Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

No association between TGF-β1 polymorphisms and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a large North African case-control study

  • Wafa Khaali1, 2Email author,
  • Khalid Moumad1,
  • El Khalil Ben Driss2,
  • Abdellatif Benider3,
  • Wided Ben Ayoub4,
  • Mokhtar Hamdi-Cherif5,
  • Kada Boualga6,
  • Elham Hassen7,
  • Marilys Corbex8 and
  • Meriem Khyatti1Email author
BMC Medical GeneticsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201617:72

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12881-016-0337-8

Received: 4 July 2015

Accepted: 7 October 2016

Published: 12 October 2016

Abstract

Background

Genetic susceptibility plays a key role in the development of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and in fact the disease presents with an unusually high incidence in certain regions of the world like North Africa. We investigated the association between polymorphism of the Transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) and risk of NPC in North Africa. TGF-β1 is a multifunctional cytokine that acts as both a tumor suppressor and a stimulator of cancer development; it has been shown to influence risk of numerous other carcinomas including lung, breast and prostate cancer.

Methods

TGF-β1 polymorphisms C-509T and T869C were studied in a large North African sample of 384 NPC cases and 361 controls, matched for age, sex and urban or rural residence in childhood. Genotypes were determined using polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism.

Results

No association was observed between individual single nucleotide polymorphisms or their haplotypes and NPC susceptibility (for TGF-β1 C-509T: OR = 0.74; 95 % CI 0.46 − 1.18; for TGF-β1 T869C: OR = 0.86; 95 % CI 0.56 − 1.31), even when the samples were stratified by age, gender and TNM stage.

Conclusion

Contrary to what has been observed in Asian samples, in our North African sample, the TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms did not substantially influence NPC susceptibility.

Keywords

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma TGF-β1 Single nucleotide polymorphisms Genetic susceptibility North African population

Background

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is an epithelial malignancy arising from the mucosal epithelium of the nasopharynx [1]. It is a highly invasive and metastatic malignant tumor that differs significantly from other cancers of the head and neck in its distinct geographical distribution, causes, occurrence and clinical attributes [2, 3]. Both environmental factors (Epstein Barr virus & dietary factors) and genetic susceptibility play roles in the development of NPC [4, 5]. Although it is a rare malignancy in most parts of the world, NPC is endemic in a few well-defined populations such as those native in Southeast Asia, where the incidence is nearly 20–60 times higher than that reported in Western countries [68]. In North Africa, NPC is one of the most common head and neck cancers with an incidence rate around 3.5–10 per 100,000 inhabitants. In contrast to high-risk areas of Asia, the age-incidence curve in this intermediate-risk area is bimodal, with a first peak in the teens and a second at 45–60 years [9, 10].

Transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) is the most abundant isoform of the TGF-β and can regulate both immune system and cellular functions [1113]. The TGF-β1 gene is located on chromosome 19q13.1–3 [14, 15]. Hundreds of single nucleotide polymorphisms have been reported for TGF-β1 and several of them are functional [16, 17]. The genetic variants of the TGF-β1 gene have been implicated in the susceptibility of a large range of carcinoma, including lung cancer [18], oropharyngeal cancer [19], prostate cancer [20] and breast cancer [21, 22]. The C-509T and T869C are the most commonly studied polymorphisms since it has been shown that they affect the expression of the TGF-β1 protein and gene–dose effects have been observed [2325]. It has been reported that NPC patients display a lower level of TGF-β1 in plasma and a higher level in tumor tissues and surrounding stroma compared to healthy controls [2628]. To date, three studies have investigated the association between TGF-β1 and NPC. They all focused on the C-509T and T869C polymorphisms and were all conducted in Chinese populations. In 2007, Wei et al. studying a sample of 108 NPC cases and 120 controls reported a significant increase of risk for the -509T allele (OR = 1.64) as well as for the 869C allele (OR = 1.70) [29]. In 2012, Hu et al. studying a sample of 522 NPC cases and 712 controls reported a significant decrease of risk for the −509T allele (OR = 0.67) and no association with the T869C polymorphism. Furthermore they showed that the −509C allele drive an ~1.7-fold increase of TGF-β1 expression in NPC cell lines [30]. In 2014, Qu et al. studying a sample of 194 cases and 231 controls did not report any significant association with NPC [31]. In view of these results it seemed relevant to study further the association of the TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms with NPC risk. The present study is the very first to investigate this association in the North African population.

