International Journal of Surgery and Research (IJSR)    Special Issue on "Cancer Surgery and Treatment"    IJSR-2379-156X-S2-001

Caveolin-1 Polymorphisms and Cancer risk in Asian: A Meta - Analysis


Lin B1, Mao W1*, Kulkarni A2, Liu C3

1 Qingdao University Affiliated Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Middle Donghai Road, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
2 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, UTHouston, USA.
3 Zhongda Hospital Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.

*Corresponding Author

Weizheng Mao, MD,
Qingdao University Affiliated Qingdao Municipal Hospital,
No.8 Middle Donghai Road, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
E-mail: maoweizheng@hotmail.com

Received: October 14, 2016; Accepted: November 12, 2016; Published: November 15, 2016

Citation: Lin B, Mao W, Kulkarni A, Liu C (2016) Caveolin-1 Polymorphisms and Cancer risk in Asian: A Meta - Analysis. Int J Surg Res, S2:001, 1-6. doi: dx.doi.org/10.19070/2379-156X-SI02001

Copyright: Mao W© 2016. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.



Abstract

Cancer is the leading cause of death in the world. Genetic factors can influence the susceptibility and pathophysiology of cancer. Single nucleotide polymorphisms are the most common genetic variation and have become a focus in cancer research. In recent years, considerable research has indicated the link between CAV-1 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility. However, individual studies are inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to eliminate this inconsistency. We performed a systematic computerized search of PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Data using the following keywords: “CAV-1,” “Caveolin-1,” “polymorphism,” “variant,” and “cancer”. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used to evaluate the strength of the association between CAV-1 polymorphism and cancer risk. Publication bias was estimated using Begg's funnel plots and Egger's regression test. The study showed that rs3807987 A>G polymorphism increased the risk of cancer in all five comparison models, and rs7804372 A>T polymorphism decreased the risk of cancer. However, no significant association was found in rs1997623, rs12672038, rs3757733, and rs3807992 polymorphisms and cancer. Egger’s test results did not indicate any evidence of publication bias in this study. In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that CAV-1 rs3807987 A>G polymorphism increased the risk of cancer and rs7804372 A>T polymorphism decreased the risk of cancer. Further studies that include different ethnicities and with a large population size should be conducted to reach a comprehensive conclusion.



1.Introduction
2.Material and Methods
    2.1.Literature Search
    2.2.Statistical Analysis
3.Results
    3.1.Characteristics of Studies
    3.2.Quantitative Synthesis
    3.3.Heterogeneity and Sensitivity Analysis
    3.4.Publication bias
4.Discussion
5.Conclusion
6.References

Introduction

Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide, both in developed and developed countries. GLOBOCAN estimates of cancer incidence and mortality indicate that 14.1 million new cancer cases and there were 8.2 million deaths in 2012 [1]. Cancer is a complex disease that can be affected by genetic factors [2], which can influence the susceptibility and pathophysiology of cancer [3, 4]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most common genetic variation and have become a focus in cancer research. An increasing number of studies have found that SNPs can predict the risk, prognosis, and effect of drugs on individuals with cancer [5, 6].

Caveolin-1 (CAV-1) is an 18-24 kDa protein located at 7q31.1. The protein has three exons and belongs to the caveolin protein family [7]. It serves as a scaffolding protein in charge of recruiting related signaling molecules to the caveolae and regulating their activity [8]. Studies showed that CAV-1 plays roles in cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary fibrosis [8-11]. In cancer, CAV-1 appears to act as both a tumor suppressor and oncogene. It is downregulated and it inhibits malignant potential of tumor cells in ovarian, colon, and breast cancers [12-14]. However, it is upregulated and promotes malignant potential of tumor cells in bladder and prostate cancer [15, 16].

The potential effect of cancer risk due to the CAV-1 gene, a considerable number of recent studies have indicated the link between CAV-1 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility. More than 20 SNPs in the CAV-1 promoter were detected in different types of cancers, some of which were thought to be genetic risk factors [17, 18]. Six SNPs (rs1997623, rs3807987, rs12672038, rs3757733, rs7804372, and rs3807992) were most frequently studied among Asians. However, individual studies have inconsistent or conflicting findings because of heterogeneity of data collection and inadequate sample sizes. To eliminate this inconsistency, we conducted a meta-analysis of all eligible case-control studies that have been published to date and estimated the cancer risk of six common CAV-1 polymorphisms.


