CEBP Infection and Cancer: Biology, Therapeutics, and Prevention Translational Cancer Medicine 2008: Cancer Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine
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 Cell Growth & Differentiation
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16, 1460-1467, July 1, 2007. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0236
© 2007 American Association for Cancer Research
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Küry, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bézieau, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Küry, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bézieau, S.

Combinations of Cytochrome P450 Gene Polymorphisms Enhancing the Risk for Sporadic Colorectal Cancer Related to Red Meat Consumption

Sébastien Küry1,2, Bruno Buecher2,3, Sébastien Robiou-du-Pont1,2, Catherine Scoul1,2, Véronique Sébille4, Hélène Colman1,2, Claire Le Houérou2, Tanguy Le Neel1,5, Jérémie Bourdon6, Roger Faroux7, Jean Ollivry9, Bernard Lafraise10, Louis-Dominique Chupin8 and Stéphane Bézieau1,2

1 Laboratoire d'Etude de l'ADN, Faculté de Médecine de Nantes, France; 2 Institut des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif et CIC Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale and 3 Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, CHU de Nantes; 4 Laboratoire de Biomathématiques-Biostatistique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Nantes; 5 Biofortis Nantes; 6 Laboratoire d'Informatique de Nantes Atlantique, Université de Nantes; 7 Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, CHD de La Roche-Sur-Yon, France; 8 Centre d'Examen de Santé, La Roche-Sur-Yon; 9 Association des Gastroentérologues de Vendée, Challans, France; and 10 Centre d'Examen de Santé de Saint-Nazaire, France

Requests for reprints: Sébastien Küry, Laboratoire d'Etude de l'ADN, Faculté de Médecine de Nantes, 1 rue Gaston Veil, 44035 Nantes Cedex, France. Phone: 33-240-41-29-69. E-mail: Sebastien.Kury{at}univ-nantes.fr


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Susceptibility to sporadic colorectal cancers (CRC) is generally thought to be the sum of complex interactions between environmental and genetic factors, all of which contribute independently, producing only a modest effect on the whole phenomenon. However, to date, most research has concealed the notion of interaction and merely focused on dissociate analyses of risk factors to highlight associations with CRC. By contrast, we have chosen a combinative approach here to explore the joint effects of several factors at a time. Through an association study based on 1,023 cases and 1,121 controls, we examined the influence on CRC risk of environmental factors coanalyzed with combinations of six single nucleotide polymorphisms located in cytochrome P450 genes (c.–163A>C and c.1548T>C in CYP1A2, g.–1293G>C and g.–1053C>T in CYP2E1, c.1294C>G in CYP1B1, and c.430C>T in CYP2C9). Whereas separate analyses of the SNPs showed no effect on CRC risk, three allelic variant combinations were found to be associated with a significant increase in CRC risk in interaction with an excessive red meat consumption, thereby exacerbating the intrinsic procarcinogenic effect of this dietary factor. One of these three predisposing combinations was also shown to interact positively with obesity. Provided that they are validated, our results suggest the need to develop robust combinative methods to improve genetic investigations into the susceptibility to CRC. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(7):1460–7)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Given its high prevalence and poor prognosis, colorectal cancer (CRC) is very much a public health issue in industrialized Western countries. In France, it is the third most frequent cancer (>36,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2000) and the second cause of cancer-related death (16,000 deaths were caused by CRC in 2000 for both sexes; ref. 1). Moreover, the current aging of the French population tends to drastically increase the number of incident cases, which warrants research studies on strategy development for CRC prevention.

The vast majority of CRCs are sporadic disorders, the genesis of which includes both environmental and heritable factors (2). Epidemiologic studies on Western populations have emphasized the large contribution of food and lifestyle to sporadic CRC risk (3-9). High-fat and low-fiber diets, as well as alcohol, tobacco, and red or processed meat consumption, have been shown to produce high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines. These procarcinogenic agents are potentially very harmful and may play a key role in the malignant transformation of cells by interacting with DNA (10, 11). However, their biological deleterious effects cannot be exerted without an oxidative activation by phase I cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes (12). CYPs are encoded by highly polymorphic genes, which results in a remarkable interindividual variability of enzymatic activity. Therefore, the level of procarcinogens activated by an individual depends on genetic background, which determines the degree of susceptibility to procarcinogen exposure and, consequently, to cancer.

Genetic association studies have reported several examples of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in CYP genes correlated to modulations of CRC risk, whether alone (13-22) or following interaction with environmental factors such as red meat or cigarette consumption (12, 23-26). Despite laying the foundations for further genetic investigations, these studies still provide too partial a view of the cancer susceptibility phenomenon. In fact, they do not take into account the functional redundancy of CYP enzymes and they usually only analyze the modifications of cancer risk associated with an environmental factor and a unique SNP at a time. In fact, the same alimentary compound can be the substrate of numerous CYP enzymes, the polymorphisms of which may all interfere with CRC risk. Rather than unique genetic polymorphisms, these are combinations of polymorphisms that determine the individual genetic background that will finally potentiate the intrinsic promoting or protective effect of xenobiotics on colorectal carcinogenesis (27). Thus, a clue to the understanding of susceptibility to CRC probably involves an examination of these combinations of polymorphisms conducted in the environmental setting.