Methods

Study population

Details of the sample used here, 384 NPC cases and 361 controls from the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) international study of NPC are described elsewhere [4, 32]. Briefly, all cases and controls were recruited in the three North African countries Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia where NPC incidence is the highest. Inclusion criteria stipulated that all four grandparents of each subject were of Moroccan, Algerian or Tunisian origin in order to avoid all risk of admixture bias. The control group consisted of unrelated subjects frequency matched with cases on recruitment center, sex, age and household in childhood (urban or rural). Detailed demographic and epidemiologic data as well as blood samples were obtained from each subject at time of recruitment using a questionnaire designed at the International Agency for Research on Cancer. All subjects gave informed consent for the study, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer ethical committee approved the study.

DNA extraction and genotyping

The peripheral venous blood was collected from all enrolled NPC patients and controls. Genomic DNA was extracted from the peripheral venous blood using the proteinase K digestion and phenol–chloroform extraction or using the Gentra Puregene Blood Kit.

The TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C genotypes were determined by using a polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism method. As published by Kang et al. [18], the PCR primers for the C-509T (rs1800469) and T869C (rs1800470) polymorphisms were 5′- GGGTCCCTCTGGGCCCAGTT-3′ (forward) and 5′-GGGGGCAACAGGACACCCGA-3′ (reverse); and 5′-ACCACACCAGCCCTGTTC- 3′ (forward) and 5′-GATGGCCTCGATGCGCTT-3′ (reverse), respectively. The PCRs were performed in a total volume of 25 μl containing ~ 50 ng genomic DNA, 0.2 mM dNTP, 2.0 mM MgCl2, 0.25 μM each primer, and 1 unit of Taq polymerase (Go Taq DNA Polymerase, Promega). The PCR cycle conditions consisted of an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 5 min followed by 35 cycles of 35 s at 94 °C; 30 s at 60 °C for C-509T and 58 °C for T869C; 30 s at 72 °C; and a final elongation at 72 °C for 7 min. The PCR products were incubated overnight at 37 °C with the appropriate restriction enzymes. The restriction enzymes for the C-509T and T869C genotypes were AvaI and MspA1I, respectively. The digested PCR products were resolved on 2 and 6 % agarose gel respectively and stained with Ethidium Bromide for visualization under U.V light.

Quality control

A random sample representing 20 % of the cases and controls was blindly tested twice by different investigators, and the results were concordant for all duplicate sets.

Statistical analysis

Genotype and allele frequencies of TGF-β1 were compared between NPC cases and controls using the Chi-squared (χ2) test, the odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the relative risk. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested for with a goodness of fit χ2 test with one degree of freedom to compare the observed genotype frequencies among the subjects with the expected genotype frequencies. The linkage disequilibrium (LD) between the polymorphisms was quantified using Haploview 4.2 software. The SPSS 20.0 statistical software package (Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. The haplotypes and their frequencies were estimated using the HAPSTAT 3.0 software. Statistical significance was assumed at the P < 0.05 level. Power calculation was performed using the University of British Columbia tool for power calculation (http://www.stat.ubc.ca/~rollin/stats/ssize/).

Results

The demographics of the cases and controls are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population

Characteristics

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

P-valuea

Whole sample

384

361

 

Gender

 Male

263 (68.49)

243 (67.31)

0.731

 Female

121 (31.51)

118 (32.69)

 

 Age mean (years)

42.24

43.58

 

Age

  ≤30

101 (26.30)

83 (22.99)

0.295

  >30

283 (73.70)

278 (77.01)

 

Country

 Tunisia

190 (49.48)

172 (47.65)

0.852

 Morocco

180 (46.88)

174 (48.20)

 

 Algeria

14 (3.65)

15 (4.16)

 

TNM stageb

 I

0

-

 

 II

13 (4.55)

-

 

 III

65 (22.73)

-

 

 IV

208 (72.73)