Material and Methods


Literature Search

To identify potentially all eligible studies, we performed a systematic computerized search of PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Data using the following keywords: “CAV-1,” “Caveolin-1,” “polymorphism,” “variant,” and “cancer.” The last retrieval date was April 30, 2016. In addition, studies were identified through a manual search of reviews and retrieved studies. The language was restricted to English and Chinese. Studies were included in the analysis if they satisfied the following inclusion criteria: 1) evaluation of the association between CAV-1 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility in Asian; 2) case-control study or cohort studies; and 3) the genotype distribution of the polymorphism in cases and controls was sufficient to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a P value. The main exclusion criteria were listed as follows: 1) case reports, review articles, and editorials; 2) only case population; 3) duplication of a previous publication; and 4) no available genotype frequency.

Data extraction from published studies were extracted independently by two investigators. Discrepancies were resolved by discussing their findings on every item. For each included study, the following information was collected: first author, year of publication, region, study design, sample size, source of control, genotyping method, allele or genotype frequencies, and P value for Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) of controls.


Statistical Analysis

The HWE for each study that describes control subjects was evaluated by a chi-square test. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant disequilibrium. OR with 95% CI was performed to assess the strength of the CAV-1 SNPs and cancer susceptibility. The pooled ORs were performed for allele comparison, dominant and recessive models, homozygote comparison, and heterozygote comparison. The Z test was performed to estimate the significance of the pooled ORs, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The heterogeneity among the studies was verified by the chi-square-based I² test and the P value of the Q test. P > 0.05 indicated a lack of heterogeneity, I²< 25% indicated low heterogeneity, I² of 25–75% indicated moderate heterogeneity, and I² > 75% indicated high heterogeneity. If P > 0.05, then pooled ORs were calculated by using a fixed effects model. Otherwise, a random effects model was used. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were performed by sequentially removing each eligible study. Publication bias of literature was assessed with Begg’s funnel plot test. P < 0.05 was considered representative of statistically significant publication bias. All P values were two-sided, and statistical analyses were conducted using the STATA software version 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).


Results


Characteristics of Studies

Following the search strategy, 51 articles in PubMed, 49 articles in ISI Web of Knowledge, and 8 articles in CNKI were identified. After removing duplicates, 69 potential relevant studies were retrieved. Then, 44 articles were excluded after title and abstract screening. Next, 12 articles were excluded after full text reading. In the end, 13 articles were included in this study. Figure 1 presents the detailed process of selecting and excluding studies. In the 13 articles, all studies were case-control studies with the following SNP distribution: 11 articles were about polymorphism rs1997623 [19-29], 11 articles were about rs12672038 [19-29], 10 articles were about rs3757733 [19, 21-29], 12 articles were about rs3807987 [18-29], 9 articles were about rs3807992 [18, 19, 21-29], and 13 articles about rs7804372 [19, 21-30]. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.



Figure 1. Flow chart of Study Indetification.


Table 1. Main Characteristics of Included Studies in this Meta - Analysis.


