| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Advances in Brief |
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 [A. P. C.]; Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 [A. P. C., K. A. M., J. F. F., A. W. H.]; Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai 200032, China [Y-T. G., J. D.]; Cancer Prevention Research Unit, Jewish General Hospital and Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Ontario H3T 1E2, Canada [M. P.]; and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC 20306 [I. A. S, F. K. M.]
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Blood Collection and Laboratory Assays.
Two hundred cases and 330 controls (82 and 70% of those interviewed, respectively) provided 20 ml of fasting blood for the study. Samples were processed within 3 h of collection at a central laboratory in Shanghai. DNA extracted from the buffy coat fractions was used for VDR genotyping, whereas IGFs and IGFBPs were quantified from the plasma samples. All laboratory personnel were masked to case-control status, and samples from cases and controls were physically arranged and assayed in an alternating fashion to minimize bias attributable to day-to-day laboratory variation.
Plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-3 were determined using ELISA kits from Diagnostic Systems Laboratories (Webster, TX). Analytical sensitivities of the assays are 0.03, 2.4, 0.04, and 0.04 ng/ml, respectively. For all four analytes, each sample was assayed twice, and the mean of the two determinations was used for data analysis.
We genotyped the study subjects for both the 5' FokI and the 3' BsmI VDR markers; the latter were in linkage disequilibrium with other 3' markers, including TaqI, and poly(A) (2) . For each VDR gene marker, 50 ng of genomic DNA were amplified by PCR in a total volume of 10 µl using the primers described by Morrison et al. (16) for the BsmI marker and by Gross et al. (17) for the FokI marker. After sequence-specific digestion with either 2 units of BsmI or 0.8 unit of FokI restriction enzyme (New England Biolabs), the samples were electrophoresed through a 2% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide and scored for genotypes of the BsmI (bb, Bb, or BB) and FokI (FF, Ff, or ff) markers, where lowercase and uppercase letters indicate alleles in which the restriction sites are present and absent, respectively.
Statistical Analysis.
We performed Mantel-Haenszel
2 analyses to assess the association of the FokI and BsmI markers with prostate cancer. To avoid a potential treatment effect among cases, only cases whose blood samples were collected at least 1 day prior to treatment were included in analyses involving plasma levels of IGFs (n = 120). Stratified analyses were used to identify potential confounding factors of the BsmI and FokI markers and to assess potential combined effects with IGFs and IGFBPs. Using pairwise t tests from linear regression models, we compared the age-adjusted mean plasma levels of IGFBP-1, IGFBP-3, IGF-I, and IGF-II across VDR FokI genotypes among controls. Unconditional logistic regression was used to generate ORs and 95% CIs estimating the combined effects of the VDR FokI marker with either IGFs or IGFBPs on prostate cancer after adjustment for other potential risk factors, including age, anthropometric factors, and dietary intake (18)
. Levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-3 among cases and controls were categorized according to medians and tertiles defined by the distributions among controls. All presented Ps are two-sided.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The BsmI and FokI genotyping results are shown in Table 1
. Among the population controls, the prevalences of each of the bb, Bb, and BB BsmI genotypes were 87.2, 10.4, and 2.4%, respectively, yielding only 7 controls with the BB genotype. For the FokI marker, the prevalences of the FF, Ff, and ff FokI genotypes were 28.8, 50.7, and 20.5%, respectively. Both markers were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. We found no significant association of either marker with total prostate cancer risk or stage-specific cancer (clinical staging: early versus late). However, despite the fact that early-stage cancers made up only one-third of the total case group, all four cases with the BB BsmI genotype had early-stage disease.
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Previous studies of the BsmI polymorphism among African-Americans (4) and Caucasian-Americans (5) have also shown no association with prostate cancer risk, although a study among Japanese men (also a low-risk population) found a significant reduction in risk associated with the B allele (3) . The higher prevalence of the B allele in the Japanese study (3) relative to the current investigation (27% versus 8% among controls, respectively) is unlikely to explain the difference in results, because both United States studies had even higher B allele prevalences (3241%; Refs. 4 and 5 ).
