Research ArticleExperimental Studies
Open Access

The Contribution of Double-strand Break Repair Radiation Sensitive Protein 51 Genotypes to Lung Cancer in Taiwan

KUO-LIANG CHIU, SHOU-CHENG WANG, CHIA-HSIANG LI, TE-CHUN SHEN, LI-HSIOU CHEN, YI-CHENG SHEN, WEN-SHIN CHANG, CHIA-WEN TSAI, TE-CHUN HSIA and DA-TIAN BAU
Anticancer Research April 2024, 44 (4) 1409-1416; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16937

Abstract

Background/Aim: Numerous studies have reported the over-expression of the radiation-sensitive protein 51 (RAD51) in various types of cancer. However, the role of RAD51 genotypes in lung cancer remains largely unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of the common variant RAD51 rs1801320 (G-135C) genotypes on the risk of lung cancer in Taiwan. Materials and Methods: The contribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes to lung cancer risk was investigated in a cohort comprising 358 lung cancer patients and 716 age- and sex-matched healthy controls, utilizing polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) methodology. Results: The analysis revealed that among the control subjects, the percentages of GG, CG, and CC genotypes of RAD51 rs1801320 were 73.2%, 24.3%, and 2.5%, respectively. Among the lung cancer patients, these percentages were 71.0%, 25.1%, and 3.9%, respectively (p for trend=0.4075). Allelic frequency distributions showed no significant association between the C allele of RAD51 rs1801320 and lung cancer risk determination (p=0.2987). Specifically, the RAD51 rs1801320 CC genotypes were associated with an elevated risk of lung cancer among males [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=2.28, 95% confidence interval (95%CI)=1.03-4.87] and smokers (aOR=2.93, 95%CI=1.23-5.87), but not among females and non-smokers. Conclusion: The RAD51 rs1801320 CC genotype was identified as a risk factor for elevated lung cancer risk in males and smokers. This genotype may serve as a molecular biomarker at the DNA level for early detection and prediction of lung cancer in Taiwan.

Key Words:

Lung cancer stands as the foremost cause of global cancer mortality, and projections anticipate that the number of lung cancer-related deaths will escalate to 3 million by 2035 (1-3). Advancements in biomarker-driven targeted therapies are swiftly transforming the landscape of lung cancer treatment (4). From an epidemiological standpoint, the most prominent factor implicated in lung carcinogenesis is the enduring individual habit of tobacco consumption, which also proves valuable in predicting lung cancer prognosis (5, 6). Cigarettes contain a diverse array of carcinogens that elevate reactive oxygen species, leading to DNA adducts and strand breaks in lung tissues and cells. This complexity renders individual susceptibility to the various carcinogens in cigarette smoke intricate and unpredictable (7, 8). Accumulated studies in the literature report that specific genotypes exert differential effects on lung cancer risk among both cigarette smokers and non-smokers (9-17). These epidemiological studies, elucidating the interactions between genetic factors and smoking behaviors in lung cancer etiology, may offer a viable predictive model for personalized understanding of lung cancer origins.

From a molecular perspective, DNA repair pathways are activated to safeguard genetic stability and integrity when cells are exposed to various endogenous or exogenous DNA-damaging agents. Failure to correct these damages may lead to genomic instability and a gradual accumulation of mutations, constituting one of the hallmarks of cancer (18, 19). Among the diverse forms of DNA damage, DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) pose a particular threat to cells. Two primary pathways, namely non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR), are responsible for repairing DSBs (20, 21). In general, NHEJ is an error-prone repair mechanism that brings together the broken ends, while HR is a precise and error-free repair process (22, 23).

From a molecular standpoint, the DSB repair protein RAD51 homolog 1, encoded by RAD51 and located at chromosome position 15q15.1 (24), plays a pivotal role in maintaining genetic stability and integrity when cells are exposed to various DNA-damaging agents. This region, known for exhibiting loss of heterozygosity in tumors, such as breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, is significant in understanding cancer progression (25). RAD51, a 339-amino acid protein in humans, is crucial for HR during DSB repair (26, 27). Over-expression of RAD51 has been reported in various cancers, including breast (28-33), pancreatic (34, 35), head and neck (36), prostate (37), soft tissue sarcoma (38), and esophageal cancer (39). Notably, RAD51 is found to be over-expressed in non-small cell lung cancer (40). The only exception observed so far is its under-expression in renal cell carcinoma (41). In genomic studies, one of the most investigated polymorphisms is the G to C polymorphism in RAD51’s promoter region, rs1801320 (G-135C) (42). Literature reports associate RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes with susceptibility to various cancers, including breast (43-49), laryngeal (50), colorectal (51, 52), prostate (42), ovarian (46, 53, 54), cervical (55), endometrial (56, 57), and glioblastoma (58).

Concerning lung cancer, several reports have investigated the contribution of RAD51 rs1801320 to susceptibility, yielding inconsistent results (59-62). In this study, we aimed to investigate the contribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes, a single-nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) site, to the risk of lung cancer and subsequently examine the combined effect of smoking habits and sex with RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes on lung cancer risk in Taiwan.

