"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead
Research Article

The Association between Ser326Cys Polymorphism and Lung Cancer Susceptibility: A Meta-Analysis of 27 Studies


Background Numerous studies have investigated association of OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism with lung cancer susceptibility; however, the findings are inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis based on 27 publications encompass 9663 cases and 11348 controls to comprehensively evaluate such associations. Methods We searched publications from MEDLINE and EMBASE which were assessing the associations between OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and lung cancer risk. We calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by using either fixed-effects or random-effects model. We used genotype based mRNA expression data from HapMap for SNP rs1052133 in normal cell lines among 270 subjects with four different ethnicities. Results The results showed that individuals carrying the Cys/Cys genotype did not have significantly increased risk for lung cancer (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.98–1.36) when compared with the Ser/Ser genotype; similarly, no significant association was found in recessive, dominant or heterozygous co-dominant model (Ser/Cys vs. Cys/Cys). However, markedly increased risks were found in relatively large sample size (Ser/Ser vs. Cys/Cys: OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.13–1.48, and recessive model: OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.07–1.32). As to histological types, we found the Cys/Cys was associated with adenocarcinoma risk (Ser/Ser vs. Cys/Cys: OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.12–1.56; Ser/Cys vs. Cys/Cys: OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.04–1.37, and recessive model OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.08–1.40). No significant difference of OGG1 mRNA expression was found among genotypes between different ethnicities. Conclusions Despite some limitations, this meta-analysis established solid statistical evidence for an association between the OGG1 Cys/Cys genotype and lung cancer risk, particularly for studies with large sample size and adenocarcinoma, but this association warrants additional validation in larger and well designed studies.