tumors >2.01 (T3-T4), and 13% were unclassified. Determination of Clark levels (17, 26) showed that 10% were level I (in situ), 55% were levels II to III, and 35% were levels IV to V. As we previously described (15, 16), the classic phenotype traits (e.g., color of skin, eyes, and hair; tanning ability; lifetime number of sunburns with blistering; freckling in the sun as a child; Fitzpatrick's sun-reactive skin type; the presence of moles or dysplastic nevi; and a family history of cancer) were risk factors for cutaneous melanoma in this study population and were used for adjustment in the later multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the main effects of the SNPs.

The genotype and allele frequencies of XPC Ala499Val and XPC Lys939Gln, XPD Lys751Gln and XPD Asp312Asn, and XPG His1104Asp SNPs and their association with risk of cutaneous melanoma are shown in Table 1 . The ORs adjusted for age and sex were almost identical to the crude ones, suggesting an adequate frequency matching for age and sex, but ORs adjusted for other known risk factors seemed to enhance the estimates. Therefore, we presented the ORs without and with adjustment for other known risk factors. When compared with the XPD 751Lys/Lys genotype, a significantly increased risk was associated with XPD Lys/Gln (adjusted OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.12-2.16), XPD Gln/Gln (adjusted OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68), and combined Lys/Gln+Gln/Gln genotypes (assuming a dominant model for the XPD Gln variant allele; adjusted OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.15; Table 1). Likewise, compared with the XPD 312Asp/Asp genotype, a significant risk was associated with XPD Asp/Asn (adjusted OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.11-2.12), XPD Asn/Asn (adjusted OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.90), and combined XPD Asp/Asn+Asn/Asn (adjusted OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.14) genotypes (assuming a dominant model for the Asn variant allele). This increased risk was not seen in the other three XPC and XPG SNPs (Table 1). Moreover, the distributions of these genotypes were independent of tumor histologic types, Clark levels, tumor site, and tumor thickness (P > 0.05 for all; data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Genotype and allele frequencies of the XPC, XPD, and XPG polymorphisms among non-Hispanic White patients with cutaneous melanoma and control subjects and their association with the risk of cutaneous melanoma

 
However, the stratified analysis by age showed that the XPD Lys751Gln and XPD Asp312Asn genotypes were associated with significantly increased cutaneous melanoma risk only in young (≤45 years) subjects (adjusted OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23-3.95 for 751Lys/Gln+Gln/Gln genotypes compared with Lys/Lys; adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.06-3.35 for XPD 312Asp/Asn+Asn/Asn genotypes compared with XPD 312Asn/Asn) but not in older (>45 years) subjects (adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.98-2.06 for 751Lys/Gln+Gln/Gln genotypes compared with Lys/Lys; adjusted OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.99-2.07 for XPD 312Asp/Asn+Asn/Asn genotypes compared with XPD 312Asn/Asn). Similarly, the stratified analysis by sex showed that this significantly increased cutaneous melanoma risk was only observed in the men (adjusted OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.18-2.77 for 751Lys/Gln+Gln/Gln genotypes compared with Lys/Lys; adjusted OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.51 for XPD 312Asp/Asn+Asn/Asn genotypes compared with XPD 312Asn/Asn) but not in the women (adjusted OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29 for 751Lys/Gln+Gln/Gln genotypes compared with Lys/Lys; adjusted OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.95-2.30 for XPD 312Asp/Asn+Asn/Asn genotypes compared with XPD 312Asn/Asn; data not shown).