Materials and Methods

Investigated population. Three hundred and fifty-eight cases diagnosed with lung cancer were recruited in China Medical University Hospital. The clinical characteristics were established and recorded by expert doctors. Individuals with a history of any other cancer or pulmonary diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumothorax, and asthma, were excluded. Participants were required to complete a questionnaire, inform consent, and provided 5-ml of their blood for DNA extraction. At the same time, twice the number (716) of non-cancer healthy volunteers were selected to serve as controls from the Health Examination Cohort of our hospital. The exclusion criteria for controls included any malignancy or metastasized cancer from other origin, or any known genetic familial diseases. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital (DMR100-IRB-284), adhering to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

RAD51 rs1801320 genotyping procedures. Genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes of both patients and controls was prepared using the QIAamp Blood Mini Kit (Blossom, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) and processed as previously outlined (63-66). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycling programs for RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes were as follows: an initial cycle at 94°C for 5 min; followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 30 s; and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The forward and reverse primers for RAD51 rs1801320 were 5′-CAGGATCAAGCTCTCGAGCT-3′ and 5′-GGTGTTGCCTATAAAGGCTC-3′, respectively. The PCR products were then subjected to digestion by the restriction enzyme PspG I (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). The G-allele contigs were cleaved into 333- and 281-base pair fragments, while the C-allele contigs remained intact at 614-base pair products. The genotypic process was carried out independently and blindly by laboratory researchers, and repeated data showed 100% concordance.

Statistical methodology. The deviation of RAD51 rs1801320 genotype frequencies in the controls from those expected under Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was assessed using the goodness-of-fit test. Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates’ correction, or Fisher’s exact test was employed to compare the distribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes between lung cancer cases and controls. Associations between RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes and lung cancer risk were further validated by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) through logistic regression analysis. A significance threshold of p<0.05 was applied, considering values below this threshold as statistically significant.

Results

Table I presents the distributions of age, sex, and smoking status for the 358 lung cancer patients and 716 non-cancer controls. The mean age of the lung cancer patients was 64.0 years, which did not show a significant difference from that of the controls (64.8 years). Through the age and sex matching strategy during sampling, no significant disparities were observed between the control and lung cancer groups concerning age (64.8 versus 64.0 years) and sex (male to female ratios being 7:3 in each group) (Table I). Histologically, the lung cancer group exhibited percentages of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and patients with other histologies at 60.9%, 29.6%, and 9.5%, respectively (Table I).

View this table:
Table I.

Selected demographic data for the lung cancer cases and controls in Taiwan.

Table II illustrates the distribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes among non-cancer controls and lung cancer patients. The RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes did not exhibit a differential distribution between the lung cancer and control groups (p for trend=0.4075) (Table II). Specifically, the RAD51 rs1801320 heterozygous variant CG and homozygous variant CC did not show a significant association with lung cancer risk (OR=1.07 and 1.60, 95%CI=0.79-1.43 and 0.79-3.28, p=0.7225 and 0.2642) (Table II). The negative association of RAD51 rs1801320 polymorphic variants with lung cancer risk was further confirmed (recessive model: OR=1.58, 95%CI=0.78-3.21, p=0.2807; dominant model: OR=1.12, 95%CI=0.84-1.48, p=0.4838; Table II).

View this table:
Table II.

Distribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes among the lung cancer cases and controls in Taiwan.

To corroborate the observations presented in Table III, we conducted additional analysis on the allelic frequency distribution patterns of RAD51 rs1801320 among lung cancer patients and control subjects (Table III). Consistent with the earlier findings indicating no association between the heterozygous variant CG or homozygous variant CC genotype of RAD51 rs1801320 and altered lung cancer risk, the variant C allele showed comparable levels among lung cancer cases and control subjects (OR=1.15, 95%CI=0.90-1.47, p=0.2987, Table III).

View this table:
Table III.

Distribution of RAD51 rs1801320 allelic frequencies among the lung cancer cases and controls in Taiwan.

We are interested in exploring the combined effects of RAD51 rs1801320 with sex and smoking status. Concerning the former, lung cancer patients and controls were stratified based on their sexes (Table IV). The results revealed that males carrying the homozygous CC genotypes at RAD51 rs1801320 exhibited an increased risk of lung cancer after adjustment for age, smoking, alcohol drinking, and areca chewing habits (adjusted OR=2.28, 95%CI=1.03-4.87, p=0.0884). Additionally, there was a slight trend suggesting that individuals with CC genotypes had a higher risk than those with CG and GG genotypes (Table IV, left). Conversely, there was no significantly altered lung cancer risk for females with CG or CC genotypes at RAD51 rs1801320 (Table IV, right). Regarding the latter, lung cancer patients and controls were stratified based on their smoking status. The results indicated that ever smokers carrying the homozygous CC genotypes at RAD51 rs1801320 had an elevated risk of lung cancer after adjustment for age, sex, alcohol drinking, and areca chewing habits. A small trend suggested that individuals with CC genotypes had a higher risk than those with CG and GG genotypes (adjusted OR=2.93, 95%CI=1.23-5.87, p=0.0309) (Table V, right). Conversely, there was no significantly altered lung cancer risk for non-smokers with CG or CC genotypes at RAD51 rs1801320 (Table V, left).

View this table:
Table IV.

Odds ratios for RAD51 rs1801320 genotype on lung cancer risk determination after stratified by sex.

View this table:
Table V.

Odds ratios for RAD51 rs1801320 genotype on lung cancer risk determination after stratified by smoking status.