This is precisely the target we set ourselves through the population-based case-reference study that we report here. In the present work, we coanalyzed six SNPs of CYP genes—c.–163A>C and c.1548T>C in CYP1A2, g.–1293G>C and g.–1053C>T in CYP2E1, c.1294C>G in CYP1B1, and c.430C>T in CYP2C9—and various environmental factors selected from a bibliographical meta-analysis among the factors presumably the most relevant to colorectal carcinogenesis. We investigated combinations of CYP allelic variants that could serve as biomarkers for CRC prevention and/or prognosis, regarding their possible influence on the relative risk for developing CRC when interacting with environmental factors.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Experimental Design and Assembly of the Cohorts
To investigate potential associations between sporadic CRCs and both environmental and genetic factors, we conducted a case-controlled association study. From December 2002 to March 2006, we assembled two cohorts of 1,023 patients and 1,121 controls. The recruitment of these individuals was carried out in the Pays de la Loire region, which is located in the west of France and incorporates the administrative districts of Loire Atlantique, Maine et Loire, Mayenne, Sarthe, and Vendée. Six public hospitals and five clinics situated within these districts gave their agreement to collaborate in this project, thereby constituting a network of hepatogastroenterologists and oncologists specialized in CRCs. All patients with a personal history of CRC diagnosed at an age ≥40 years were eligible for the case cohort provided that there was no suspicion of major genetic predisposition (familial form of CRC).

Most of the control individuals were selected during a routine check-up by physicians working in one of two Health Examination Centers of region Pays de la Loire. Recruitment of individuals ≥70 years was completed in the departments of internal medicine and hepatogastroenterology of the University Hospital of Nantes. In this way, we made up a control cohort that matched the case cohort according to sex, 5-year age groups, and geographic origins. Control individuals were eligible to be included in the study if they were ≥40 years of age, lived in the study region, spoke French, and were physically and mentally able to participate in a personal interview of ~15 to 20 min. Unaffected individuals with a familial history of CRC or polyps were noneligible.

To meet the requirements of the local (Comité de Protection des Personnes dans la Recherche Biomédicale) and national (Commission nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés) ethics committees that approved the study, a written informed consent was obtained from each individual included, after having been clearly explained the research protocol by a physician. During the examination, two venous blood samples of 4 mL each were collected in EDTA tubes from the participant and were used later on for extraction of genomic DNA. All information regarding participants was made anonymous after the collection of blood samples.

In the presence of the physician, each participant answered the same one-page standardized questionnaire that was especially drawn up to provide valuable information on demographic characteristics, regular diet, weight and height, personal history of diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, physical activity, and smoking habits (see Fig. 1 ). In this multiple-choice questionnaire, we did not take into account every potential risk factor reported in the literature but we focused more on some of the environmental factors among the most relevant to colorectal carcinogenesis. It is worth noting that we used the grandparents' place of residence—or by default, the parents' place of residence—to define the geographic origin of each participant. Questions about eating habits had been developed with the help of a nutritionist to cover the main categories of food components found in the French diet. Participants were questioned only about the average consumption frequency of foods, whereas quantitative questions were deliberately avoided to keep the questionnaire clear and simple.


Figure 1
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Standardized questionnaire on life habits fulfilled by the study participants.

 
For cases, we additionally requested endoscopy and histology reports from the study oncologist or hepatogastroenterologist. To obtain homogeneous data, a standardized report model designed as a multiple-choice questionnaire was provided to each physician, which notably included questions about tumor aspect and location, presence of metastasis, and tumor infiltration.

All data provided by both the participants and the physicians through the different questionnaires were stored in a common electronic SQL database set up for the sole purpose of the present study. This database also enables the collection of genetic data generated as explained below.

Genotype Analysis
Genomic DNA was extracted from collected blood samples using the Nucleon BACC2 kit (GE Healthcare). DNA concentrations were calculated using Picogreen technology (Molecular Probes) and diluted to 10 ng/µL in 96-well format after a customized automated procedure developed by Microlab Star (Hamilton Robotics).

All study participants were genotyped for six SNPs related to drug-metabolizing enzymes CYP involved in heterocyclic aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons carcinogen metabolism: SNPs rs762551 (c.–163A>C; CYP1A2*F) and rs2470890 (c.1548T>C; p.N516N) in CYP1A2, rs3813867 (g.–1293G>C; CYP2E1*5A and CYP2E1*5B) and rs2031920 (g.–1053C>T; CYP2E1*5A and CYP2E1*5B) in CYP2E1, rs1056836 (c.1294C>G; p.V432L; CYP1B1*3) in CYP1B1, and rs1799853 (c.430C>T; p.R144C; CYP2C9*2A, CYP2C9*2B, and CYP2C9*C) in CYP2C9. These six SNPs were selected for their relevance to sporadic CRC according to a bibliographical meta-analysis done through PubMed.