Further analysis suggested that there was linkage disequilibrium between XPC Ala499Val and XPC Lys939Gln SNPs (D' = 0.830, R2 = 0.165, P < 0.001 for Ala and Lys alleles) and between XPD Lys751Gln and XPD Asp312Asn SNPs (D' = 0.608, R2 = 0.329, P < 0.001 for Lys and Asp alleles), suggesting that a joint effect between the two XPC and two XPD SNPs may exist. However, differences in the overall distributions of the estimated XPC or XPD haplotypes between the patients and control subjects were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). We further did the tests for each haplotype separately for case-control frequency differences and the trend tests for the number of at-risk haplotypes and diplotypes and found that none of the XPC or XPD haplotypes or diplotypes was significantly associated with risk of cutaneous melanoma (data not shown). When the two XPC and two XPD SNPs were further combined separately based on the number of the observed at-risk genotypes (i.e., XPC 499Val/Val, XPC 939Gln/Gln, and XPD 312Asn/Asn+Asn/Asp and XPD 751Gln/Gln+Lys/Gln), we found that cutaneous melanoma risk increased as the number of XPD at-risk genotypes increased (adjusted OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.97-2.23 for one at-risk genotype and adjusted OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.29-2.61 for two at-risk genotypes, Ptrend < 0.001). When the number of the observed at-risk genotypes was dichotomized, the subjects who carried one to two at-risk genotypes had a 1.7-fold increased risk of cutaneous melanoma (adjusted OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.23-2.36), compared with those who carried zero at-risk genotypes (Table 2 ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Main effects of combined XPC Ala499Val, Lys939Gln and XPD Asp312Asn, Lys751Gln genotypes on cutaneous melanoma risk

 
XPC, XPD, and XPG all play roles in NER. However, only two XPD SNPs seemed to have a main effect on cutaneous melanoma risk in this study population. Although the XPC and XPG SNPs had no effects on cutaneous melanoma risk, we were interested in whether the main effects of the observed XPD genotypes on cutaneous melanoma risk were modified by XPC and XPG genotypes and the known risk factors. As shown in Table 3 , we dichotomized the combined XPC genotypes and XPG genotypes to stratify the dichotomized XPD combined genotypes. We found that although a significantly increased risk associated with the combined XPD at-risk genotypes was only evident among those who did not carry any XPC at-risk genotype (adjusted OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.44), there was no evidence of a locus-locus interaction (Pinteraction = 0.771). Similarly, a significantly increased risk associated with the combined XPD at-risk genotypes was only evident among those who carried the XPG 1104 His/His genotype (adjusted OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21-2.83), but no significant locus-locus interaction was evident (Pinteraction = 0.636; Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Stratification analysis of the combined XPD genotypes associated with cutaneous melanoma risk by XPC and XPG genotypes

 
Finally, we did stratification analysis for the association between dichotomized XPD genotypes (zero versus one to two at-risk genotypes) by selected known risk factors for cutaneous melanoma. The ORs in different strata were shown in Table 4 . The risk of cutaneous melanoma associated with one to two at-risk XPD genotypes was more pronounced among some strata, suggesting possible gene-environment or gene-gene interactions in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma. However, further analysis showed no statistical evidence of such interactions on a multiplicative scale, as assessed in the multivariate logistic regression models (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Stratification analysis of the combined XPD genotypes associated with cutaneous melanoma risk by selected variables

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In this hospital-based case-control study of cutaneous melanoma, we showed an increased risk of cutaneous melanoma associated with XPD 751Gln and XPD 312Asn variant alleles. Moreover, when XPD Lys751Gln and XPD Asp312Asn SNPs were combined, risk of cutaneous melanoma increased as the number of XPD at-risk genotypes increased, suggesting that these two XPD SNPs may interact to contribute collectively to risk of cutaneous melanoma. However, it seemed that they did not interact with the selected XPC and XPG SNPs or the known risk factors for cutaneous melanoma in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma. Although exactly how these XPD SNPs work to influence risk of cutaneous melanoma remains unknown, the risk variant alleles could be either functional themselves or in linkage disequilibrium with other functional or disease-causing alleles involved in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma.

