
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 [X. W., M. A. D., R. M. C., M. R. S.]; School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030 [X. W.]; and Center for Health Sciences, SRI International, Menlo Park, California 94025-3495 [K. S. H.]
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
PCR was used to perform genotyping on peripheral WBC DNA from 140 lung cancer patients (43 Mexican-Americans and 97 African-Americans) and 222 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched controls (111 Mexican-Americans and 111 African-Americans). A personal family history was obtained from each participant. There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of the DRD2 genotypes between cases and controls, although the frequency of the B1 genotype significantly differed by ethnicity (P = 0.002 for controls and P = 0.001 for cases). The DRD2 genotypes and smoking status showed a correlation among Mexican-American controls, although not among African-American controls. The cigarette pack-years in control subjects for the two ethnic groups combined were 30.8, 21.9, and 18.6 for the A1A1, A1A2, and A2A2 genotypes and 36.5, 20.8, and 18.5 for the B1B1, B1B2, and B2B2 genotypes, respectively. Similar trends were found for the number of cigarettes smoked per day among control subjects. From the standpoint of polymorphisms, however, there was a borderline significantly increased (3.6 times greater) frequency of smoking-related cancers among the first-degree relatives of case subjects with an A1 allele than among those without an A1 allele. There was also an elevated (1.8 times greater) frequency of smoking-related cancer among first-degree relatives of case subjects with a B1 allele compared with patients without a B1 allele, but this finding was not statistically significant. This phenomenon was not observed among control subjects. We noted a trend toward interaction of DRD2 A1 genotypes and case status for increased risk of smoking-related cancer among first-degree relatives. These findings suggest that the variant DRD2 genotypes are associated with a greater likelihood to smoke and a greater smoking intensity, as well as with a familial aggregation of smoking-related cancers. However, a large study is needed to confirm this finding.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
There is substantial evidence that nicotine is the dependence-producing component of tobacco (13) . Once delivered to the brain, nicotine exerts psychoactive effects that affect mood and cognitive function. Specifically, nicotine intake is associated with enhanced pleasure, improved task performance and memory, reduced anxiety and tension, and weight control. It also relieves the effects of nicotine withdrawal (14) . Nicotine acts through the dopamine reward pathway for its reinforcing effect. It has been hypothesized that persons with a functional deficit in the dopamine reward pathway may be more prone to drug addiction, including nicotine dependence (15) .
There are two primary families of dopamine receptors, D1 and D2, which are differentiated by their ligand specificity, central nervous system distribution, physiological actions, and their stimulatory (D1) or inhibitory (D2) effects on G-protein second-messenger systems (16) . In 1989, Grandy et al. (17) reported that the human D2 dopamine receptor gene is located on chromosome 11q. Since then, several polymorphisms on this gene have been identified. In particular, studies conducted in the early 1990s examined associations between a polymorphism in the TaqI A allele (A1 and A2) and substance abuse, including tobacco use (15 , 18) . More recently, investigators have also explored associations between the TaqI B allele (B1 and B2) and smoking (9) . D2 dopamine receptor polymorphisms have been associated with obesity (19) , neuropsychiatric disorders (20) , and substance abuse, including alcoholism (16 , 21, 22, 23) , cocaine use (24) , polysubstance use (18) , and tobacco use (9 , 15 , 25) .
Several studies have shown that the A1 allele is associated with a reduced number of dopamine binding sites in the brain (16 , 26, 27, 28) . It has been hypothesized that such persons who have a reduced dopamine D2 receptor density have a deficit in their reward system and experience an enhanced reward when exposed to dopaminergic agents, thereby making them more prone to nicotine addiction (15) . Results from a previous study in our laboratory support this hypothesis, in that persons who exhibited certain D2 polymorphisms (A1 or B1) were more likely to have ever smoked, started smoking at an earlier age, and attempted to quit fewer times compared with persons without the polymorphism (9) . Other investigators have reported that the A1 and B1 alleles are more prevalent among current and former smokers than among never smokers (15) .
No studies have evaluated these polymorphisms in minority populations. Because African-Americans suffer disproportionately higher incidences of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, it is important that these issues be explored. The primary objective of this study of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans was to test the hypothesis that ever smokers in ethnic groups other than Caucasians are more likely than never smokers in these ethnic groups to exhibit the DRD23 alleles associated with tobacco use (A1 and B1). Furthermore, because of a predicted higher prevalence of smokers in a family attributable to the patterns of inheritance of the genotypes associated with tobacco use, we also anticipated that individuals with these at-risk DRD2 alleles would be more likely to report a family history of smoking-related cancers. Because other inherited genetic variants may interact with smoking on cancer risk, we also explored whether this association differs between cancer patients and control subjects.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Controls.