Discussion

The RAD51 protein is known to play a central role in HR during the repair of DNA DSBs. Over-expression of RAD51 has been implicated in lung cancer etiology (40). However, the genomic contribution of RAD51 to lung cancer remains poorly understood. In this study, we first assessed the impact of RAD51 rs1801320 genotype, along with sex and smoking status, on lung cancer risk. Among non-cancer healthy subjects, the percentages of wild-type GG and variant CG and CC genotypes were 73.2%, 24.3%, and 2.5%, respectively, and conformed well to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p=0.4371, Table II). The distribution of wild-type G and variant C alleles at RAD51 rs1801320 in our population was 85.3% and 14.7%, respectively (Table III). In the global 1000 Genomes Project, East Asians were found to have a distribution of 85.0% wild-type G and 15.0% variant C alleles at RAD51 rs1801320, based on a sample size of 1,170 subjects (67).

In the cohort comprising 358 lung cancer patients and 716 non-cancer healthy subjects, the genotyping results revealed that neither the heterozygous CG nor the homozygous CC genotypes of RAD51 rs1801320 were significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (Table II). Allelic frequency analysis further supports the genotypic frequency findings, indicating that the C allele of RAD51 rs1801320 was not associated with the determination of lung cancer risk (Table III). While our results do not suggest RAD51 rs1801320 as a useful biomarker for early lung cancer detection, two independent studies proposed that RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes could serve as useful molecular markers for predicting the clinical outcome of lung cancer patients (59), and might influence lung cancer overall survival and pneumonitis after radiotherapy (60).

Sex has been identified as a significant risk factor for lung cancer, as proposed by Gasperino in 2011 (68). Recent cancer statistics from 2022 reveal that 117,910 males and 118,830 females in the USA were afflicted with lung and bronchus cancers. The estimated death toll stood at 68,820 for males and 61,360 for females (3). Analyzing data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database covering the period 2002 to 2008, it was observed that approximately two-thirds of the 33,919 recorded lung cancer cases were males (69). This sex distribution closely mirrors the findings of the present study. Despite extensive research, the underlying mechanism(s) responsible for the sex-dependent difference in lung cancer risk remains poorly understood. It is postulated that the endocrine system may play a crucial role in this phenomenon, as suggested by Gasperino and his colleagues in 2011 (68). Notably, Taiwan has witnessed a rising trend in lung cancer cases among females over the past decade, affecting both prevalence and mortality rates. Consequently, our study aimed to investigate whether the variant RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes contribute to the observed sex difference in lung cancer susceptibility. Upon sex stratification, we observed an uneven distribution of RAD51 rs1801320 genotypes among males, contrasting with a more even distribution among females (Table IV).

Smoking is identified as another significant risk factor for lung cancer (70, 71). Prolonged cigarette consumption is known to contribute to airway remodeling and is implicated in the etiology of lung cancer and various pulmonary diseases (72). Additionally, cigarette smoking has been linked to the induction of DNA lesions and deficiencies in the removal of DNA adducts caused by tobacco carcinogens (73, 74). Given the potential interplay between the genotype of RAD51 rs1801320 and the smoking status of participants, we conducted an analysis to explore this interaction further. The results revealed an association between the variant CC genotype of RAD51 rs1801320 and an increased risk of lung cancer among individuals with a history of smoking (Table V, right section). While the current data indicated no differential distribution among non-smokers (Table V, left section), it is important to note that the lack of significance may be influenced by the sample size, and further enlargement of the sample could potentially yield meaningful results.

Taken together, our study indicated that the variant CC genotype of RAD51 rs1801320 is associated with an increased lung cancer risk among males and smokers. Studies with larger samples or various ethnics are needed to confirm our findings.

Acknowledgements

The Authors are grateful to Tissue-bank of China Medical University Hospital and doctors/nurses under Prof. Hsia’s leadership for their excellent sample collection and technical assistance. This study was supported partially by research grants from Taichung Armed Forces General Hospital (TCAFGH-D-112008) to Wang, from Asia and China Medical University (CMU112-ASIA-02 and ASIA-109-CMUH-05) to Li and from Taichung Tzu Chi Hospital (TTCRD112-17) to Chiu.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Research design: Chiu KL, Wang SC, Li CH, Bau DT; patient and questionnaire summaries: Li CH, Shen TC, Shen YC, Hsia TC; experimental work: Wang SC, Chang WS, Tsai CW; statistical analysis: Li CH, Shen TC, Shen YC; manuscript writing: Chiu KL, Bau DT, Hsia TC; manuscript checking and discussing: Chiu KL, Wang SC, Li CH, Shen TC, Li CH, Shen YC, Chang WS, Tsai CW, Hsia TC, Bau DT.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    All the Authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this study.