-

 

a P-value of χ2 comparing cases and controls

bTNM was missing for 98 cases out of 384

The genotypes and alleles frequencies of the TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms among the controls and the cases are shown in Table 2. Haplotype analyses were performed and the possible four haplotype frequencies are shown in Table 3. Genotypic distributions were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in cases and in controls (P > 0.05) and the two polymorphisms were in relatively strong linkage disequilibrium (LD), |D′| = 0.65. None of the polymorphisms studied nor their haplotypes appeared to be associated with NPC risk.
Table 2

Genotype and allele distributions of TGF-β1 polymorphisms in NPC cases and controls. Odd Ratios obtained by univariate and multivariate analyses

Polymorphism

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

OR (CI 95 %)b

P-value

TGF-β1 −509

 Genotype

  CC

127 (39.20)

120 (37.03)

1.00

-

1.00

-

  CT

153 (47.22)

148 (45.68)

0.97 (0.69–1.36)

0.891

0.97 (0.69–1.37)

0.879

  TT

44 (13.58)

56 (17.29)

0.74 (0.46–1.18)

0.211

0.73 (0.45–1.17)

0.194

 Allele

  C

407 (62.47)

388 (59.87)

1.00

-

1.00

-

  T

241 (37.53)

260 (40.12)

0.88 (0.70–1.10)

0.278

0.87 (0.70–1.10)

0.251

TGF–β1 869

 Genotype

  TT

132 (36.57)

119 (35.52)

1.00

-

1.00

-

  TC

165 (45.70)

149 (44.48)

0.99 (0.71–1.39)

0.992

0.99 (0.71–1.38)

0.955

  CC

64 (17.72)

67 (20.00)

0.86 (0.56–1.31)

0.488

0.80 (0.52–1.23)

0.312

 Allele

  T

429 (59.91)

387 (57.76)

1.00

-

1.00

-

  C

293 (40.09)

283 (42.23)

0.93 (0.75–1.15)

0.530

0.92 (0.75–1.14)

0.453

n number of subjects

aUnadjusted Odds ratios and confidence interval for case-control comparison

bOdds ratios and confidence interval adjusted on age, sex and country

Table 3

Haplotype distribution of TGF-β1 polymorphisms in NPC cases and controls

Haplotype TGF-β1 −509–TGF-β1 869

Cases 2n = 600 (%)

Controls 2n = 598 (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

C– T

295 (49.17)

304 (50.84)

1.00

-

T– C

190 (31.67)

183 (30.60)

1.07 (0.82–1.38)

0.608

C– C

69 (11.50)

60 (10.03)

1.18 (0.80–1.73)

0.382

T– T

46 (7.66)

51 (8.53)

0.92 (0.60–1.43)

0.738

n number of subjects

aUnadjusted Odds ratios and confidence interval for case-control comparison

As cases from the first age incidence peak (≤30) are believed to have a strongest genetic susceptibility, we tested association between NPC risk and TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms in the subgroups ≤30 and >30 year of age. No significant association was observed (Table 4).
Table 4

Distribution of TGF-β1 polymorphisms genotypes according to age and sex in NPC cases and controls

 

≤30

>30

Genotype

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

TGF-β1 −509

 CC

26 (30.23)

30 (38.96)

1.00

-

101 (42.44)

90 (36.44)

1.00

-

 CT

42 (48.84)

31 (40.26)

1.56 (0.77–3.15)

0.211

111 (46.64)

117 (47.37)

0.85 (0.58–1.24)

0.392

 TT

18 (20.93)

16 (20.78)

1.30 (0.55–3.05)

0.549

26 (10.92)

40 (16.19)

0.58 (0.32–1.02)

0.060

TGF-β1 869

 TT

32 (34.04)

23 (29.49)

1.00

-

100 (37.45)

96 (37.35)

1.00

-

 CT

44 (46.81)

42 (53.85)

0.75 (0.38–1.49)

0.415

121 (45.32)

107 (41.63)

1.09 (0.74–1.59)

0.674

 CC

18 (19.15)

13 (16.67)

0.99 (0.41–2.43)

0.992

46 (17.23)

54 (21.01)

0.82 (0.50–1.32)

0.414

 

Men

Women

Genotype

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

Cases n (%)

Controls n (%)

OR (CI 95 %)a

P-value

TGF-β1 −509

 CC

88 (40. 00)