The control group was a convenience sample accrued from community
centers, churches, cancer-screening programs, and employee groups. The
group consisted of 222 healthy volunteers who were frequency-matched to
the cases by age (±5 years), sex, and ethnicity (2:1 for
Mexican-Americans and 1:1 for African-Americans). Because we recruited
Mexican-American cases from Houston, as well as from Galveston and San
Antonio, we matched only very loosely on residence, i.e.,
(Houston/Galveston versus San Antonio). The controls were
recruited from 37 community locations, of which two were prostate
cancer screening programs.
Data Collection.
Epidemiological data were collected by personal interview. After
informed consent was obtained, a structured interview lasting
45 min
was conducted by trained bilingual interviewers. Data were collected on
sociodemographic characteristics, recent and prior tobacco use, other
lifestyle habits, and family history of cancer. At the completion of
the interview, blood was drawn into heparinized tubes for cytogenetic
and molecular genetic analyses.
Polymorphism Analyses.
The subjects were genotyped for the TaqI A and
TaqI B sites of the DRD2 gene using methods
described previously (9)
. Genomic DNA was extracted from
the blood sample and used as a template for the PCR. Primers 5'-CCG TCG
ACC CTT CCT GAG TGT CAT CA-3' and 5'-CCG TCG ACG GCT GGC CAA GTT GTC
TA-3' were used to amplify a 310-bp fragment spanning the polymorphic
TaqI A site of the DRD2 gene. Primers 5'-GAT ACC
CAC TTC AGG AAG TC-3' and 5'-GAT GTG TAG GAA TTA GCC AGG-3' were used
to amplify a 459-bp fragment spanning the polymorphic TaqI B
site of the DRD2 gene. PCR was performed in 30-µl reaction
mixtures containing 1.5 mM
MgCl2, 0.2 mM
deoxynucleotide triphosphates, 0.5 µM primers,
1 µg of template DNA, and 1.5 units of Taq polymerase with a PCR
buffer consisting of 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.4) and
50 mM KCl (Boehringer Mannheim, Indianapolis,
IN). After an initial denaturation at 94°C for 4 min, the DNA was
amplified during 35 cycles of 30 s at 94°C, 30 s at 58°C,
and 30 s at 72°C, followed by a final extension step of 5 min at
72°C. A portion of the PCR product (20 µl) was digested with 5
units of TaqI for 22 h at 65°C to reveal the
DRD2 TaqI A polymorphism and digested with 5 units of
TaqI for 5 h at 65°C to reveal the DRD2
TaqI B polymorphism. Twenty µl of the PCR digestion products
were then resolved on a 3% agarose gel (5 V/cm) containing ethidium
bromide. There were three DRD2 TaqI A genotypes:
(a) the predominant homozygote, A2A2, indicated
by two fragments, 180 and 130 bp; (b) the heterozygote,
A1A2, revealed by three fragments, 310, 180, and 130 bp; and
(c) the rare homozygote, A1A1, shown by the
uncleaved 310-bp fragment. There were also three DRD2
TaqI B genotypes: (a) the predominant
homozygote, B2B2, indicated by two fragments, 267 and 192
bp; (b) the heterozygote, B1B2, revealed by three
fragments, 459, 267, and 192 bp; and (c) the rare
homozygote, B1B1, shown by the uncleaved 459-bp fragment.
Measures and Statistical Analysis.
The DRD2 genotype data were merged with the interview data.
Ever smokers were defined as individuals who had smoked >100
cigarettes in their lifetime. Former smokers were defined as those who
had quit at least 1 year before the interview. Latency was defined as
the length of time that had elapsed since the cessation of smoking.
Pack-years were calculated using the average number of cigarettes
smoked/day and the number of years smoked. Subjects who reported one or
more cases of lung, oral cavity, pharyngeal, esophageal, pleural,
cervical, urinary bladder, kidney, or head and neck cancers among
first-degree relatives were coded as having a positive family history
of smoking-related cancers.
Bivariate relationships were assessed using
2
tests of independence. Fishers exact tests were used to test
independence when cell sizes were small. To adjust for relevant
covariates, the relationship between genotype and a family history of
cancer among first-degree relatives was computed using standard
logistic regression procedures.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
2 test for linear trend found increasing A1
frequency for these three groups, respectively (P =
0.06). The B1 frequencies for never smokers, former smokers, and
current smokers were 0.28, 0.30, and 0.52. The
2 test for linear trend showed a strong trend
(P = 0.005) in increasing B1 frequency for these three
groups. These patterns were not observed among African-American
subjects (data not shown).
|
DRD2 Genotypes and Cancer Risk.