  • Received January 23, 2024.
  • Revision received February 13, 2024.
  • Accepted February 14, 2024.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Mattiuzzi C,
    2. Lippi G
    : Current Cancer Epidemiology. J Epidemiol Glob Health 9(4): 217-222, 2019. DOI: 10.2991/jegh.k.191008.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sung H,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Laversanne M,
    5. Soerjomataram I,
    6. Jemal A,
    7. Bray F
    : Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3): 209-249, 2021. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Fuchs HE,
    4. Jemal A
    : Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1): 7-33, 2022. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Srivastava S,
    2. Jayaswal N,
    3. Kumar S,
    4. Sharma PK,
    5. Behl T,
    6. Khalid A,
    7. Mohan S,
    8. Najmi A,
    9. Zoghebi K,
    10. Alhazmi HA
    : Unveiling the potential of proteomic and genetic signatures for precision therapeutics in lung cancer management. Cell Signal 113: 110932, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2023.110932
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Cho SB,
    2. Kim IK,
    3. Yeo CD,
    4. Lee SH
    : Association between clinicopathological parameters and S100A8/A9 expression according to smoking history in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. In Vivo 38(1): 474-481, 2024. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13462
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Nakahama K,
    2. Izumi M,
    3. Yoshimoto N,
    4. Fukui M,
    5. Sugimoto A,
    6. Nagamine H,
    7. Ogawa K,
    8. Sawa K,
    9. Tani Y,
    10. Kaneda H,
    11. Mitsuoka S,
    12. Watanabe T,
    13. Asai K,
    14. Kawaguchi T
    : Influence of smoking history on the effectiveness of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of real-world data. Anticancer Res 43(5): 2185-2197, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16381
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Munnia A,
    2. Giese RW,
    3. Polvani S,
    4. Galli A,
    5. Cellai F,
    6. Peluso ME
    : Bulky DNA adducts, tobacco smoking, genetic susceptibility, and lung cancer risk. Adv Clin Chem 81: 231-277, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/bs.acc.2017.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Grigoryeva ES,
    2. Kokova DA,
    3. Gratchev AN,
    4. Cherdyntsev ES,
    5. Buldakov MA,
    6. Kzhyshkowska JG,
    7. Cherdyntseva NV
    : Smoking-related DNA adducts as potential diagnostic markers of lung cancer: new perspectives. Exp Oncol 37(1): 5-12, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hsia TC,
    2. Chang WS,
    3. Liang SJ,
    4. Chen WC,
    5. Tu CY,
    6. Chen HJ,
    7. Yang MD,
    8. Tsai CW,
    9. Hsu CM,
    10. Tsai CH,
    11. Bau DT
    : Interleukin-10 (IL-10) promoter genotypes are associated with lung cancer risk in Taiwan males and smokers. Anticancer Res 34(12): 7039-7044, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hsia TC,
    2. Chang WS,
    3. Chen WC,
    4. Liang SJ,
    5. Tu CY,
    6. Chen HJ,
    7. Liang JA,
    8. Tsai CW,
    9. Hsu CM,
    10. Tsai CH,
    11. Bau DT
    : Genotype of DNA double-strand break repair gene XRCC7 is associated with lung cancer risk in Taiwan males and smokers. Anticancer Res 34(12): 7001-7005, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hsia TC,
    2. Tsai CW,
    3. Liang SJ,
    4. Chang WS,
    5. Lin LY,
    6. Chen WC,
    7. Tu CY,
    8. Tsai CH,
    9. Bau DT
    : Effects of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) genotypes and smoking habits on lung cancer risk in Taiwan. Anticancer Res 33(9): 4067-4071, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Chen X,
    2. Lu H,
    3. Zhao M,
    4. Tashiro K,
    5. Cassis LA,
    6. Daugherty A
    : Contributions of leukocyte angiotensin-converting enzyme to development of atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 33(9): 2075-2080, 2013. DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.113.301777
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wu X,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Ye Y,
    4. Aakre JA,
    5. Pu X,
    6. Chang GC,
    7. Yang PC,
    8. Roth JA,
    9. Marks RS,
    10. Lippman SM,
    11. Chang JY,
    12. Lu C,
    13. Deschamps C,
    14. Su WC,
    15. Wang WC,
    16. Huang MS,
    17. Chang DW,
    18. Li Y,
    19. Pankratz VS,
    20. Minna JD,
    21. Hong WK,
    22. Hildebrandt MA,
    23. Hsiung CA,
    24. Yang P
    : Genome-wide association study of genetic predictors of overall survival for non-small cell lung cancer in never smokers. Cancer Res 73(13): 4028-4038, 2013. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4033
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Li CH,
    2. Yang YC,
    3. Hsia TC,
    4. Shen TC,
    5. Shen YC,
    6. Chang WS,
    7. Wang YC,
    8. Tsai CW,
    9. Bau DT
    : Association of Interleukin-8 promoter genotypes with Taiwan lung cancer risk. Anticancer Res 42(3): 1229-1236, 2022. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15590
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Chen LH,
    2. Shen TC,
    3. Li CH,
    4. Chiu KL,
    5. Hsiau YC,
    6. Wang YC,
    7. Gong CL,
    8. Wang ZH,
    9. Chang WS,
    10. Tsai CW,
    11. Hsia TC,
    12. Bau DT
    : The significant interaction of excision repair cross-complementing group 1 genotypes and smoking to lung cancer risk. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 17(5): 571-577, 2020. DOI: 10.21873/cgp.20213
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wu MF,
    2. Chen LH,
    3. Hsia NY,