Genotypes were determined using high-throughput TaqMan allelic discrimination tests. Primers and dye-labeled MGB-NFQ probes were designed and synthesized by Applied Biosystems (Supplementary Table S1). Reactions were set up in a 384-well plate in a 6 µL final volume, including 2.25 µL of 2x Universal Master Mix, 0.11 µL of 40x Assay Mix, 1.64 µL of water, and 20 ng of genomic DNA (10 ng/µL). Reaction plates were thermocycled in an i-cycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories): An initial 10 min denaturation at 95°C was followed by 45 cycles including a denaturation step at 92°C for 15 s and an annealing/extension step at 60°C for 1 min. After amplification, end-point fluorescence readings were conducted on an Applied Biosystems ABI 7900HT sequence detection system. Genotypes were assigned using the allelic discrimination software SDS v2.1 (Applied Biosystems).

Statistical Analysis
Determination of CRC Risk Associated with Environmental Factors Analyzed Independently. The statistical analysis was done with SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Institute, Inc.). Continuous variables were reported as median and range and compared between the case and control groups by Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were reported as number of patients (percentages) and compared by {chi}2 or Fisher's exact tests when appropriate. P values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Univariate analyses were done using conditional logistic regression to account for the matching of cases and controls. An appraisal was made on the association between environmental variables adjusting for age followed by an assessment of the odds ratio (OR) of cancer cases together with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Multivariate analyses were then done using an iterative stepwise selection procedure to select the variables that were significantly associated with CRC, as assessed by the likelihood ratio test (variable candidates for the model were those associated with CRC in univariate analyses with the P < 0.15 criterion; variables were selected in the model using the P < 0.05 criterion).

Determination of CRC Risk Associated with CYP Allelic Variants Analyzed Independently. To assess the risk of CRC associated with each of the six CYP SNPs listed above, we used SNPStats, a free web-based tool designed for genetic epidemiology purposes (28). SNPStats has a user-friendly interface thanks to the PHP server programming language and uses the free software environment R for statistical computing implemented by the algorithm of the package genetics. As regards our study, the association with cancer was estimated for each SNP by OR of cancer cases along with 95% CI; calculations were adjusted for age and sex, and followed an unconditional logistic regression model. For each SNP, homozygous carriers of the most frequent allele in the cohorts were used as the reference for the analyses. Calculations of ORs were double checked by statistical analysis done with SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Institute).

Analyses of gene-environment interactions were then done with SNPStats, which proposes statistical models for calculation of risk associated with one pair of interacting variables. For each of the six CYP SNPs, we investigated all the possible interactions with the environmental covariables of the questionnaire completed by the study participants, and we calculated 95% CI ORs of cancer cases to determine if any "SNP-environmental factor" pair could modify the risk for CRC in our cohorts. A likelihood ratio test was used to investigate interaction among variables of interest.

Analysis of CRC Risk Associated with Multiple-SNPs Combinations. A special option of the software SNPStats is the haplotype analysis done through R package haplo.stats. Using genotypes obtained at different points of polymorphisms (SNPs) located on the same chromosomal region, the software makes it possible to predict and rebuild the haplotypes characterizing a group of individuals through a log-additive model. Although the six CYP SNPs chosen for our study are not all located on the same chromosome and, by definition, cannot belong to a common haplotype, we nevertheless used this SNPStats option to predict preferential combinations of these six SNPs. Based on the genotyping results determined for the six single SNPs in the patient and control cohorts, an evaluation was made of the relative frequencies of multiple-SNP combinations present in the cohorts and the corresponding samples sizes were calculated. Logistic regression was then applied to these data to analyze the associations of the SNP combinations to CRC risk translated into 95% CI ORs.

By use of SNPStats, we investigated the possible SNP combinations interacting with environmental factors and we estimated their associations to CRC risk with 95% CI ORs.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
The present work is based on 1,023 patients with sporadic CRC and 1,121 unaffected controls whose main general characteristics are indicated in Table 1 . The mean age is slightly higher for cases than for controls (67 versus 62 years old; P ≤ 0.01), mainly because of the overrepresentation of individuals ≥70 years old in the case cohort [404 individuals (39%) versus 199 (18%) in the control cohort] despite our efforts to match the two cohorts by age. Mean body mass indexes are approximately equal between the two cohorts (26 kg/m2 in patients versus 25 kg/m2 in controls; P ≤ 0.01). As regards gender distribution, males are more numerous in both cohorts but they are slightly underrepresented in the control cohort (62% in patients versus 54% in controls; P ≤ 0.01). Overall, study participants were very compliant as the global response rate to the questionnaire on life habits reached 97.5%; the only relatively weak response rate was in relation to the "method of cooking" item, giving a response of 88.2%.


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

  		Table 1. General characteristics of study patients

 
Table 2 describes the more significant results obtained with the univariate and multivariate analyses of environmental factors. In the study cohorts, the consequence of red meat consumption on CRC risk was very noticeable and quite distinguishable from those of other environmental factors: Compared with the reference group of moderate eaters, high consumers (≥5 times a week) were at increased risk with an OR of 3.414 (95% CI, 1.93-6.04). To a lesser extent, diabetes status, lack of physical activity, as well as frequent cold cuts and pastry consumption, or, on the contrary, poor-quality fruit intake and low dairy product and fruit consumption were also associated with an increased risk of CRC. Paradoxically, the lack of alcohol consumption was also associated with a decreased CRC risk. By contrast, female gender, dyslipidemia status, and frequent consumption of wholemeal bread decreased the risk of CRC. In addition, we found no effect at all for fish, white meat and cigarette consumption, or cooking methods.