Quantitative Synthesis

Results of CAV-1 rs1997623, rs12672038, rs3757733, rs3807987, rs3807992, and rs7804372 polymorphisms and cancer risk are presented in Table 2. For rs1997623, no significant associations were found using allele comparison (C vs. A: OR=0.921, 95% CI: 0.730–1.160, P=0.484) and recessive models (CC vs. AC+AA: OR=0.922, 95% CI: 0.728–1.169, P=0.504). For rs12672038, rs3757733, and rs3807992, no significant statistic associations were found in allele comparison, dominant and recessive models, homozygote comparison, and heterozygote comparison. The particular data for rs12672038 were as follows: A vs. G: OR=1.034, 95% CI: 0.967–1.104, P=0.329; AA vs. GG: OR=1.086, 95% CI0.932–1.266, P=0.292; AA vs. AG+GG: OR=1.081, 95% CI: 0.930–1.256, P=0.310; AA+AG vs. GG: OR=1.028, 95% CI: 0.947–1.115, P=0.514; AG vs. GG: OR=1.014, 95% CI: 0.930– 1.107, P=0.751. For rs3757733, A vs. T: OR=0.964, 95% CI: 0.990–1.032, P=0.289; AA vs. TT: OR=0.921, 95% CI: 0.791– 1.073, P=0.292; AA vs. AT+TT: OR=0.928, 95% CI: 0.799– 1.077, P=0.326; AA+AT vs. TT: OR=0.968, 95% CI: 0.888– 1.054, P=0.449; AT vs.. TT: OR=0.980, 95% CI=0.894–1.075, P=0.670. For rs3807992, A vs. G: OR=1.767, 95% CI: 1.486– 2.101, P=0.825; AA vs. GG: OR=0.983, 95% CI: 0.843–1.146, P=0.828; AG vs. GG: OR=1.039, 95% CI: 0.943–1.145, P=0.435; AA vs. AG+GG: OR=0.966, 95% CI: 0.834–1.118, P=0.641; AA+AG vs. GG: OR=1.027, 95% CI: 0.938–1.125, P=0.563. rs3807987 it was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer in allele comparison (A vs. G: OR=1.767, 95% CI; 1.486– 2.101, P=0.000), dominant models (AA+AG vs. GG: OR=2.034, 95% CI=1.639–2.526, P=0.000), recessive models (AA vs. AG+GG: OR=1.724, 95% CI: 1.402–2.119, P=0.000), homozygote comparison (AA vs. GG: OR=2.243, 95% CI: 1.686–2.984, P=0.000), and heterozygote comparison (AG vs. GG: OR=1.976, 95% CI: 1.621–3.410, P=0.000). rs7804372 was significantly associated with a decreased risk of cancer in allele comparison (A vs. T: OR=0.704, 95% CI; 0.645–0.768, P=0.000), dominant models (AA+AT vs. TT: OR=0.706, 95% CI=0.653–0.762, P=0.000), recessive models (AA vs. AT+TT: OR=0.580, 95% CI: 0.508–0.662, P=0.000), homozygote comparison (AA vs. TT: OR=0.528, 95% CI: 0.461–0.604, P=0.000), and heterozygote comparison (AT vs. TT: OR=0.766, 96% CI: 0.705–0.832, P=0.000)(Figure 2).



Figure 2. Forest Plot for the Caveolin-1 Polymorphism and Cancer Susceptibility in the Allele Comparison.


Heterogeneity and Sensitivity Analysis

Heterogeneity was evaluated using the chi-square-based I2 test and Q test. Results showed that heterogeneity existed in the five comparisons of rs3807987 and allele comparison of rs7804372. In the remaining SNPs, no significant heterogeneity was observed (Table 2). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to verify the effect of each study on the overall OR. Each study was omitted time by time. Results showed that the pooled ORs of these six polymorphisms were not materially altered by the contribution of any individual study (Figure3). Thus, the meta-analysis was statistically robust.



Table 2. Meta - Analysis of the Caveolin-1 Polymorphism and Cancer Risk in Asian.


Figure 3. Sensitivity Analysis of the Influence of Allele Comparison in Cancer Risk.


Publication bias

Publication bias in all the studies was assessed by Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test. All the graphical funnel plots were symmetrical for the comparison of the genetic models of every SNP (Figure 4). Egger’s test results did not indicate any evidence of publication bias in this study.



Figure 4. Funnel Plot for Publication Bias Test.


Discussion

The overall goal of a meta-analysis is to combine the results of previous studies to obtain an overall conclusion. In this metaanalysis, we detected the associations between CAV-1 rs1997623, rs3807987, rs12672038, rs3757733, rs7804372, and rs3807992 polymorphisms and cancer risk. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use meta-analysis to obtain comprehensive insights into the CAV-1 polymorphism and risk associated with all types of cancer in an Asian population. This study showed that rs3807987 A>G polymorphism increased the risk of cancer in all five comparison models and rs7804372 A>T polymorphism decreased the risk of cancer. However, no significant association was found in rs1997623, rs12672038, rs3757733, and rs3807992 polymorphisms and cancer.

The reasons CAV-1 polymorphisms affect cancer risk were not clearly understood. The polymorphism in the promoter may affect the expression of CAV-1. In non-small cell lung carcinoma, the expression of CAV-1 was statistically correlated with pathologic TNM stage and lymph node metastasis [31] because polymorphism affects the binding site of the promoter or changes the methylation site.