    4. Shen YC,
    5. Shen TC,
    6. Wang ZH,
    7. Yang YC,
    8. Wang YC,
    9. Chang WS,
    10. Hsia TC,
    11. Bau DT,
    12. Tsai CW
    : Significant contribution of Interleukin-18 genotypes to lung cancer risk in Taiwanese. Anticancer Res 42(7): 3381-3387, 2022. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15825
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Lee YH,
    2. Wang SC,
    3. Li CH,
    4. Chen LH,
    5. Shen TC,
    6. Liu YF,
    7. Wang YC,
    8. Tsai CW,
    9. Hsia TC,
    10. Bau DT,
    11. Chang WS
    : The contribution of DNA ligase 4 genetic variations to Taiwanese lung cancer. Anticancer Res 43(8): 3447-3453, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16520
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Hanahan D,
    2. Weinberg RA
    : Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5): 646-674, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Canela A,
    2. Maman Y,
    3. Jung S,
    4. Wong N,
    5. Callen E,
    6. Day A,
    7. Kieffer-Kwon KR,
    8. Pekowska A,
    9. Zhang H,
    10. Rao SSP,
    11. Huang SC,
    12. Mckinnon PJ,
    13. Aplan PD,
    14. Pommier Y,
    15. Aiden EL,
    16. Casellas R,
    17. Nussenzweig A
    : Genome organization drives chromosome fragility. Cell 170(3): 507-521.e18, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.034
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Bau DT,
    2. Fu YP,
    3. Chen ST,
    4. Cheng TC,
    5. Yu JC,
    6. Wu PE,
    7. Shen CY
    : Breast cancer risk and the DNA double-strand break end-joining capacity of nonhomologous end-joining genes are affected by BRCA1. Cancer Res 64(14): 5013-5019, 2004. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0403
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Zhang F,
    2. Gong Z
    : Regulation of DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice: a new focus on 53BP1. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 22(1): 38-46, 2021. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B2000306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Ali A,
    2. Xiao W,
    3. Babar ME,
    4. Bi Y
    : Double-stranded break repair in mammalian cells and precise genome editing. Genes (Basel) 13(5): 737, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/genes13050737
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Le Guen T,
    2. Ragu S,
    3. Guirouilh-Barbat J,
    4. Lopez BS
    : Role of the double-strand break repair pathway in the maintenance of genomic stability. Mol Cell Oncol 2(1): e968020, 2014. DOI: 10.4161/23723548.2014.968020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Bonilla B,
    2. Hengel SR,
    3. Grundy MK,
    4. Bernstein KA
    : RAD51 gene family structure and function. Annu Rev Genet 54: 25-46, 2020. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genet-021920-092410
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Gachechiladze M,
    2. Škarda J,
    3. Soltermann A,
    4. Joerger M
    : RAD51 as a potential surrogate marker for DNA repair capacity in solid malignancies. Int J Cancer 141(7): 1286-1294, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30764
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. van Wijk LM,
    2. Nilas AB,
    3. Vrieling H,
    4. Vreeswijk MP
    : RAD51 as a functional biomarker for homologous recombination deficiency in cancer: a promising addition to the HRD toolbox? Expert Rev Mol Diagn 22(2): 185-199, 2022. DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2022.2020102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Tsang ES,
    2. Munster PN
    : Targeting RAD51-mediated homologous recombination as a treatment for advanced solid and hematologic malignancies: opportunities and challenges ahead. Onco Targets Ther 15: 1509-1518, 2022. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S322297
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Maacke H,
    2. Opitz S,
    3. Jost K,
    4. Hamdorf W,
    5. Henning W,
    6. Krüger S,
    7. Feller AC,
    8. Lopens A,
    9. Diedrich K,
    10. Schwinger E,
    11. Stürzbecher HW
    : Over-expression of wild-type Rad51 correlates with histological grading of invasive ductal breast cancer. Int J Cancer 88(6): 907-913, 2000. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0215(20001215)88:6<907::aid-ijc11>3.0.co;2-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Martin RW,
    2. Orelli BJ,
    3. Yamazoe M,
    4. Minn AJ,
    5. Takeda S,
    6. Bishop DK
    : RAD51 up-regulation bypasses BRCA1 function and is a common feature of BRCA1-deficient breast tumors. Cancer Res 67(20): 9658-9665, 2007. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0290
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lok BH,
    2. Carley AC,
    3. Tchang B,
    4. Powell SN
    : RAD52 inactivation is synthetically lethal with deficiencies in BRCA1 and PALB2 in addition to BRCA2 through RAD51-mediated homologous recombination. Oncogene 32(30): 3552-3558, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2012.391
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Klein HL
    : The consequences of Rad51 overexpression for normal and tumor cells. DNA Repair (Amst) 7(5): 686-693, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2007.12.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Barbano R,
    2. Copetti M,
    3. Perrone G,
    4. Pazienza V,
    5. Muscarella LA,
    6. Balsamo T,
    7. Storlazzi CT,
    8. Ripoli M,
    9. Rinaldi M,
    10. Valori VM,
    11. Latiano TP,
    12. Maiello E,
    13. Stanziale P,
    14. Carella M,
    15. Mangia A,
    16. Pellegrini F,
    17. Bisceglia M,
    18. Muda AO,
    19. Altomare V,
    20. Murgo R,