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

  		Table 2. Univariate and multiple variable models of promoting and protective factors independently associated with CRC

 
From these observations, we also examined combinations of environmental factors found to have a more obvious bearing on CRC risk. As expected, we observed that individuals with the lowest risk of CRC were those who combined the highest consumption of fruit (more than twice a day), vegetables (more than twice a day), dairy products (more than thrice a day), and wholemeal bread. They were associated with an OR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.98, P = 0.036) compared with reference individuals who had the same nutritional habits except that they ate white bread instead of wholemeal bread. People with the highest risk of CRC were those eating fruit and vegetables once a day at the most, dairy products twice a day at the most, and white bread (OR, 1.36, 95% CI, 1.15-1.60, P = 0.0004).

Table 3 shows the results of the univariate analyses done with SNPStats for the six single SNPs selected: rs762551 (c.–163A>C) and rs2470890 (c.1548T>C) in CYP1A2, rs3813867 (g.–1293G>C) and rs2031920 (g.–1053C>T) in CYP2E1, rs1056836 (c.1294C>G) in CYP1B1, and rs1799853 (c.430C>T) in CYP2C9. We did not find any association with CRC for any of the allelic variants tested, as ORs never reached statistical significance either for proximal and distal colon, or rectal cancer. Moreover, analyses of interactions between single SNPs and environmental factors of the questionnaire did not show any interacting pair of variables that would modify the risk of CRC (Supplementary Table S2). The results obtained with SNPStats were confirmed with SAS 9.1, by performing univariate analyses adjusted for the covariate SNP of the environmental factors found to be potential risk factors (Table 3). As an example, ORs associated with a high consumption of red meat (more than five times a week) remained steady and statistically significant at about 3.4 (P < 0.001) when adjusted for any of the six SNPs.


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

  		Table 3. Analysis of single-SNP association with CRC (n = 2,131; OR calculations were adjusted by sex and age)

 
We then analyzed the association between CRC and combinations of multiple SNPs. We tested combinations of two to six SNPs: None was found to be associated with a modification of CRC risk. Therefore, we investigated interactions between these combinations and environmental factors of the questionnaire. The integration of multiple-SNP combinations to the statistical analyses barely changed the ORs calculated above for most environmental factors, especially for the potential risk factors listed in Table 2. However, as summarized in Table 4 , striking results were once again obtained with red meat consumption. Part A of Table 4 indicates that three multiple-SNP combinations—ATGCGT, CCGCGC, and ATGCCC (allelic variants in the combinations are ordered as follows: CYP1A2 c.–163A>C, then CYP1A2 c.1548T>C, CYP2E1 g.–1293G>C, CYP2E1 g.–1053C>T, CYP1B1 c.1294C>G, and CYP2C9 c.430C>T)—were associated with a strong elevation of CRC risk in significant red meat consumers when compared with a common reference group of moderate red meat consumers presenting the most frequent combination ATGCCC. Part B shows that the risk of CRC did not vary significantly between moderate red meat consumers (<4 times a week) whatever SNP combination they exhibited; on the other hand, in significant red meat consumers, the influence of SNP combination was more perceptible as individuals with combination ATGCGT were associated with a significantly increased risk (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.72-4.19) compared with combination ATGCCC; by contrast, combinations of ATGCGC and CCGCCC were at lower risk with ORs dropping to 0.35 (0.17-0.72) and 0.28 (0.12-0.65). Part C of Table 4 takes into account the influence of red meat consumption in the different SNPs combinations; it shows that the intrinsic CRC risk of red meat consumption expressed in Table 2 (OR, 3.414 in great red meat consumers) was slightly increased for combinations (OR, 4.42 and 4.08) ATGCGC and CCGCCC, but considerably enhanced for combinations CCGCGC (OR, 16.34) and ATGCCC (OR, 13.72), and extremely high for combination ATGCGT (OR, 43.78).


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

  		Table 4. Analysis of association to CRC risk of multiple CYP SNPs combinations interacting with the environmental variable "red meat consumption"