Human skin is constantly exposed to carcinogenic agents, especially UV radiation, that cause various kinds of DNA damage, such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, that may lead to the development of skin cancers, including cutaneous melanoma (27, 28). In previous studies, we have shown that cutaneous melanoma was likely to occur in individuals whose UV light-induced DNA damage was not repaired effectively (29). It is possible that variations in DNA repair phenotype in the general population are probably caused by polymorphisms of DNA repair genes (30). Most of UV light–induced DNA damage is repaired by the NER pathway in a multi-step process involving at least 25 proteins, of which at least eight core proteins (i.e., ERCC1, XPA, XPB, XPC, XPD, XPF, XPF, and XPG) play crucial roles (1-4). However, we only identified and tested five common nsSNPs in XPC, XPD, and XPG out of these eight NER genes. Further studies using the hypothesis-free approach to select tagging SNPs, which should capture most of the identified SNPs to date, may advance our understanding of the roles of SNPs in these NER genes in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma. In addition, further correlation studies of NER genotypes and phenotype are warranted to clarify their independent and interactive roles in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma.

Because XPC protein is involved in the earliest damage recognition and initiation of NER (31), a number of studies have investigated the association of XPC polymorphisms with risk of several cancers (32-38). However, only three studies investigated the association between XPC Ala499Val and XPC Lys939Gln SNPs and risk of cutaneous melanoma. In a German hospital-based case-control study of 294 White patients with cutaneous melanoma and 375 healthy control subjects, no association was found between XPC 499Val variant genotypes and risk of cutaneous melanoma (9), which is consistent with the findings in our present study. In another study from the same group, the XPC 939Gln variant genotype was shown to be associated with an increased risk of cutaneous melanoma (10). In contrast, we did not find any association between XPC 939Gln variant genotypes and risk of cutaneous melanoma in our present study with a much larger sample size. Interestingly, in another large study that analyzed 1,238 secondary or higher-order primary (cases) versus 2,485 single primary (control) cases of cutaneous melanoma, the XPC 939Gln variant genotype was not associated with risk of secondary or higher-order primary cutaneous melanoma (8).

XPD is an ATP-dependent DNA helicase involved in NER and in basal transcription as part of the transcription factor TFIIH (39). Seven polymorphisms in exons 6, 8, 10, 17, 22, and 23 of the XPD gene have been identified by direct sequencing (40-42). However, among these seven SNPs, three of these polymorphisms (Ala575Ala, Asp711Asp, and Arg156Arg) are silent, and the remaining four result in amino acid changes, of which the IIe199Met and His201Tyr polymorphisms are rare (allele frequency <1%), and Lys751Gln and Asp312Asn are the only common functional SNPs. Studies have shown that the XPD 751Gln variant modified the amino acid electronic configuration in a domain important for the interaction with the helicase activator p44 (43, 44). In addition, XPD 751Gln and XPD 312Asn variants were reportedly associated with suboptimal removal of DNA adducts (45). Therefore, these two SNPs are likely to be functional. To date, five reported studies have investigated the association between these two SNPs and risk of cutaneous melanoma. In the earliest study of 56 patients and 66 control subjects conducted in 2001, it was found that XPD 751Gln variant genotypes were associated with a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.0; ref. 14). In a later study with 176 patients and 177 control subjects, no significant association was found between XPD Lys751Gln and XPD Asp312Asn SNPs and cutaneous melanoma risk, except for an increased risk in older (>50 years) subjects (13). In contrast, a nested case-control study within the Nurses' Health Study found a nonsignificant negative association between both XPD 751Gln and XPD 312Asn genotypes and risk of cutaneous melanoma (11). More recently, in a large study, XPD variant genotypes were found to be associated with an increased risk of secondary or higher-order primary cutaneous melanoma when compared with the single primary cutaneous melanoma (8). In the present study, by far the largest case-control study of primary cutaneous melanoma cases, we found a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma associated with both XPD 312Asn and XPD 751Gln variant genotypes, but no obvious age difference in risk estimates was observed. However, we did observe this significantly increased cutaneous melanoma risk in men but not in women, but this sex difference in risk estimates was not statistically significant. Moreover, when we combined these two XPD polymorphisms, cutaneous melanoma risk increased as the number of the risk genotypes increased in a dose-response manner, suggesting 312Asn and 751Gln variants may interact to play a joint role in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma.