    21. Fazio VM,
    22. Parrella P
    : High RAD51 mRNA expression characterize estrogen receptor-positive/progesteron receptor-negative breast cancer and is associated with patient’s outcome. Int J Cancer 129(3): 536-545, 2011. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25736
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Yoshikawa K,
    2. Ogawa T,
    3. Baer R,
    4. Hemmi H,
    5. Honda K,
    6. Yamauchi A,
    7. Inamoto T,
    8. Ko K,
    9. Yazumi S,
    10. Motoda H,
    11. Kodama H,
    12. Noguchi S,
    13. Gazdar AF,
    14. Yamaoka Y,
    15. Takahashi R
    : Abnormal expression of BRCA1 and BRCA1-interactive DNA-repair proteins in breast carcinomas. Int J Cancer 88(1): 28-36, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Han H,
    2. Bearss DJ,
    3. Browne LW,
    4. Calaluce R,
    5. Nagle RB,
    6. Von Hoff DD
    : Identification of differentially expressed genes in pancreatic cancer cells using cDNA microarray. Cancer Res 62(10): 2890-2896, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Maacke H,
    2. Jost K,
    3. Opitz S,
    4. Miska S,
    5. Yuan Y,
    6. Hasselbach L,
    7. Lüttges J,
    8. Kalthoff H,
    9. Stürzbecher H
    : DNA repair and recombination factor Rad51 is over-expressed in human pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 19(23): 2791-2795, 2000. DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203578
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Connell PP,
    2. Jayathilaka K,
    3. Haraf DJ,
    4. Weichselbaum RR,
    5. Vokes EE,
    6. Lingen MW
    : Pilot study examining tumor expression of RAD51 and clinical outcomes in human head cancers. Int J Oncol 28(5): 1113-1119, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Mitra A,
    2. Jameson C,
    3. Barbachano Y,
    4. Sanchez L,
    5. Kote-Jarai Z,
    6. Peock S,
    7. Sodha N,
    8. Bancroft E,
    9. Fletcher A,
    10. Cooper C,
    11. Easton D, IMPACT Steering Committee and IMPACT and EMBRACE Collaborators,
    12. Eeles R,
    13. Foster CS
    : Overexpression of RAD51 occurs in aggressive prostatic cancer. Histopathology 55(6): 696-704, 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03448.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Hannay JA,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Zhu QS,
    4. Bolshakov SV,
    5. Li L,
    6. Pisters PW,
    7. Lazar AJ,
    8. Yu D,
    9. Pollock RE,
    10. Lev D
    : Rad51 overexpression contributes to chemoresistance in human soft tissue sarcoma cells: a role for p53/activator protein 2 transcriptional regulation. Mol Cancer Ther 6(5): 1650-1660, 2007. DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0636
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Yu H,
    3. Luo RZ,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Zhang MF,
    6. Wang X,
    7. Jia WH
    : Elevated expression of Rad51 is correlated with decreased survival in resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 104(6): 617-622, 2011. DOI: 10.1002/jso.22018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Qiao GB,
    2. Wu YL,
    3. Yang XN,
    4. Zhong WZ,
    5. Xie D,
    6. Guan XY,
    7. Fischer D,
    8. Kolberg HC,
    9. Kruger S,
    10. Stuerzbecher HW
    : High-level expression of Rad51 is an independent prognostic marker of survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer 93(1): 137-143, 2005. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Liu S,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Xu H,
    4. Wang K,
    5. Li N,
    6. Li J,
    7. Sun T,
    8. Xu Y
    : Increased expression of SET domain-containing proteins and decreased expression of Rad51 in different classes of renal cell carcinoma. Biosci Rep 36(3): BSR20160122, 2016. DOI: 10.1042/BSR20160122
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Nowacka-Zawisza M,
    2. Wiśnik E,
    3. Wasilewski A,
    4. Skowrońska M,
    5. Forma E,
    6. Bryś M,
    7. Różański W,
    8. Krajewska WM
    : Polymorphisms of homologous recombination RAD51, RAD51B, XRCC2, and XRCC3 genes and the risk of prostate cancer. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2015: 828646, 2015. DOI: 10.1155/2015/828646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Jara L,
    2. Acevedo ML,
    3. Blanco R,
    4. Castro VG,
    5. Bravo T,
    6. Gómez F,
    7. Waugh E,
    8. Peralta O,
    9. Cabrera E,
    10. Reyes JM,
    11. Ampuero S,
    12. González-Hormazábal P
    : RAD51 135G>C polymorphism and risk of familial breast cancer in a South American population. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 178(1): 65-69, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2007.05.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Romanowicz-Makowska H,
    2. Smolarz B,
    3. Zadrozny M,
    4. Westfal B,
    5. Baszczynski J,
    6. Polac I,
    7. Sporny S
    : Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the homologous recombination repair genes and breast cancer risk in Polish women. Tohoku J Exp Med 224(3): 201-208, 2011. DOI: 10.1620/tjem.224.201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vral A,
    2. Willems P,
    3. Claes K,
    4. Poppe B,
    5. Perletti G,
    6. Thierens H
    : Combined effect of polymorphisms in Rad51 and Xrcc3 on breast cancer risk and chromosomal radiosensitivity. Mol Med Rep 4(5): 901-12, 2011. DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2011.523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Smolarz B,
    2. Zadrożny M,
    3. Duda-Szymańska J,
    4. Makowska M,
    5. Samulak D,
    6. Michalska MM,
    7. Mojs E,
    8. Bryś M,
    9. Forma E,
    10. Romanowicz-Makowska H