Heterogeneities between studies were found in the rs3807987 and rs7804372 polymorphisms in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis includes only Asian people. However, the heterogeneities due to ethnicity cannot be eliminated. Heterogeneities due to different cancer types must be considered in this study.

This meta-analysis has some limitations. First, the small sample size in the studies may have resulted in low statistical power. Hence, additional detailed and large-scale studies are necessary. Second, the analysis did not consider gene environment interactions because of the lack of sufficient data. Finally, this study mainly focused on an Asian population. Whether the results can be generalized and applied to other populations remains unclear.


Conclusion

Our meta-analysis results showed that CAV-1 rs3807987 A>G polymorphism increased the risk of cancer, and rs7804372 A>T polymorphism decreased the risk of cancer. No significant association was found in rs1997623, rs12672038, rs3757733, and rs3807992 polymorphisms and cancer. Further studies that include different ethnicities and have a large population size should be conducted to obtain a comprehensive conclusion.


References

  1. Torre L A, Bray F, Siegel R L, Ferlay J, Jemal A, et al., (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 65(2): 87-108.
  2. Romani M, Pistillo M P, Banelli B (2015) Environmental Epigenetics: Crossroad between Public Health, Lifestyle, and Cancer Prevention. Biomed Res Int. 2015: 587983.
  3. Dong L M, Potter J D, White E, Ulrich CM, Peters U, et al., (2008) Genetic susceptibility to cancer: the role of polymorphisms in candidate genes.JAMA. 299(20): 2423-2436.
  4. Liu C H, Tao T, Jiang L, Xu B, Lu K, et al., (2015) DNMT3A -448A>G polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Genet Mol Res. 14(2): 3640-3649.
  5. Tong N, Xu B, Shi D, Du M, Chu H, et al., (2014) Hsa-miR-196a2 polymorphism increases the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Chinese children. Mutat Res. 759: 16-21.
  6. Hakimi AA, Ostrovnaya I, Jacobsen A, Mano R, Voss MH, et al., (2015) Validation and genomic interrogation of the MET variant rs11762213 as a predictor of adverse outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 122(3): 402-410.
  7. Routray S (2014) Caveolin-1 in oral squamous cell carcinoma microenvironment: an overview. Tumour Biol. 35(10): 9487-9495.
  8. Cohen AW, Hnasko R, Schubert W, Lisanti MP (2004) Role of caveolae and caveolins in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 84(4): 1341-1379.
  9. Pucci M, Bravata V, Forte G I, Messa C, Minafra L, et al., (2015) Caveolin- 1, breast cancer and ionizing radiation. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 12(3): 143-152.
  10. Carrillo-Sepulveda MA, Matsumoto T (2014) Phenotypic modulation of mesenteric vascular smooth muscle cells from type 2 diabetic rats is associated with decreased caveolin-1 expression. Cell Physiol Biochem. 34(5): 1497-1506.
  11. Liu J, Song C, Xiao Q, Hu G, Tao L, et al., (2015) Fluorofenidone attenuates TGF-beta1-induced lung fibroblast activation via restoring the expression of caveolin-1. Shock. 43(2): 201-207.
  12. Prinetti A, Cao T, Illuzzi G, Prioni S, Aureli M, et al., (2011) A glycosphingolipid/ caveolin-1 signaling complex inhibits motility of human ovarian carcinoma cell. J Biol Chem. 286(47): 40900-40910.
  13. Nimri L, Barak H, Graeve L, Schwartz B (2013) Restoration of caveolin-1 expression suppresses growth, membrane-type-4 metalloproteinase expression and metastasis-associated activities in colon cancer cells. Mol Carcinog. 52(11): 859-870.
  14. Martins D, Beca FF, Sousa B, Baltazar F, Schmitt F, et al., (2013) Loss of caveolin-1 and gain of MCT4 expression in the tumor stroma: key events in the progression from an in situ to an invasive breast carcinoma. Cell Cycle.12(16): 2684-2690.