XPG cleaves various artificial DNA substrates, including bubbles, splayed arms, and stem-loops (46, 47). In addition, XPG has a structural function independent of its cleavage activity in the assembly of the NER DNA-protein complex (48). Only two published studies, one with 294 patients and 375 control subjects (10) and the other with 1,238 patients with second- or higher-order primary melanomas and 2,485 patients with a single primary melanoma (8), have investigated the association between XPG polymorphisms and risk of cutaneous melanoma. In both studies, the XPG 1104Asp allele was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in the risk of cutaneous melanoma, a finding that is consistent with our study.

It is conceivable that functional polymorphisms of the same gene may have a collective effect on DNA repair outcomes. Indeed, when we analyzed the combined genotypes of the two selected nsSNPs of XPD, it was apparent that the two XPD SNPs interacted to contribute collectively to risk of cutaneous melanoma. We speculate that the increased risk associated with the combined XPD genotypes may be due to the at-risk allele-mediated altered NER capacity or that these genotypes are likely in linkage disequilibrium with untyped risk or disease-causing alleles. Because reduced NER may cause cumulative damage to DNA and a resultant increased frequency of mutations, these genetic alterations may lead to melanogenesis. However, we did not find any interactions between XPD SNPs with XPC and XPG SNPs or the selected known risk factors, possibly due to limited study power. Larger population-based studies and mechanistic studies are necessary to confirm the roles of XP SNPs in the etiology of cutaneous melanoma and to identify the actual mechanisms underlying the association between XPD genotypes and risk of cutaneous melanoma. Once validated, these functional SNPs, together with SNPs in other genes in different biological pathways (15, 16), may be considered in future risk assessment and modeling of cutaneous melanoma (49).

Like all other case-control studies, inherent biases in the present study may have led to some spurious findings. First, of the eight core NER genes (i.e., ERCC1, XPA, XPB, XPC, XPD, XPE, XPF, and XPG), we used common functional SNPs instead of tagging SNPs. Therefore, there is genetic variation within other NER genes we did not evaluate and the selected genes we studied in the study. Second, because it is a hospital-based case-control study, the control subjects in this study may not be representative of the general population. Although our study is the largest study with 602 primary cutaneous melanoma cases and 603 cancer-free controls, our sample size was still not large enough to identify significant associations in different strata in some subgroups, let alone the power to evaluate gene-environment interactions adequately. Finally, the control subjects in the present study lacked examinations by dermatologists, and the risk factors reported were self-administered. These limitations can only be overcome in large prospective studies.