 
Further analyses of SNPs combinations revealed an interaction between combination ATGCGT and body weight (Supplementary Table S3). Compared with individuals with low to normal weight (body mass index <18.5-24.9; see Table 1), obese individuals (body mass index ≥ 30) were at a statistically significantly increased risk of CRC (OR, 12.55; 95% CI, 6.28-25.09), and overweight individuals (body mass index 25-29.9) were associated with a barely significantly increased risk (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 0.94-5.31). None of the other most frequent SNP combinations (>4%) showed an interaction with body weight.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Colorectal carcinogenesis has been the subject matter of many studies, all of which confirm an environmental and genetic bicomponent for carcinogenesis of sporadic CRC (2). Numerous population-based studies have underlined associations between risk for CRC and SNPs—notably including the SNPs of the CYP genes we have chosen in our study—interacting with at least one environmental factor. Nevertheless, most of these studies do not produce a sufficient statistical power, and are therefore not reproducible, because they rely upon a too small number of nonhomogeneous or even badly designed cohorts (usually 40-300 individuals; ref. 29). To circumvent this problem, we based our association study on two large cohorts including more than 1,000 individuals each. To date, only a few population-based association studies as large as ours have been reported on genetic susceptibility to CRC and, to our knowledge, none of them have comprised uniquely sporadic cases. Moreover, no comparable studies have been reported on a French population, which highlights the interest and originality of our cohorts, as genetic predisposition is definitively a population-specific phenomenon. In addition, we were especially careful about the quality of the recruitment, whether this was the clinical criteria for patients (every doubtful familial case was excluded systematically) or the homogeneity of both cohorts (i.e., matching as well as possible for age, sex, and geographic origins). We are aware that a weak point of our recruitment resides in the imbalance between patients and controls of over 70 years old; however, simulations of OR calculations on population samples showed that this imbalance did not seem to alter our estimations of CRC risk.

As mentioned in Results, response rate to the questionnaire on life habits was very good, which was translated by a high statistical significance of the results we obtained for the univariate analyses of environmental factors (P < 0.001 for many analyses). These results were consistent with previous descriptions of environmental risk factors in other epidemiologic studies (30-35). Thus, physical activity, fruit, dairy products, and wholemeal bread appeared as protective factors regarding the risk of CRC. However, above all, the most striking result concerned the high consumption of red meat (more than five times a week), which we found associated with a sizable increase in CRC risk (OR, 3.414; 95% CI, 1.93-6.04) compared with a more reasonable consumption (four times a week at the most). Of course, this observation would be moderated by the fact that individuals with this habit constitute only a minor group within both cohorts (69 individuals; i.e., 3.2% of the whole study population). Nevertheless, the procarcinogenic role of red meat is no longer a novelty because it has already been reported several times in the literature and it has been biologically explained by the metabolism of red meat into deleterious polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines (36). In any case, the size of the two study cohorts leads us to believe that the number of frequent red meat eaters—although they are small in number—is representative of the local French population we examined. Therefore, the results we obtained may be a little overestimated but they reflect a true tendency.

In the same way, certain other results deserve to be discussed here. For example, the observation of a reduced risk of CRC in patients with dyslipidemia was unexpected. As dysplipidemia was taken into account only in patients requiring medical therapy, we may assume that most of them were treated with inhibitors of hydroxyl-methylglutaryl CoA reductase (also called statins), a widely prescribed class of lipid-lowering agents. This may be a confounding factor as these agents exert a documented protective effect against CRC (37). As regards the lack of effect relating to fish and vegetables, this can be ascribed to an excessively poor representation of the "high consumer categories" for these two covariates. Despite Public Health communications on the virtues of these two products against cancer, they have failed to become essential elements in today's French diet. In contrast, the absence of influence of tobacco on CRC risk is not that surprising because its deleterious effect was essentially described in lung and upper digestive tract cancers (38, 39). Moreover, the participants' answers may have been distorted, notably in patients for whom tobacco consumption appears to be a deliberate risk habit. The same remark could be applied to alcohol consumption, the relative protective effect of which rather contradicted the data reported in the literature and is illogical in terms of detoxification. As regards covariate "cooking methods," the absence of significant results can be correlated to the relatively low response rate (88.2%), which certainly translates the difficulty encountered by the participants to choose a single answer definitively representative of their habits. Indeed, this problem probably comes from the formulation of the question.

The results of the analysis of multiple environmental factor combinations turned out to be extremely logical. Frequent eating of meals rich in fruit, vegetables, dairy products, and wholemeal bread appeared as the most effective combination against CRC. Yet, the relatively weak difference found between single or combined environmental factors underline a barely detectable additive effect or even an independent effect of these covariates on carcinogenesis in the study population.

For the genetic part of our work we focused on six SNPs of four CYP genes that all belong to phase I of the xenobiotic detoxification metabolic pathway, and that are not localized on the same chromosome. We therefore expected to find an additive or rather interactive effect not due to real haplotypes but to variations in the activity of putative interdependent encoded enzymes. According to our bibliographical meta-analysis of previous association studies, five of the six SNPs of CYP genes that we analyzed had already been found to be associated with a rise in risk for colorectal adenomas or cancer, whether alone or in interaction with an environmental factor. In general, the increased risk had been correlated to allelic variants increasing the activity of encoded enzymes, whether for SNPs c.–163A>C (rs762551) in CYP1A2 (13, 19-21, 40), g.–1053C>T (rs2031920) and g.–1293G>C (rs1056836) in CYP2E1 (14, 15), c.1294C>G (rs1056836) in CYP1B1 (17), or c.430C>T (rs1799853) in CYP2C9 (16, 18). However, we were unable to reproduce these results in our cohorts, as we found no association with modulation of CRC risk for any of the six single SNPs analyzed independently or together with environmental factors in our lifestyle questionnaire. An explanation for the divergence with prior studies probably lies in the smaller populations tested: For instance, for CYP1A2 c.–163A>C, 94 individuals (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.3-10.7) in one study (20) and 377 cases/326 controls in yet a second more comprehensive study (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.08; ref. 21), and 163 patients and 163 controls (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.05-3.52) for CYP2E1 g.–1053C>T (15).