In contrast to the BsmI marker and other 3' polymorphisms of the VDR gene [including ApaI, TaqI, and poly(A)], polymorphism of the 5' FokI site alters the VDR amino acid sequence; the F and f alleles of the FokI marker encode VDR proteins of 424 and 427 amino acids, respectively (19) . Recent data suggest that the VDR coded by the F allele of the FokI polymorphism is more responsive to vitamin D than that coded by the f allele (19) . However, we found no significant association of the FokI polymorphism with prostate cancer risk, despite high prevalence of the f allele (46%). Similarly, the only other published study of FokI and prostate cancer, conducted in a European population with an f allele prevalence of 34%, also showed no association (6) .
In cross-sectional analyses, we found that controls with the ff genotype of the FokI marker had significantly higher mean IGFBP-1 levels and significantly lower mean IGF-II levels than those with the FF or Ff genotypes. Indeed, systemic IGFBP-1 levels were elevated in parallel with increasing copies of the f FokI allele. Given that we previously found that IGFBP-1 levels were inversely related to prostate cancer risk in this population (12) , our results suggest that the reduced risk associated with the ff genotype might be mediated through elevated levels of IGFBP-1. However, the overall null results for FokI polymorphism genotypes on prostate cancer risk seem inconsistent with this notion, calling for further studies to elucidate the relationships observed. Furthermore, because systemic IGF-II levels have not been found to be associated with prostate cancer risk in our study and in others (11 , 12) , the implication of the significant difference in systemic IGF-II levels between the FF/Ff and the ff genotypes is unclear.
In the current study, we found that levels of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3 were associated with reduced prostate cancer risk only among men with the ff genotype of the FokI polymorphism, but neither of the IGFBPs was related to prostate cancer risk among those with the FF and Ff genotypes. Given that the shorter VDR encoded by the F allele may be more effective at exerting vitamin D effects than that coded by the f allele (19) , our results suggest that systemic levels of IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-1 are associated with risk reduction only among men with presumably lower VDR function. This issue should be investigated further, particularly because increases in IGFBP levels after vitamin D administration in laboratory studies occur at the local rather than systemic level (7, 8, 9) , and it is as yet unclear how systemic and local levels of IGFBPs and IGFs are related.
The association of the ff FokI genotype with prostate cancer relative to the FF and Ff genotypes differed by systemic IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-1 levels. Indeed, the ff genotype was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer in the lowest IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3 tertiles and decreased risk in the highest tertiles. Reasons for these findings are unclear.
The biological mechanism underlying the differential effects of IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-1 according to FokI genotype, if confirmed in other studies of prostate cancer, is as yet unclear. One possible mechanism is that, if the VDR coded by the F FokI allele (F-VDR) is indeed more transcriptionally active than that coded by the f allele (19)
, men with the F allele (either the FF or Ff genotypes) may more easily activate the local, prostatic IGFBP expression that occurs in rats and in cultured human cells in response to vitamin D administration (7, 8, 9)
, thus inhibiting prostate cellular proliferation irrespective of systemic IGFBP levels (Fig. 1A)
. In contrast, men without the VDR coded by the F allele (those with the ff genotype) would have a lowered production of local IGFBPs so that inhibition of IGF-mediated cellular proliferation would be more dependent on systemic IGFBP levels (Fig. 1B)
. It should be noted, however, that it is as yet unclear whether systemic IGFBPs can influence local IGFBP levels. Other possible mechanisms exist as well; because IGFBP-3 can bind to the retinoid X receptor
(an obligatory cofactor of the VDR) to induce apoptosis in prostate cancer cells (20)
, IGFBPs may also interact directly with the VDR, or even replace it under certain circumstances, to effect transcriptional change. Such mechanisms are speculative at this point but may provide directions for further research to explain the interactions observed in our study. It is also noteworthy that although the FokI genotypes appeared to interact with systemic levels of both IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3, the correlation of FokI genotype with levels of IGFBP-1, but not IGFBP-3, suggest that different mechanisms may be involved for each observed interaction.