82 (37.27)

1.00

-

39 (37.50)

38 (36.54)

1.00

-

 CT

100 (45.45)

95 (43.18)

0.98 (0.65–1.48)

0.927

53 (50.96)

53 (50.96)

0.97 (0.54–1.75)

0.931

 TT

32 (14.55)

43 (19.55)

0.69 (0.40–1.20)

0.190

12 (11.54)

13 (12.50)

0.90 (0.36–2.22)

0.818

TGF-β1 869

 TT

90 (36.00)

80 (36.20)

1.00

-

42 (37.84)

39 (34.21)

1.00

-

 CT

105 (42.00)

94 (42.53)

0.99 (0.66–1.50)

0.973

60 (54.05)

55 (48.25)

1.01 (0.57–1.80)

0.965

 CC

55 (22.00)

47 (21.27)

1.04 (0.63–1.70)

0.875

9 (8.11)

20 (17.54)

0.42 (0.17–1.03)

0.057

n number of subjects

aUnadjusted Odds ratios and confidence interval for case-control comparison

As NPC is more frequent among men than women [33, 34], we also stratified the analysis by sex but no association between the two polymorphisms and NPC risk was observed (Table 4).

Assuming that TGF-β1 plays a dual role in tumor suppression and oncogenesis [13, 35], we examined the association between the two TGF-β1 polymorphisms with TNM stage. However, no significant differences were found (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Discussion

To date, the effect of the TGF-β1 gene on NPC susceptibility has been explored in only three case-control studies, all of them conducted in Chinese samples, but the results were conflicting. Wei et al. reported that the −509T and 869C alleles were associated with a significant increase of risk while Hu et al. [30] found that the −509T allele was associated with a reduced risk (and no association was observed with T869C). Finally, Qu et al. [31] found no association while they had the statistical power to find associations of the size of the ones described by Wei et al. [29].

In our North African sample, we did not find any significant associations between C-509T and T869C and risk of NPC, while we had the power to find association of the size of the ones reported previously. Our sample conferred 80 % power to detect OR above 1.37 or below 0.72 for the −509T allele and above 1.35 for the 869C allele.

The frequencies of the TGF-β1 alleles studied in our North African sample were quite similar to the one reported in the Chinese samples. Frequencies of the −509T and 869C were 0.401 and 0.422, respectively among our North African controls compared to 0.508 and 0.496 in Wei et al. control group, 0.478 and 0.488 in Hu et al. control group and 0.480 and 0.471 in Qu et al. control group [2931]. These frequencies are higher than those observed among European Caucasians (0.110 and 0.180 respectively in a Spanish sample [36]; 0.102 and 0.171 in a Czech sample [37]). We also measured the LD between the two polymorphisms studied and found that its extent in control subjects in China [29] (|D′| = 0.914) was stronger than that in our study (|D′| = 0.65) and in Caucasian subjects from the UK (|D′| = 0.737) [38]. In addition, the frequencies of the two major haplotypes −509C/869T and −509T/869C among our controls were 0.508 and 0.306, respectively, which was relatively similar to those observed in the Chinese samples (0.429 and 0.433, respectively) [29] and the UK sample (0.640 and 0.240, respectively) [39].

Our study has both strengths and limitations. Its rigorous case-control design (with matching of cases and controls and check on the ethnicity of the four grand parents of each subject) and the detailed epidemiological and clinical evaluation are its main strength. The sample size is quite large in regards of the incidence of NPC in North Africa; 4 years of recruitment in six centers across three countries were necessary to gather the sample studied here. However, the sample size remains limited and it is possible that in a larger sample, and with more SNP’s studied, one could detect a significant association between TGF-β1 polymorphism and NPC risk.

To date studies of TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms effects on risks of cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma [40, 41], breast cancer [22, 42], gastric cancer [43, 44], and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) [45, 46] have also yielded somewhat conflicting results. For example medium size studies of ESCC (including about 250 cases) performed in Chinese samples resulted for one in the 869C allele to be associated with increased risk of ESCC while C-509T was not associated [45] and for the other study, in T869C not to be associated while the −509T allele was associated with reduced risk [46].