On the other hand, analyses of multiple-SNP combinations showed a strong increase in the intrinsic risk of excessive red meat consumption for three different combinations of allelic variants, ATGCCC, CCGCGC, and ATGCGT, found in 31.6%, 13.4%, and 4.4% of the study individuals respectively (see Table 4). As opposed to these three allelic variant combinations, two other frequent ones, ATGCGC (22.1%) and CCGCCC (9.8%), appeared "neutral" as they barely enhanced the basal CRC risk due to red meat consumption alone (see Table 2). Interaction analyses with other environmental factors revealed that, among the combinations above, ATGCGT was the one that predisposed the most to CRC, as it was the only one found to be additionally associated with a perceptible increase in the risk of CRC in obese individuals (~14.4% of the study population). This last observation is a good example of gene-environment interaction: In a way, the genetic background seems to exacerbate the procarcinogenic effect of the environmental factor, because, in our cohorts, obesity alone was not found to be associated with an increased CRC risk as reported in the literature (41). On the other hand, genetic expression seems to be influenced by environmental factors, as independent analysis of the ATGCGT combination showed no association with CRC risk. Interestingly, obesity was shown to increase expression and thereby oxidative activities of CYP enzymes, especially CYP1E2, which exacerbates the procarcinogenic effect of xenobiotics (42, 43).

A hypothesis for the marked interaction of combination ATGCGT with obesity and red meat consumption would be that the allelic variants composing this combination contribute to the simultaneous enhancement of the metabolic activities of CYP1A2, CYP2E1, CYP1B1, and CYP2C9 enzymes. Yet, if we postulate from previous works the theoretical combination leading to the greatest enzymatic activity of these four enzymes, we obtain ATGCGC (i.e., a combination we found not to be associated with an effect on CRC risk in our cohorts). In fact, the first four allelic variants of this combination perfectly match the observed ATGCGT combination and they correspond to allelic variants of CYP1A2 (c.–163A and c.1548T) and of CYP2E1 (g.–1293G and g.–1053C) that have been shown to induce an increased enzymatic activity in vitro, and which have been found to be associated with an increase in CRC risk by interacting with red or processed meat (14, 19, 20, 44). This first part of the combination should be associated with an elevated production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines, and thereby to an increased cancer risk. In the same way, the "neutral" effect on CRC risk observed for combination CCGCCC can be explained as the result of the concomitant decreased activity of CYP1A2 and increased activity of CYP2E1. In fact, the divergence between observed and theoretical predisposing hexanucleotide combinations resides in the last two variants corresponding to c.1294C>G of CYP1B1 and c.430C>T of CYP2C9. Aklillu et al. (45) showed that the allelic variant c.1294C>G of CYP1B1 increases enzymatic activity, but, to date, it has only been found to be associated with lung and head-and-neck cancers (46-48). The allelic variant c.430C>T of CYP2C9 was found to be associated with a decrease in CRC risk (16). However, the size of the population studied in this report was small and the significance of these results may be disputable. Therefore, this divergence between theory and observation does not discredit the predisposing bearing on CRC that we found for the ATGCGT combination. On the contrary, it illustrates the difficulty in extrapolating a general biological model from the combination of independent analyses. This contrasts with environmental factors for which theory perfectly matched observations. It is precisely the very notion of dependence or rather interactivity, between enzymes of the same pathway in this case, which creates all the complexity of the susceptibility phenomenon.

In conclusion, we observed three combinations of CYP allelic variants that strongly predispose to CRC by interacting and enhancing the intrinsic predisposing potential of excessive red meat consumption. One of these combinations, ATGCGT, has a particularly strong effect on CRC risk and also interacts positively with obesity, another known promoting factor of CRC. Our present work illustrates the need to go beyond the analysis of single SNPs proposed in most of the current studies on genetic predisposition for complex diseases like cancer. Studies on predisposition to colorectal and prostate cancer have already started to show the power of combinative approaches (49-52). In addition, our present data highlight the very interest of analyzing SNP combinations in connection with environmental risk factors to a better appreciation of the complexity of in vivo events accounting for cancer susceptibility.

We are aware that our approach can be considerably improved. The most significant results presented here relate indeed to a small subgroup of the cohort [69 great red meat consumers (3.2%) of 2,144 individuals], and they would need to be reproduced and confirmed on larger cohorts. In addition, investigation of a more comprehensive panel of SNPs would certainly lead to even more conclusive observations. Therefore, we now plan to examine additional polymorphic genes involved in the metabolic pathway of xenobiotic detoxification, such as genes of glutathione S-transferases, UDP-glucuronosyl transferases, or sulfotransferases. Nevertheless, in the present work, we deliberately reduced the number of studied SNPs in a didactical perspective to better illustrate the phenomenon of interaction between genes.