In summary, the results of this hospital-based case-control study showed that XPD 751Gln and XPD 312Asn variant genotypes were associated with a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma, compared with those with 751Lys/Lys and 312Asp/Asp genotypes, respectively. Furthermore, the combined XPD genotypes containing one to two at-risk genotypes were associated with a significantly greater risk of cutaneous melanoma than were those containing zero at-risk genotypes. These findings suggest the two XPD polymorphisms may interact to contribute collectively to risk of cutaneous melanoma. Because of uncontrolled biases in the selection of subjects in a retrospective study, such as ours, these results could be biased. Therefore, larger, population-based studies are warranted to confirm our findings.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Margaret Lung, Cesar A. Maldonado, and Amanda Franco for assistance in recruiting the subjects; Zhaozheng Guo, Yawei Qiao, Jianzhong He, and Kejing Xu for laboratory assistance; Monica Domingue for article preparation; and Ellen M. McDonald of the Department of Scientific Publications for scientific editing.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute grants R01 CA-100264 (Q. Wei), P50 CA-093459 (E.A. Grimm), and P30 CA-16672 (M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant R01 ES11740 (Q. Wei).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 8/ 9/06; revised 9/ 2/06; accepted 10/ 5/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Hoeijmakers JH. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature 2001;411:366–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Wood RD, Mitchell M, Sgouros J, Lindahl T. Human DNA repair genes. Science 2001;291:1284–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Wood RD, Mitchell M, Lindahl T. Human DNA repair genes. Mutat Res 2005;577:275–83.[Medline]
  4. Cleaver JE. Cancer in xeroderma pigmentosum and related disorders of DNA repair. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:564–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Goode EL, Ulrich CM, Potter JD. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1513–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Bootsma D, Kraemer KH, Cleaver JE, Hoeijmakers JH. Nucleotide excision repair syndromes: xeroderma pigmentosum, Cockayne syndrome, and trichothiodystrophy. In: Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, editors. The genetic basis of human cancer. McGraw-Hill (NY); 2002. pp. 211–37.
  7. Friedberg EC. How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2001;1:22–33.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Millikan RC, Hummer A, Begg C, et al. Polymorphisms in nucleotide excision repair genes and risk of multiple primary melanoma: the Genes Environment and Melanoma study. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:610–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Blankenburg S, Konig IR, Moessner R, et al. Assessment of 3 xeroderma pigmentosum group C gene polymorphisms and risk of cutaneous melanoma: a case-control study. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:1085–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Blankenburg S, Konig IR, Moessner R, et al. No association between three xeroderma pigmentosum group C and one group G gene polymorphisms and risk of cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13:253–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Han J, Colditz GA, Liu JS, Hunter DJ. Genetic variation in XPD, sun exposure, and risk of skin cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1539–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Liu D, O'Day SJ, Yang D, et al. Impact of gene polymorphisms on clinical outcome for stage IV melanoma patients treated with biochemotherapy: an exploratory study. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:1237–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Baccarelli A, Calista D, Minghetti P, et al. XPD gene polymorphism and host characteristics in the association with cutaneous malignant melanoma risk. Br J Cancer 2004;90:497–502.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Tomescu D, Kavanagh G, Ha T, Campbell H, Melton DW. Nucleotide excision repair gene XPD polymorphisms and genetic predisposition to melanoma. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:403–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Li C, Larson D, Zhang Z, et al. Polymorphisms of the FAS and FAS ligand genes associated with risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2006;16:253–63.[Medline]
  16. Li C, Liu Z, Wang LE, et al. Genetic variants of the ADPRT, XRCC1, and APE1 genes and risk of cutaneous melanoma. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1894–901.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3635–48.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol 1988;124:869–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hu Z, Wang Y, Wang X, et al. DNA repair gene XPC genotypes/haplotypes and risk of lung cancer in a Chinese population. Int J Cancer 2005;115:478–83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Sturgis EM, Zheng R, Li L, et al. XPD/ERCC2 polymorphisms and risk of head and neck cancer: a case-control analysis. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:2219–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Sturgis EM, Dahlstrom KR, Spitz MR, Wei Q. DNA repair gene ERCC1 and ERCC2/XPD polymorphisms and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1084–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Jeon HS, Kim KM, Park SH, et al. Relationship between XPG codon 1104 polymorphism and risk of primary lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 2003;24:1677–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Ding K, Zhou K, He F, Shen Y. LDA: a Java-based linkage disequilibrium analyzer. Bioinformatics 2003;9:2147–8.