Recruitment biases and small sample sizes may explain the discrepancies observed. However, variations in genetic backgrounds and environmental factors among populations might also generate discrepancies. The function of the TGF-β1 protein is complex and the true relationship between TGF-β1 and NPC may be modulated by gene-gene or gene-environment interactions. Cancer is a multifactorial disease and variations across populations in environmental exposure and genetic susceptibility may generate unclear results in association studies. The results obtained so far highlight the need to perform studies on large-size samples and in various geographic areas.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the TGF-β1 C-509T and T869C polymorphisms are not associated to NPC susceptibility in the North African population, or if such an association exists it is too weak to be detected with a sample of 384 cases and 361 controls.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge all the study subjects and their family for their participation in this study and the Association for International Cancer Research for the support.

Funding

The study was funded by the Association for International Cancer Research (grant number 03-252).

Availability of data and material

The data supporting the conclusions have been provided in the manuscript and as additional file. Any further information can be made available on request to the corresponding authors.

Authors’ contributions

MK, MC contributed to the study design and revised the manuscript. MK, AB, WBA, MHC KB, EH contributed to the recruitment of the subject and the collection of the clinical data. WK, KM performed the genotyping. WK, KM, MC, EBD analyzed the data. WK wrote the paper with input of MC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

A written informed consent for publication was obtained from each patient or responsible family member.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The International Agency for Research on Cancer ethical committee approved the study. All participants gave written informed consent.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Oncovirology Laboratory, Institut Pasteur du Maroc
(2)
Departement of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Abdelmalek Essaadi University
(3)
Service de Radiothérapie, Centre d’oncologie Ibn Rochd
(4)
Association Tunisienne de Lutte Contre le Cancer
(5)
Service d’épidémiologie, CHU de Sétif
(6)
Service de Radiothérapie Oncologique, Centre Anti-Cancer de Blida
(7)
Molecular Immuno-Oncology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Monastir University
(8)
Who Regional Office for Europe