Although our combinative approach contains room for improvement, we believe that it is more meaningful than association studies dealing with one risk factor at a time. The identification of SNP combinations modulating CRC risk cancer in a precise environmental context is a first step toward the determination of genetic profiles of susceptibility, which should enable the establishment of personal nutritional recommendations for patients.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank all the patients, control individuals, and physicians who participated in this work and made it possible.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: Regional Hospital Clinical Research Program and the Groupement des Entreprises Françaises dans la LUtte contre le Cancer, the Association Anne de Bretagne Génétique, and the Ligue Régionale Contre le Cancer.

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.

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology Biomakers and Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

S. Küry, B. Buecher, and S. Robiou-du-Pont contributed equally to this work.

Received 3/22/07; revised 4/30/07; accepted 5/10/07.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Remontet L, Esteve J, Bouvier AM, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in France over the period 1978-2000. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2003;51:3–30.[Medline]
  2. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer-analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med 2000;343:78–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Gerhardsson de Verdier M, Hagman U, Steineck G, Rieger A, Norell SE. Diet, body mass and colorectal cancer: a case-referent study in Stockholm. Int J Cancer 1990;46:832–8.[Medline]
  4. Cope GF, Wyatt JI, Pinder IF, Lee PN, Heatley RV, Kelleher J. Alcohol consumption in patients with colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 1991;32:70–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Levin B. Nutrition and colorectal cancer. Cancer 1992;70:1723–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Colbert LH, Hartman TJ, Malila N, et al. Physical activity in relation to cancer of the colon and rectum in a cohort of male smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:265–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Kushi L, Giovannucci E. Dietary fat and cancer. Am J Med 2002;113 Suppl 9B:63–70S.
  8. Slattery ML, Edwards S, Curtin K, et al. Physical activity and colorectal cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:214–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Heavey PM, McKenna D, Rowland IR. Colorectal cancer and the relationship between genes and the environment. Nutr Cancer 2004;48:124–41.[Medline]
  10. Potter JD. Nutrition and colorectal cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:127–46.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Berlau J, Glei M, Pool-Zobel BL. Colon cancer risk factors from nutrition. Anal Bioanal Chem 2004;378:737–43.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Raunio H, Husgafvel-Pursiainen K, Anttila S, Hietanen E, Hirvonen A, Pelkonen O. Diagnosis of polymorphisms in carcinogen-activating and inactivating enzymes and cancer susceptibility-a review. Gene 1995;159:113–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Sachse C, Brockmoller J, Bauer S, Roots I. Functional significance of a C->A polymorphism in intron 1 of the cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 gene tested with caffeine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;47:445–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Tan W, Song N, Wang GQ, et al. Impact of genetic polymorphisms in cytochrome P450 2E1 and glutathione S-transferases M1, T1, and P1 on susceptibility to esophageal cancer among high-risk individuals in China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:551–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Kiss I, Sandor J, Pajkos G, Bogner B, Hegedus G, Ember I. Colorectal cancer risk in relation to genetic polymorphism of cytochrome P450 1A1, 2E1, and glutathione-S-transferase M1 enzymes. Anticancer Res 2000;20:519–22.[Medline]
  16. Martinez C, Garcia-Martin E, Ladero JM, et al. Association of CYP2C9 genotypes leading to high enzyme activity and colorectal cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1323–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Sachse C, Smith G, Wilkie MJ, et al. A pharmacogenetic study to investigate the role of dietary carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:1839–49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. de Jong MM, Nolte IM, te Meerman GJ, et al. Low-penetrance genes and their involvement in colorectal cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1332–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Sachse C, Bhambra U, Smith G, et al. Polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 gene (CYP1A2) in colorectal cancer patients and controls: allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium and influence on caffeine metabolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003;55:68–76.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Moonen H, Engels L, Kleinjans J, Kok T. The CYP1A2-164A->C polymorphism (CYP1A2*1F) is associated with the risk for colorectal adenomas in humans. Cancer Lett 2005;229:25–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Landi S, Gemignani F, Moreno V, et al. A comprehensive analysis of phase I, phase II. metabolism gene polymorphisms and risk of colorectal cancer. Pharmacogenomics 2005;15:535–46.
  22. Rodriguez-Antona C, Ingelman-Sundberg M. Cytochrome P450 pharmacogenetics and cancer. Oncogene 2006;25:1679–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Lang NP, Butler MA, Massengill J, et al. Rapid metabolic phenotypes for acetyltransferase and cytochrome P4501A2 and putative exposure to food-borne heterocyclic amines increase the risk for colorectal cancer or polyps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1994;3:675–82.[Abstract]
  24. Roberts-Thomson IC, Butler WJ, Ryan P. Meat, metabolic genotypes and risk for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 1999;8:207–11.[Medline]