  24. Stephens M, Donnelly P. A comparison of Bayesian methods for haplotype reconstruction from population genotype data. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73:1162–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Stephens M, Smith NJ, Donnelly P. A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:978–89.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Atkins MB, et al. An evidence-based staging system for cutaneous melanoma. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:131–49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Afaq F, Adhami VM, Mukhtar H. Photochemoprevention of ultraviolet B signaling and photocarcinogenesis. Mutat Res 2005;571:153–73.[Medline]
  28. Yarosh DB, Canning MT, Teicher D, Brown DA. After sun reversal of DNA damage: enhancing skin repair. Mutat Res 2005;571:57–64.[Medline]
  29. Wei Q, Lee JE, Gershenwald JE, et al. Repair of UV light-induced DNA damage and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:308–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. QiaoY, Spitz MR, Shen H, et al. Modulation of repair of ultraviolet damage in the host-cell reactivation assay by polymorphic XPC and XPD/ERCC2 genotypes. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:295–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. de Laat WL, Jaspers NG, Hoeijmakers JH. Molecular mechanism of nucleotide excision repair. Genes Dev 1999;13:768–85.[Free Full Text]
  32. Sak SC, Barrett JH, Paul AB, Bishop DT, Kiltie AE. The polyAT, intronic IVS11–6 and Lys939Gln XPC polymorphisms are not associated with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Br J Cancer 2005;92:2262–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Casson AG, Zheng Z, Evans SC, Veugelers PJ, Porter GA, Guernsey DL. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes in the molecular pathogenesis of esophageal (Barrett) adenocarcinoma. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:1536–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Vogel U, Overvad K, Wallin H, Tjonneland A, Nexo BA, Raaschou-Nielsen O. Combinations of polymorphisms in XPD, XPC and XPA in relation to risk of lung cancer. Cancer Lett 2005;222:67–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Broberg K, Bjork J, Paulsson K, Hoglund M, Albin M. Constitutional short telomeres are strong genetic susceptibility markers for bladder cancer. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:1263–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Lee GY, Jang JS, Lee SY, et al. XPC polymorphisms and lung cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2005;115:807–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Forsti A, Angelini S, Festa F, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in breast cancer. Oncol Rep 2004;11:917–22.[Medline]
  38. Sanyal S, Festa F, Sakano S, et al. Polymorphisms in DNA repair and metabolic genes in bladder cancer. Carcinogenesis 2004;25:729–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Drapkin R, Sancar A, Reinberg D. Where transcription meets repair. Cell 1994;77:9–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Broughton BC, Steingrimsdottir H, Lehmann AR. Five polymorphisms in the coding sequence of the xeroderma pigmentosum group D gene. Mutat Res 1996;362:209–11.[Medline]
  41. Mohrenweiser HW, Xi T, Vazquez-Matias J, et al. Identification of 127 amino acid substitution variants in screening 37 DNA repair genes in humans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1054–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Benhamou S, Sarasin A. ERCC2 /XPD gene polymorphisms and lung cancer: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:1–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Coin F, Marinoni JC, Rodolfo C, Fribourg S, Pedrini AM, Egly JM. Mutations in the XPD helicase gene result in XP and TTD phenotypes, preventing interaction between XPD and the p44 subunit of TFIIH. Nat Genet 1998;20:84–188.
  44. Benhamou S, Sarasin A. ERCC2/XPD gene polymorphisms and cancer risk. Mutagenesis 2002;17:463–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Hemminki K, Xu G, Angelini S, et al. XPD exon 10 and 23 polymorphisms and DNA repair in human skin in situ. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1185–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Evans E, Fellows J, Coffer A, Wood RD. Open complex formation around a lesion during nucleotide excision repair provides a structure for cleavage by human XPG protein. EMBO J 1997;16:625–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Cloud KG, Shen B, Strniste GF, Park MS. XPG protein has a structure-specific endonuclease activity. Mutat Res 2005;347:55–60.
  48. de Laat WL, Appeldoorn E, Sugasawa K, Weterings E, Jaspers NG, Hoeijmakers JH. DNA-binding polarity of human replication protein A positions nucleases in nucleotide excision repair. Genes Dev 1998;12:2598–609.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Fears TR, Guerry D IV, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Identifying individuals at high risk of melanoma: a practical predictor of absolute risk. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3590–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
M. E. Zafereo, E. M. Sturgis, Z. Liu, L.-E Wang, Q. Wei, and G. Li
Nucleotide excision repair core gene polymorphisms and risk of second primary malignancy in patients with index squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
Carcinogenesis, June 1, 2009; 30(6): 997 - 1002.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
J. Hopkins, D. W. Cescon, D. Tse, P. Bradbury, W. Xu, C. Ma, P. Wheatley-Price, J. Waldron, D. Goldstein, F. Meyer, et al.
Genetic Polymorphisms and Head and Neck Cancer Outcomes: A Review
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2008; 17(3): 490 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
F. Wang, D. Chang, F.-l. Hu, H. Sui, B. Han, D.-d. li, and Y.-s. Zhao
DNA Repair Gene XPD Polymorphisms and Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis Based on 56 Case-Control Studies
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2008; 17(3): 507 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Li, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wei, Q.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Li, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wei, Q.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online