References

  1. Wei WI, Sham JS. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet. 2005;365:2041–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Afqir S, Ismaili N, Errihani H. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the management of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: current status. J Cancer Res Ther. 2009;5:3–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yoshizaki T, Ito M, Murono S, et al. Current understanding and management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2012;39:137–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Feng BJ, Khyatti M, Ben-Ayoub W, et al. Cannabis, tobacco and domestic fumes intake are associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in North Africa. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1207–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Simons MJ. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma as a paradigm of cancer genetics. Chin J Cancer. 2011;30:79–84.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. McDermott AL, Dutt SN, Watkinson JC. The aetiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2001;26:82–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Yu MC, Yuan JM. Epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Semin Cancer Biol. 2002;12:421–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Wei KR, Yu YL, Yang YY, et al. Epidemiological trends of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11:29–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Spano J, Busson P, Atlan D, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinomas: an update. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2121–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bray F, Haugen M, Moger TA, et al. Age-incidence curves of nasopharyngeal carcinoma worldwide: bimodality in low-risk populations and aetiologic implications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:2356–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Border WA, Noble NA. Transforming growth factor beta in tissue fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1286–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pardali K, Moustakas A. Actions of TGF-beta as tumor suppressor and pro-metastatic factor in human cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007;1775:21–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Massague J. TGFbeta in cancer. Cell. 2008;134:215–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujii D, Brissenden JE, Derynck R, Francke U. Transforming growth factor beta gene maps to human chromosome 19 long arm and to mouse chromosome 7. Somat Cell Mol Genet. 1986;12:281–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Derynck R, Rhee L, Chen EY, Van Tilburg A. Intron-exon structure of the human transforming growth factor-beta precursor gene. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987;15:3188–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Peters CA, Stock RG, Cesaretti JA, et al. TGFB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with adverse quality of life in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:752–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Guan X, Zhao H, Niu J, et al. Polymorphisms of TGFB1 and VEGF genes and survival of patients with gastric cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28:94–9966. 28-94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang HG, Chae MH, Park JM, et al. Polymorphisms in TGF-beta1 gene and the risk of lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:1–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Guan X, Sturgis EM, Lei D, et al. Association of TGF-beta1 genetic variants with HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1416–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Li Z, Habuchi T, Tsuchiya N, et al. Increased risk of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with transforming growth factor-beta 1 gene polymorphism at codon10. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:237–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Shin A, Shu XO, Cai Q, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of the transforming growth factor-beta1 gene and breast cancer risk: a possible dual role at different cancer stages. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1567–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalez-Zuloeta Ladd AM, Arias-Vasquez A, Siemes C, et al. Transforming-growth factor beta1 Leu10Pro polymorphism and breast cancer morbidity. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:371–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Awad MR, El-Gamel A, Hasleton P, et al. Genotypic variation in the transforming growth factor-beta1 gene: association with transforming growth factor-beta1 production, fibrotic lung disease, and graft fibrosis after lung transplantation. Transplantation. 1998;66:1014–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Grainger DJ, Heathcote K, Chiano M, et al. Genetic control of the circulating concentration of transforming growth factor type beta1. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:93–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bathgate AJ, Pravica V, Perrey C, et al. Polymorphisms in tumour necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor beta1 genes and end-stage liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;12:1329–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang PJ, Weber R, Liang HH, et al. Growth factors and receptors in juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma and nasal polyps: an immunohistochemical study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1480–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Chen HW, Chang YC, Lai YL, et al. Change of plasma transforming growth factor-beta1 levels in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;35:427–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Saylam G, Yucel OT, Sungur A, Onerci M. Proliferation, angiogenesis and hormonal markers in juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70:227–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei YS, Zhu YH, Du B, et al. Association of transforming growth factor-beta1 gene polymorphisms with genetic susceptibility to nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;380:165–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu S, Zhou G, Zhang L, et al. The effects of functional polymorphisms in the TGFbeta1 gene on nasopharyngeal carcinoma susceptibility. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:579–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Qu YL, Yu H, Chen YZ, et al. Relationships between genetic polymorphisms in inflammation-related factor gene and the pathogenesis of nasopharyngeal cancer. Tumour Biol. 2014. doi:10.1007/s13277-014-2123-6.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Feng BJ, Jalbout M, Ayoub WB, et al. Dietary risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Maghrebian countries. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1550–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegel PM, Massague J. Cytostatic and apoptotic actions of TGF-beta in homeostasis and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:807–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Chan AT, Teo PM, Leung TW, Johnson PJ. The role of chemotherapy in the management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 1998;82:1003–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lo KW, To KF, Huang DP. Focus on nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2004;5:423–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver J, Agundez JA, Morales S, et al. Polymorphisms in the transforming growth factor-beta gene (TGF-beta) and the risk of advanced alcoholic liver disease. Liver Int. 2005;25:935–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Buckova D, Izakovicova Holla L, Benes P, et al. TGF-beta1 gene polymorphisms. Allergy. 2001;56:1236–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Syrris P, Carter ND, Metcalfe JC, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta1 gene polymorphisms and coronary artery disease. Clin Sci (Lond). 1998;95:659–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Pulleyn LJ, Newton R, Adcock IM, Barnes PJ. TGFbeta1 allele association with asthma severity. Hum Genet. 2001;109:623–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim YJ, Lee HS, Im JP, et al. Association of transforming growth factor-beta1 gene polymorphisms with a hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Exp Mol Med. 2003;35:196–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Falleti E, Fabris C, Toniutto P, et al. TGF-beta1 genotypes in cirrhosis: relationship with the occurrence of liver cancer. Cytokine. 2008;44:256–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Krippl P, Langsenlehner U, Renner W, et al. The L10P polymorphism of the transforming growth factor-beta 1 gene is not associated with breast cancer risk. Cancer Lett. 2003;201:181–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jin G, Wang L, Chen W, et al. Variant alleles of TGFB1 and TGFBR2 are associated with a decreased risk of gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1330–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Li T, Cao BW, Dai Y, et al. Correlation of transforming growth factor beta-1 gene polymorphisms C-509T and T869C and the risk of gastric cancer in China. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:638–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wei YS, Xu QQ, Wang CF, et al. Genetic variation in transforming growth factor-beta1 gene associated with increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Tissue Antigens. 2007;70:464–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jin G, Deng Y, Miao R, et al. TGFB1 and TGFBR2 functional polymorphisms and risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case-control analysis in a Chinese population. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134:345–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016