  25. Le Marchand L, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, et al. Combined effects of well-done red meat, smoking, and rapid N-acetyltransferase 2 and CYP1A2 phenotypes in increasing colorectal cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:1259–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Tranah GJ, Chan AT, Giovannucci E, Ma J, Fuchs C, Hunter DJ. Epoxide hydrolase and CYP2C9 polymorphisms, cigarette smoking, and risk of colorectal carcinoma in the Nurses' Health Study and the Physicians' Health Study. Mol Carcinog 2005;44:21–30.[Medline]
  27. Bartsch H, Nair U, Risch A, Rojas M, Wikman H, Alexandrov K. Genetic polymorphism of CYP genes, alone or in combination, as a risk modifier of tobacco-related cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:3–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Sole X, Guino E, Valls J, Iniesta R, Moreno V. SNPStats: a web tool for the analysis of association studies. Bioinformatics 2006;22:1928–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Brennan P. Gene-environment interaction and aetiology of cancer: what does it mean and how can we measure it? Carcinogenesis 2002;23:381–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Bingham SA, Day NE, Luben R, et al. Dietary fibre in food and protection against colorectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): an observational study. Lancet 2003;361:1496–501.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Peters U, Sinha R, Chatterjee N, et al. Dietary fibre and colorectal adenoma in a colorectal cancer early detection programme. Lancet 2003;361:1491–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Sanjoaquin MA, Appleby PN, Thorogood M, Mann JI, Key TJ. Nutrition, lifestyle and colorectal cancer incidence: a prospective investigation of 10998 vegetarians and non-vegetarians in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2004;90:118–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Soerjomataram I, de Vries E, Pukkala E, Coebergh JW. Excess of cancers in Europe: A study of eleven major cancers amenable to lifestyle change. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1336–43.[Medline]
  34. Alvarez-Leon EE, Roman-Vinas B, Serra-Majem L. Dairy products and health: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Br J Nutr 2006;96 Suppl 1:S94–9.[Medline]
  35. Grau MV, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al. Prolonged effect of calcium supplementation on risk of colorectal adenomas in a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:129–36.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Larsson SC, Wolk A. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer 2006;119:2657–64.[Medline]
  37. Tyagi P. Current data with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for colorectal cancer prevention. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2005;5:245–6.[Medline]
  38. Hashibe M, Boffetta P, Janout V, et al. Esophageal cancer in Central and Eastern Europe: Tobacco and alcohol. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1518–22.[Medline]
  39. Crispo A, Brennan P, Jockel KH, et al. The cumulative risk of lung cancer among current, ex- and never-smokers in European men. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1280–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Bae SY, Choi SK, Kim KR, et al. Effects of genetic polymorphisms of MDR1, FMO3 and CYP1A2 on susceptibility to colorectal cancer in Koreans. Cancer Sci 2006;97:774–9.[Medline]
  41. Ferrante JM, Ohman-Strickland P, Hudson SV, Hahn KA, Scott JG, Crabtree BF. Colorectal cancer screening among obese versus non-obese patients in primary care practices. Cancer Detect Prev 2006;30:459–65.[Medline]
  42. McCarver DG, Byun R, Hines RN, Hichme M, Wegenek W. A genetic polymorphism in the regulatory sequences of human CYP2E1: association with increased chlorzoxazone hydroxylation in the presence of obesity and ethanol intake. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1998;152:276–81.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Murray M. Altered CYP expression and function in response to dietary factors: potential roles in disease pathogenesis. Curr Drug Metab 2006;7:67–81.[Medline]
  44. Le Marchand L, Wilkinson GR, Wilkens LR. Genetic and dietary predictors of CYP2E1 activity: a phenotyping study in Hawaii Japanese using chlorzoxazone. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:495–500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Aklillu E, Oscarson M, Hidestrand M, Leidvik B, Otter C, Ingelman-Sundberg M. Functional analysis of six different polymorphic CYP1B1 enzyme variants found in an Ethiopian population. Mol Pharmacol 2002;61:586–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Thier R, Bruning T, Roos PH, et al. Markers of genetic susceptibility in human environmental hygiene and toxicology: the role of selected CYP, NAT and GST genes. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2003;206:149–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Wenzlaff AS, Cote ML, Bock CH, et al. CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 polymorphisms and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a population-based study. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:2207–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Roos PH, Bolt HM. Cytochrome P450 interactions in human cancers: new aspects considering CYP1B1. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2005;1:187–202.[Medline]
  49. Xu J, Lowey J, Wiklund F, et al. The interaction of four genes in the inflammation pathway significantly predicts prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2563–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Goodman JE, Mechanic LE, Luke BT, Ambs S, Chanock S, Harris CC. Exploring SNPSNP interactions and colon cancer risk using polymorphism interaction analysis. Int J Cancer 2006;118:1790–7.[Medline]
  51. Goode EL, Potter JD, Bamlet WR, Rider DN, Bigler J. Inherited variation in carcinogen-metabolizing enzymes and risk of colorectal polyps. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:328–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Mononen N, Seppala EH, Duggal P, et al. Profiling genetic variation along the androgen biosynthesis and metabolism pathways implicates several single nucleotide polymorphisms and their combinations as prostate cancer risk factors. Cancer Res 2006;66:743–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Küry, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bézieau, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Küry, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bézieau, S.

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 Cell Growth & Differentiation