  15. Liang W, Hao Z, Han JL, Zhu DJ, Jin ZF, et al., (2014) CAV-1 contributes to bladder cancer progression by inducing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Urol Oncol. 32(6): 855-863.
  16. Li L, Yang G, Ebara S, Satoh T, Nasu Y, et al., (2001) Caveolin-1 mediates testosterone-stimulated survival/clonal growth and promotes metastatic activities in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res. 61(11): 4386-4392.
  17. Zhao R, Liu K, Huang Z, Pan Y, Qin C, et al., (2015) Genetic Variants in Caveolin-1 and RhoA/ROCK1 Are Associated with Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Risk in a Chinese Population. PLoS One. 10(6): e0128771.
  18. Zhang Y, Hu X J, Zhang LL, Sun LP, Qu XJ, et al., (2014) Interaction among Caveolin-1 genotypes (rs3807987/rs7804372), H. pylori infection, and risk of gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Tumour Biol. 35(2): 1511-1516.
  19. Lin CH, Lin CC, Tsai CW, Chang WS, Yang CW, et al., (2014) Association of Caveolin-1 Genotypes with Gastric Cancer in Taiwan. Anticancer Res. 34(5): 2263-2267.
  20. Wang S, Zhang C, Liu Y, Xu C, Chen Z, et al., (2014) Functional polymorphisms of caveolin-1 variants as potential biomarkers of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Biomarkers. 19(8): 652-659.
  21. Wang CH, Lai YL, Chang WS, Wu KH, Lin CC, et al., (2013) Significant Association of Caveolin-1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms with Childhood Leukemia in Taiwan. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 10(2): 75-79.
  22. Chang WS, Lin SS, Li FJ, Li LY, Wu HC, et al., (2013) Significant Association of Caveolin-1 (CAV1) Genotypes with Upper Urothelial Tract Cancer. Anticancer Res. 33(11): 4907-4912.
  23. Hsu CM, Yang MD, Tsai CW, Ho CY, Chang WS, et al., (2013) The contribution of caveolin-1 genotype and phenotype to hepatocellular carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 33(2): 671-677.
  24. Tsou YA, Tsai CW, Tsai MH, Chang WS, Li FJ, et al., (2011) Association of Caveolin-1 Genotypes with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Susceptibility in Taiwan. Anticancer Res. 31(10): 3629-3632.
  25. Liu LC, Su CH, Wang HC, Tsai CW, Ho CY, et al., (2011) Significant Association of Caveolin-1 (CAV1) Genotypes with Breast Cancer in Taiwan. Anticancer Res. 31(10): 3511-3515.
  26. Wu HC, Chang CH, Tsou YA, Tsai CW, Lin cc, et al., (2011) Significant Association of Caveolin-1 (CAV1) Genotypes with Prostate Cancer Susceptibility in Taiwan. Anticancer Res. 31(2): 745-749.
  27. Bau DT, Chang CH, Tsai RY, Wang HC, Tsai CW, et al., (2011) Significant Association of Caveolin-1 Genotypes with Bladder Cancer Susceptibility in Taiwan. Chin J Physiol. 54(3): 153-160.
  28. Bau DT, Tsai MH, Tsou YA, Wang CH, Sun SS, et al., (2011) The Association of Caveolin-1 Genotypes with Oral Cancer Susceptibility in Taiwan. Ann Surg Oncol. 18(5): 1431-1438.
  29. Yang MD, Tsai RY, Liu CS, Chang CH, Wang HC, et al., (2010) Association of Caveolin-1 polymorphisms with colorectal cancer susceptibility in Taiwan. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2(8): 326-331.
  30. Sugie S, Tsukino H, Yamauchi T, Mukai S, Fujii M, et al., (2013) Functional Polymorphism in the CAV1 T29107A Gene and its Association with Prostate Cancer Risk among Japanese Men. Anticancer Res. 33(3): 1023-1027.
  31. Chen HL, Fan LF, Gao J, Ouyang JP, Zhang YX (2011) Differential expression and function of the caveolin-1 gene in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 25(2): 359-366.

         Indexed in

               

       Total Visitors

SciDoc Counter

Get in Touch

SciDoc Publishers
16192 Coastal Highway
Lewes, Delaware 19958
Tel :+1-(302)-703-1005
Fax :+1-(302)-351-7355
Email: contact.scidoc@scidoc.org


Creative Commons License
SciDoc Publishers is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.