|
In summary, the results of this study suggest that the BsmI VDR gene polymorphism is not related to prostate cancer (though a small effect cannot be ruled out), and that the ff genotype of the FokI VDR gene polymorphism may combine with systemic levels of IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-1 to modulate disease risk. Indeed, it appears that the inverse association of both IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-1 with prostate cancer we observed previously in this population (12) is confined to men with the ff FokI genotype. These results suggest that the vitamin D regulatory system and the IGF axis may interact to influence prostate cancer risk. These findings should be explored in large prospective investigations of populations at varying risk of prostate cancer that include measurements of circulating vitamin D metabolites.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, EPS-MSC-7234, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7234. Phone: (301) 496-1691; Fax: (301) 402-0916; E-mail: chokkala{at}mail.nih.gov ![]()
2 The abbreviations used are: 1,25(OH)2D3, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3; VDR, vitamin D receptor; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; IGFBP, insulin-like growth factor binding protein; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. ![]()
Received 1/26/01. Accepted 4/ 9/01.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
regulate transcriptional signaling and apoptosis. J. Biol. Chem., 275: 33607-33613, 2000.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. Chen, G. Davey Smith, D. M. Evans, A. Cox, D. A. Lawlor, J. Donovan, W. Yuan, I. N. M. Day, R. M. Martin, A. Lane, et al. Genetic Variants in the Vitamin D Receptor Are Associated with Advanced Prostate Cancer at Diagnosis: Findings from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment Study and a Systematic Review Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2009; 18(11): 2874 - 2881. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. KOSTNER, N. DENZER, C. S.L. MULLER, R. KLEIN, W. TILGEN, and J. REICHRATH The Relevance of Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) Gene Polymorphisms for Cancer: A Review of the Literature Anticancer Res, September 1, 2009; 29(9): 3511 - 3536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. H. Onen, A. Ekmekci, M. Eroglu, E. Konac, S. Yesil, and H. Biri Association of Genetic Polymorphisms in Vitamin D Receptor Gene and Susceptibility to Sporadic Prostate Cancer Experimental Biology and Medicine, December 1, 2008; 233(12): 1608 - 1614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. E. Mullin and A. Dobs Vitamin D and Its Role in Cancer and Immunity: A Prescription for Sunlight Nutr Clin Pract, June 1, 2007; 22(3): 305 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Diorio, S. Berube, C. Byrne, B. Masse, N. Hebert-Croteau, M. Yaffe, G. Cote, M. Pollak, and J. Brisson Influence of Insulin-like Growth Factors on the Strength of the Relation of Vitamin D and Calcium Intakes to Mammographic Breast Density Cancer Res., January 1, 2006; 66(1): 588 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. John, G. G. Schwartz, J. Koo, D. Van Den Berg, and S. A. Ingles Sun Exposure, Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms, and Risk of Advanced Prostate Cancer Cancer Res., June 15, 2005; 65(12): 5470 - 5479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Schildkraut, W. Demark-Wahnefried, R. M. Wenham, J. Grubber, A. S. Jeffreys, S. C. Grambow, J. R. Marks, P. G. Moorman, C. Hoyo, S. Ali, et al. IGF1 (CA)19 Repeat and IGFBP3 -202 A/C Genotypes and the Risk of Prostate Cancer in Black and White Men Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2005; 14(2): 403 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. L. Slattery, W. Samowitz, K. Curtin, K. N. Ma, M. Hoffman, B. Caan, and S. Neuhausen Associations among IRS1, IRS2, IGF1, and IGFBP3 Genetic Polymorphisms and Colorectal Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2004; 13(7): 1206 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Ntais, A. Polycarpou, and J. P. A. Ioannidis Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2003; 12(12): 1395 - 1402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. K. Nam, W. W. Zhang, J. Trachtenberg, M. A. S. Jewett, M. Emami, D. Vesprini, W. Chu, M. Ho, J. Sweet, A. Evans, et al. Comprehensive Assessment of Candidate Genes and Serological Markers for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2003; 12(12): 1429 - 1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H.-L. Wong, A. Seow, K. Arakawa, H.-P. Lee, M. C. Yu, and S. A. Ingles Vitamin D receptor start codon polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk: effect modification by dietary calcium and fat in Singapore Chinese Carcinogenesis, June 1, 2003; 24(6): 1091 - 1095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Xu, A. Shibata, J. E. McNeal, T. A. Stamey, D. Feldman, and D. M. Peehl Vitamin D Receptor Start Codon Polymorphism (FokI) and Prostate Cancer Progression Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2003; 12(1): 23 - 27. [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 |