Table 4
shows the associations between self-reported smoking-related cancers
among first-degree relatives and the DRD2 genotypes as a
function of case-control status for the two ethnic groups combined. For
Mexican-Americans, there were an average of 9.0 first-degree
relatives/case and 8.0 first-degree relatives/control. For
African-Americans, there were an average of 8.7 first-degree
relatives/case and 9.5 first-degree relatives/control. After adjusting
for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and the number of first-
degree relatives, case subjects with an A1 allele
(A1A1 or A1A2 genotypes) proved to be 3.6 times
(CI, 1.013.2) more likely to report a family history of
smoking-related cancers among first-degree relatives than were case
subjects without an A1 allele (A2A2 genotype).
Specifically, of the case subjects with an A1 allele, 84.2%
had a family history of smoking-related cancer in a first-degree
relative compared with 15.8% of the individuals with the
A2A2 genotype. In addition, case subjects with a
B1 allele (B1B1 or B1B2) were 1.8
times (CI, 0.55.7) as likely to have a family history of
smoking-related cancer than were case subjects without a B1
allele (B2B2), although the difference in the frequency was
not statistically significant. Among control subjects, there was no
such relationship between A1 or B1 genotypes and
a family history of smoking-related cancers. We also noted a nearly
significant interaction between DRD2 A1 genotypes
and case/control status for increased risk of smoking-related cancer
among first-degree relatives. Case individuals with the DRD2
A1A1 or A1A2 genotypes were 3.7 (CI, 0.816.4) times
more likely to have an affected first-degree relative than other
groups. In addition, case individuals with the DRD2 B1B1 or
B1B2 genotypes were 2.3 (CI, 0.68.7) times more likely to
have an affected first-degree relative than other groups (data not
shown).
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To date, studies of the DRD2 genotypes and smoking primarily have focused on Caucasians. The study reported here is perhaps the first to provide insight into ethnic group-related differences in the DRD2 genotypes. Among Mexican-Americans, we observed a significant relationship between smoking status and the TaqI B genotypes; a similar, but nonsignificant, trend was apparent for the TaqI A genotypes. These findings confirm our previous observations in a study in a Caucasian population (9) . In both instances, never smokers were less likely to have the risk alleles (A1 or B1) than were current smokers. Among African-Americans, however, we observed no relationship between smoking status and the TaqI A or TaqI B genotypes. The discordant findings by smoking status in the two ethnic groups could be attributed to the relatively greater importance of contributing factors such as psychosocial, environmental, or socioeconomic determining the complex behavior of smoking. In addition, there may be ethnic differences in nicotine pharmacokinetics and metabolism. It is plausible that such factors may be more important in determining the ever-smoking status among African-Americans than are the DRD2 genotypes. Furthermore, the B1 allele seems more predictive than the A1 allele in smoking status. The frequency of B1 allele for African-Americans was less than half that for Mexican-Americans.
We also observed that among Mexican-American controls, the
A1 allele frequency increased from 0.35 in never smokers to
0.44 for former smokers, and 0.50 for current smokers with a
2 test for linear trend P of 0.06.
The B1 allele frequencies were 0.28 for never smokers, 0.30
for former smokers, and 0.52 for current smokers with a
2 test for linear trend P of 0.005.
In African-American controls, the A1 allele frequency was
0.41 for never smokers, 0.36 for former smokers, and 0.34 for current
smokers, and the B1 frequency was 0.24 for never smokers,
0.16 for former smokers, and 0.17 for current smokers. In a previously
published study (9)
, we identified A1 allele
frequencies of 0.16 for never smokers, 0.22 for former smokers, and
0.23 for current smokers among Caucasian controls. The B1
frequencies in these Caucasian controls were 0.03, 0.15, and 0.17,
respectively. The B1 allelic frequencies that we observed in
the current study were two times higher among Mexican-Americans (0.38
for cases and 0.36 for controls) than among African-Americans (0.16 for
cases and 0.19 for controls). This point suggests a need to determine
how, and the extent to which, these allelic differences translate into
ethnic differences in the effects of nicotine, both behaviorally and
biologically.
It was a somewhat unexpected finding that the relationships between DRD2 and several of the smoking phenotypes were observed among controls but not among lung cancer cases. For example, smoking status was strongly related to TaqI B1 allele frequencies among Mexican-American controls but not among Mexican-American cases. It is possible that factors other than DRD2 are stronger contributors to tobacco use as well as development of lung cancer. For example, the CYP2A6 gene, which has been shown to be related to nicotine metabolism and lung cancer susceptibility (29) , may be a more influential factor for tobacco use among lung cancer patients.
There is a pressing demand for studies that elucidate the functional effects of genetic polymorphisms. For example, although there is some evidence that the presence of an A1 allele is associated with a decreased number of D2 dopamine receptors in the brain (16) , the mechanism by which the DRD2 A1 or B1 alleles increase susceptibility to tobacco use are not known. One possible mechanism is that this decreased density of receptors results in a deficiently functioning dopamine reward system, such that persons with an A1 allele experience an enhanced reward when exposed to dopaminergic agents, rendering them more vulnerable to nicotine dependence. However, until researchers can delineate the mechanisms by which genetic variants alter the biological and psychological effects of nicotine, we cannot fully understand the observed relationships between genes and smoking behavior.