    : RAD51 genotype and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) risk in Polish women. Pol J Pathol 1: 39-43, 2013. DOI: 10.5114/pjp.2013.34602
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Tulbah S,
    2. Alabdulkarim H,
    3. Alanazi M,
    4. Parine NR,
    5. Shaik J,
    6. Pathan AA,
    7. Al-Amri A,
    8. Khan W,
    9. Warsy A
    : Polymorphisms in RAD51 and their relation with breast cancer in Saudi females. Onco Targets Ther 9: 269-277, 2016. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S93343
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Salim Al Zoubi MS,
    2. Al-Eitan LN,
    3. Rababa’h DM,
    4. Al-Batayneh K,
    5. Farzand R,
    6. Quinn GA,
    7. Tambuwala MM,
    8. Bakshi HA
    : RAD51-UTR haplotype genetic polymorphisms and susceptibility to breast cancer in women from Jordanian population. Exp Oncol 43(2): 149-154, 2023. DOI: 10.32471/exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-43-no-2.16338
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Gupta P,
    2. Sambyal V,
    3. Guleria K,
    4. Uppal MS,
    5. Sudan M
    : Association of RAD51, XRCC1, XRCC2, and XRCC3 polymorphisms with risk of breast cancer. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 27(7): 205-214, 2023. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2023.0012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Romanowicz-Makowska H,
    2. Smolarz B,
    3. Gajęcka M,
    4. Kiwerska K,
    5. Rydzanicz M,
    6. Kaczmarczyk D,
    7. Olszewski J,
    8. Szyfter K,
    9. Błasiak J,
    10. Morawiec-Sztandera A
    : Polymorphism of the DNA repair genes RAD51 and XRCC2 in smoking- and drinking-related laryngeal cancer in a Polish population. Arch Med Sci 8(6): 1065-1075, 2012. DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2012.32417
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Krupa R,
    2. Sliwinski T,
    3. Wisniewska-Jarosinska M,
    4. Chojnacki J,
    5. Wasylecka M,
    6. Dziki L,
    7. Morawiec J,
    8. Blasiak J
    : Polymorphisms in RAD51, XRCC2 and XRCC3 genes of the homologous recombination repair in colorectal cancer—a case control study. Mol Biol Rep 38(4): 2849-2854, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-010-0430-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Hridy AU,
    2. Shabnaz S,
    3. Asaduzzaman MD,
    4. Shahriar M,
    5. Bhuiyan MA,
    6. Islam MS,
    7. Hossen SMM,
    8. Emran TB
    : Genetic variations of RAD51 and XRCC2 genes increase the risk of colorectal cancer in Bangladeshi population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 21(5): 1445-1451, 2020. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.5.1445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Smolarz B,
    2. Michalska MM,
    3. Samulak D,
    4. Romanowicz H,
    5. Wójcik L
    : Polymorphism of DNA repair genes via homologous recombination (HR) in ovarian cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 25(4): 1607-1614, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s12253-019-00604-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Gowtham Kumar G,
    2. Paul SFD,
    3. Martin J,
    4. Manickavasagam M,
    5. Sundersingh S,
    6. Ganesan N,
    7. Ramya R,
    8. Usha Rani G,
    9. Andrea Mary F
    : Association between RAD51, XRCC2 and XRCC3 gene polymorphisms and risk of ovarian cancer: a case control and an in silico study. Mol Biol Rep 48(5): 4209-4220, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-021-06434-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Ivy SC,
    2. Shabnaz S,
    3. Shahriar M,
    4. Jafrin S,
    5. Aka TD,
    6. Aziz MA,
    7. Islam MS
    : Association of RAD51 and XRCC2 gene polymorphisms with cervical cancer risk in the Bangladeshi women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 22(7): 2099-2107, 2021. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.7.2099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Michalska MM,
    2. Samulak D,
    3. Romanowicz H,
    4. Smolarz B
    : Association of polymorphisms in the 5′ untranslated region of RAD51 gene with risk of endometrial cancer in the Polish population. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(5): 985-991, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3305-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Das AP,
    2. Chaudhary N,
    3. Tyagi S,
    4. Agarwal SM
    : Meta-analysis of 49 SNPs covering 25,446 cases and 41,106 controls identifies polymorphisms in hormone regulation and DNA repair genes associated with increased endometrial cancer risk. Genes (Basel) 14(3): 741, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/genes14030741
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Franceschi S,
    2. Tomei S,
    3. Mazzanti CM,
    4. Lessi F,
    5. Aretini P,
    6. La Ferla M,
    7. De Gregorio V,
    8. Pasqualetti F,
    9. Zavaglia K,
    10. Bevilacqua G,
    11. Naccarato AG
    : Association between RAD 51 rs1801320 and susceptibility to glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 126(2): 265-270, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-1974-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Nogueira A,
    2. Catarino R,
    3. Coelho A,
    4. Araújo A,
    5. Gomes M,
    6. Medeiros R
    : Influence of DNA repair RAD51 gene variants in overall survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first line chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 66(3): 501-506, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s00280-009-1187-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Yin M,
    2. Liao Z,
    3. Huang YJ,
    4. Liu Z,
    5. Yuan X,
    6. Gomez D,
    7. Wang LE,
    8. Wei Q