This study is the first to examine the relationship between the DRD2 genotypes and a family cancer history. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that the A1 and B1 alleles are risk factors for smoking and that if these polymorphisms segregate in families, the rates of smoking-related cancers among the first-degree relatives of probands with these genotypes would be elevated. However, our results supported this hypothesis only for cases with the A1 allele. In particular, the odds of a person with an A1 allele (A1A1 or A1A2 genotypes) having a positive family history was more than three times greater than that for persons with the A2A2 genotype. Although the risk estimate is large, its confidence intervals are wide. This hypothesis therefore needs to be examined further in larger studies. We also observed a similar but smaller trend for the B1 risk allele, but the difference seen for the B1 and B2 alleles was not statistically significant, suggesting that the A1 allele is a more powerful risk factor for this phenotype than the B1 allele is. Regardless, a relationship between the DRD2 alleles and a family history of tobacco-related cancers was found only among case subjects, suggesting that a genetic susceptibility to tobacco exposure was also associated (or aggregated) with a predisposition to smoking. Among control subjects, on the other hand, persons with the dopamine receptor genes appear to be at an elevated risk for smoking, but this elevated smoking risk does not appear to translate into a familial risk of tobacco-related cancers. We also noted a nearly significant interaction between DRD2 A2 genotypes and case/control status for increased risk of smoking-related cancer among first-degree relatives. A large study is needed to confirm this finding.
The present study was limited in that it examined a narrow range of phenotypes. If we are to gain a better understanding of a genetic predisposition to tobacco use and/or nicotine dependence, investigators must examine a more comprehensive range of phenotypes, such as measures of dependence, the rate of convergence on regular smoking, biological measures of nicotine pharmacokinetics, and receptor activity. Further drawbacks in our study were that the smoking-related phenotypes were assessed retrospectively in study participants, and all data were self-reported without subsequent verification. In addition, it is possible that the validity of the self-reported data may vary between cases and controls. The potential for recall bias regarding first-degree relatives with a tobacco-related cancer should be considered when interpreting the results of our study.
There is little debate that the dopamine reward system is involved in the development of nicotine addiction and patterns of tobacco use, although other neurotransmitters and factors such as nicotine metabolism also appear to play a role. The extent to which genetic makeup modulates susceptibility to tobacco use and the development of nicotine dependence is not entirely clear. Although there does not appear to be a single gene that can serve as a predictor of smoking behavior, it is possible that if the candidate genes are examined in combination, in the form of a genetic risk profile, researchers may be able to gain a clearer picture of the extent to which genetics plays a role in tobacco use.
Even if genetics does play an important role in tobacco use and nicotine addiction, it is not likely that knowledge of genetic risk alone could lead to the development of effective tobacco prevention strategies. Smoking is a complex behavior that also results from a host of environmental and psychological factors. Future research efforts should therefore focus on an integrative approach that incorporates psychological, social, cultural, behavioral, pharmacological, and genetic influences, as well as the interactions among these factors (30) .
| Footnotes |
|---|
1 Supported by NIH Grant RO1 CA 55769 and by a
Faculty Achievement Award from the Physician Referral Service at The
University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (to M. R. S.). ![]()
2 To whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, at Department of Epidemiology, Box 189, The University of
Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston,
TX 77030. Phone: (713) 745-2485; Fax: (713) 792-0807; E-mail: xwu{at}notes.mdacc.tmc.edu ![]()
3 The abbreviations used are: DRD2,
D2 dopamine receptor gene; CI, confidence interval. ![]()
Received 11/18/99; revised 6/ 6/00; accepted 7/13/00.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Quaak, C. P. van Schayck, A. M. Knaapen, and F. J. van Schooten Genetic variation as a predictor of smoking cessation success. A promising preventive and intervention tool for chronic respiratory diseases? Eur. Respir. J., March 1, 2009; 33(3): 468 - 480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. R. Munafo, N. J. Timpson, S. P. David, S. Ebrahim, and D. A. Lawlor Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and smoking behavior: a meta-analysis and new data Nicotine Tob Res, January 27, 2009; (2009) ntn012v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Batra, A. A. Patkar, W. H. Berrettini, S. P. Weinstein, and F. T. Leone The Genetic Determinants of Smoking Chest, May 1, 2003; 123(5): 1730 - 1739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. S. Albert, D. Ratnasinghe, J. Tangrea, and S. Wacholder Limitations of the Case-only Design for Identifying Gene-Environment Interactions Am. J. Epidemiol., October 15, 2001; 154(8): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 |