    : Polymorphisms of homologous recombination genes and clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy. PLoS One 6(5): e20055, 2011. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jiang YH,
    2. Xu XL,
    3. Ruan HH,
    4. Xu WZ,
    5. Li D,
    6. Feng JG,
    7. Han QB,
    8. Mao WM
    : The impact of functional LIG4 polymorphism on platinum-based chemotherapy response and survival in non-small cell lung cancer. Med Oncol 31(5): 959, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s12032-014-0959-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Spasic J,
    2. Cavic M,
    3. Stanic N,
    4. Zaric B,
    5. Kovacevic T,
    6. Radosavljevic D,
    7. Nagorni-Obradovic L
    : Low-cost genetic and clinical predictors of response and toxicity of platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Dose Response 20(2): 15593258221111666, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/15593258221111666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Yang MD,
    2. Lin KC,
    3. Lu MC,
    4. Jeng LB,
    5. Hsiao CL,
    6. Yueh TC,
    7. Fu CK,
    8. Li HT,
    9. Yen ST,
    10. Lin CW,
    11. Wu CW,
    12. Pang SY,
    13. Bau DT,
    14. Tsai FJ
    : Contribution of matrix metalloproteinases-1 genotypes to gastric cancer susceptibility in Taiwan. Biomedicine (Taipei) 7(2): 10, 2017. DOI: 10.1051/bmdcn/2017070203
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chen LH,
    2. Li CH,
    3. Wang SC,
    4. Chiu KL,
    5. Wu MF,
    6. Yang JS,
    7. Tsai CW,
    8. Chang WS,
    9. Hsia TC,
    10. Bau DT
    : Association of Matrix Metalloproteinase-1 promoter polymorphisms with asthma risk. In Vivo 38(1): 365-371, 2024. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13447
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Fu CK,
    2. Mong MC,
    3. Tzeng HE,
    4. Yang MD,
    5. Chen JC,
    6. Hsia TC,
    7. Hsia NY,
    8. Tsai CW,
    9. Chang WS,
    10. Chen CP,
    11. Bau DT
    : The significant contribution of Interleukin-16 genotypes, smoking, alcohol drinking, and Helicobacter pylori infection to gastric cancer. In Vivo 38(1): 90-97, 2024. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13414
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Deng Y,
    2. Ke TW,
    3. Yueh TC,
    4. Chin YT,
    5. Wang YC,
    6. Hung YC,
    7. Mong MC,
    8. Yang YC,
    9. Wu WT,
    10. Chang WS,
    11. Gu J,
    12. Bau DT,
    13. Tsai CW
    : The contribution of DNA ligase 4 polymorphisms to colorectal cancer. In Vivo 38(1): 127-133, 2024. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13419
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    rs1801320. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/rs1801320 [Last accessed on January 23, 2024]
  68. ↵
    1. Gasperino J
    : Gender is a risk factor for lung cancer. Med Hypotheses 76(3): 328-331, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2010.10.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Wang BY,
    2. Huang JY,
    3. Cheng CY,
    4. Lin CH,
    5. Ko J,
    6. Liaw YP
    : Lung cancer and prognosis in Taiwan: a population-based cancer registry. J Thorac Oncol 8(9): 1128-1135, 2013. DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31829ceba4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Guo X,
    3. Gao Q,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Zheng J,
    6. Zhao G,
    7. Okuda K,
    8. Tartarone A,
    9. Jiang M
    : Association between cigarette smoking history, metabolic phenotypes, and EGFR mutation status in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 15(10): 5689-5699, 2023. DOI: 10.21037/jtd-23-1371
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Vognsgaard F,
    2. Sætre LMS,
    3. Rasmussen S,
    4. Jarbøl DE
    : Associations between smoking status and involvement of personal and professional relations among individuals reporting symptoms related to a diagnosis of lung cancer: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 22(1): 2284, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14719-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Zuo WL,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Gomi K,
    4. Chao I,
    5. Crystal RG,
    6. Shaykhiev R
    : EGF-amphiregulin interplay in airway stem/progenitor cells links the pathogenesis of smoking-induced lesions in the human airway epithelium. Stem Cells 35(3): 824-837, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/stem.2512
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Chen HC
    : Mass spectrometry analysis of DNA and protein adducts as biomarkers in human exposure to cigarette smoking: acrolein as an example. Chem Res Toxicol 36(2): 132-140, 2023. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00354
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Jin Y,
    2. Xu P,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Zhang C,
    5. Tan C,
    6. Chen C,
    7. Sun X,
    8. Xu Y
    : Cigarette smoking, BPDE-DNA adducts, and aberrant promoter methylations of tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) in NSCLC from Chinese population. Cancer Invest 34(4): 173-180, 2016. DOI: 10.3109/07357907.2016.1156689
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Reprints and Permissions
The Contribution of Double-strand Break Repair Radiation Sensitive Protein 51 Genotypes to Lung Cancer in Taiwan
KUO-LIANG CHIU, SHOU-CHENG WANG, CHIA-HSIANG LI, TE-CHUN SHEN, LI-HSIOU CHEN, YI-CHENG SHEN, WEN-SHIN CHANG, CHIA-WEN TSAI, TE-CHUN HSIA, DA-TIAN BAU
Anticancer Research Apr 2024, 44 (4) 1409-1416; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16937
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords