Strong and Significant Associations of Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) in the Promoter and 3’-Untranslated Region (3’-UTR) of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Gene with Head and Neck Cancers

Sadia Ajaz, Rabbia Muneer, Aisha Siddiqa, Muhammad Ali Memon, Sadaf Firasat, Aiysha Abid, Shagufta Khaliq
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252743

Abstract

Background Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) has a potent role in tumorigenesis and metastasis. However, data for the role of common single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in the highly polymorphic VEGF gene in head and neck cancers (HNCs) is limited in general and unavailable in South Asian populations.

The present study addresses this shortfall. It investigates the association of two VEGF SNVs, −2578 C/A (rs699947) in the promoter region and +936 C/T (rs3025039) in 3’-UTR, with the risk of HNCs and tumour characteristics.

Methods The study comprised 323 participants with 121 HNC patients and 202 controls. Germline DNA was isolated from peripheral blood samples. PCR-RFLP methods were optimized and validated by Sanger sequencing. After Hardy-Weinberg evaluation, the independent associations were analyzed by applying genetic models. The χ2 test of independence or Fisher’s Exact test (significant p-values at <0.05) were performed and ORs (odds ratios) with 95% confidence interval were tabulated.

Results VEGF −2578 A-allele, A-carrier and AA genotypes had significant protective association against HNCs. The respective ORs were: 0.651 (0.469 – 0.904), 0.613 (0.381 – 0.985), and 0.393 (0.193 – 0.804). VEGF +936 T-allele, CT and T-carrier genotypes had significantly increased susceptibility for HNCs. The respective ORs were 1.882 (1.001 – 3.536), 2.060 (1.035 – 4.102), and 2.023 (1.032 – 3.966). Additionally, VEGF +936 CT and T-carrier genotypes showed significant associations with higher tumour grade (p-value <0.029, and <0.037, respectively).

Conclusion The present study is the foremost report of independent and unique associations of the investigated VEGF SNVs with HNCs.

INTRODUCTION

VEGF is a potent mitogen and a critical pro-angiogenic factor [1–3]. Increased VEGF expression is associated with tumourigenesis [4, 5] and metastasis [6]. VEGF concentrations, and hence the function, may vary depending upon the sequence variations in the encoding gene [7].

The VEGF gene, is located on chromosome 6p21.1. It is 16kb in size. It is one of the most polymorphic genes with more than 100 reported genetic variations [8]. VEGF gene expression variations have been shown in association with the following SNVs: −1154 G/A (rs1570360), – 2578 C/A (rs699947) and −1498 C/T (rs833061) polymorphisms in the promoter region, −634 G/C (rs2010963) in the 5’ untranslated region (UTR) and +936 C/T (rs3025039) in the 3’ UTR [7, 9–10]. These SNVs have been associated with certain epithelial cancers in different populations.

Head and neck cancers (HNCs) show high incidence in South-Asia [11]. However, no data is available for the contribution of variations in critical genes like VEGF to HNCs in this region. In order to address the paucity of data, the present study performs the association analysis of two frequent SNV in the VEGF gene, rs699947 (or −2578 C/A) and rs3025039 (or +936 C/T) with HNC cases from Pakistan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics Statement

The protocol is approved by the ethical review committees of the participating institutions. These include the independent ethics review committee (IEC) of the International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences (ICCBS), University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan [ICCBS/IEC-016-BS/HT-2016/Protocol/1.0], the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) of the Atomic Energy Medical Centre (AEMC), Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), Karachi, Pakistan [Admin-3 (257)/2016], and the ERC, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), Karachi, Pakistan. All the participants signed a written informed-consent form prior to sampling.

Study Population, Demographic, and Tumour Data Collection

The present study comprised two components: case-control study design to assess the contribution of selected SNVs to HNC susceptibility in the local population, and a cross-sectional study design to evaluate the association of particular SNVs with tumour progression. The participants belonged to Southern-Pakistan. The sampling for cases was carried out at AEMC, JPMC, Karachi, Pakistan from July 2016 – July 2017, while the samples from controls had been collected earlier at SIUT, Karachi, Pakistan from March 2009 – November 2012.

All cases were biopsy-proven primary HNC patients. Information regarding tumour site, histopathology, tumour size, tumour grade, and TNM classification were recorded from the pathology reports in the patients’ medical files. For controls, blood samples from individuals in the age range of 40 – 60 years were selected. In particular, the controls visited SIUT and had no personal history of any cancer at the time of sampling as determined from their medical records.

Sample Collection

The present study comprised 323 participants, with 121 cases and 202 controls. In case of patients 8-10ml, while for controls 4-5ml of blood samples were collected in ACD coated vacutainers and either processed immediately or stored at 4°C until DNA extraction.

DNA Extraction and Spectrophotometric Analysis

DNA was extracted using standard phenol-chloroform method [12]. Quality of the extracted DNA and concentration were determined spectrophotometrically. The samples had OD260/OD280 ratio between 1.7 – 1.9. No DNA fragmentation was observed in agarose gel run for quality control purpose

Genotyping

Genotyping for VEGF −2578C/A (rs699947) and +936C/T (rs3025039) were carried out by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) followed by Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) at Dr. Panjwani Center for Molecular Medicine and Drug Research (PCMD), ICCBS, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

Genotyping accuracy was validated by sequencing selected samples for the detected polymorphic variants by Sanger sequencing, commercially.

PCR-RFLP based genotyping assays have been described previously [13, 14].

Genotyping was confirmed by second blind evaluation. Overall evaluation of concordance rates was 100% for both VEGF −2578C/A and +936C/T polymorphisms. The call rates of genotyping reproducibility were also 100% for randomly selected samples.

Validation of Genotyping Assays

The genotyping assays were further validated by Sanger sequencing commercially.

Statistical Analysis

The demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were entered, coded, and processed with SPSS® software (version 19). The selected SNPs were tested for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) [14]. The p-values >0.05 showed that the genotypes were in HWE.

Associations between each SNP, HNC risk, and clinico-pathological features were analyzed by Chi-squared test of independence or Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate, with requisite degrees of freedom. Statistical significance was selected at p-values < 0.05. Odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were calculated to quantify the strength of genetic association.

RESULTS

Demographic Comparison and Clinical Data

The demographics of 121 cases and 202 controls were analyzed. The mean ages of cases and controls were 50.06 ± 1.29 and 46.36 ± 0.36, respectively

The clinico-pathological features of the patients are presented in table 1.

View this table:
Table 1. Histopathological features of the HNC tumours of the cases

Significant Protective Effect of VEGF (rs699947) −2578 A-Allele, A-carrier Genotype, and AA Genotype Against HNCs in Dominant, Recessive and Co-Dominant Multiplicative Models

The representative gels for amplification and restriction digestion are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Validation by Sanger sequencing is shown in the inset of figure 2.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Amplification of VEGF −2578C/A on 2.5% agarose gel with 100 bp ladder as a DNA marker. Ethidium bromide was used for staining.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Genotyping of VEGF −2578C/A digested with BglII enzyme. 325 bp DNA band showed CC genotype, combination of 123 bp, 202 bp, and 325 bp DNA band showed CA genotype, while 202 bp and 123 bp DNA band represented AA genotype.100 bp ladder was used as a marker.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

(inset): Electropherogram of Sanger sequencing for VEGF −2578C/A polymorphism (arrows represent the site of polymorphism). A-Variant homozygous (AA), B-Heterozygous variant (CA), C-Wildtype homozygous (CC).

The genotypes for VEGF −2578C/A polymorphism (CC, CA, and AA) were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for both cases and controls (HNC patients: χ2=0.13, 2 df, p >0.05; Controls: χ2=0.6, 2 df, p >0.05).

The genotypic and allelic frequencies of VEGF −2578C/A polymorphism are given in the table 2. As shown in the table, a significant protective effect of A-allele (OR.: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.47 – 0.90), A-carrier and AA genotypes [OR.: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38 – 0.98; OR: 0.39 (95% CI 0.19 – 0.80)] were observed against HNCs.

View this table:
Table 2. Distribution of the VEGF −2578C/A genotypes and allele frequencies (with standard errors) in controls and cases (HNC patients). Chi-squared test and odds-ratios (95% Confidence Interval) for the risk of HNC.

Significant Susceptibility Risk of VEGF (rs 3025039) +936 T-Allele, CT, and T-carrier Genotypes with HNCs in Dominant, Over-Dominant and Co-Dominant Additive Model

The representative gels for amplification and restriction digestion are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Validation by Sanger sequencing is shown in the inset of figure 4.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Amplification of VEGF +936C/T on 2.5% agarose gel with 100 bp ladder as a DNA marker. Ethidium bromide was used for staining.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Genotyping of VEGF +936C/T digested with NlaIII enzyme. A-DNA band of 208 bp represented CC genotype, while 86 bp, 122 bp, and 208 bp DNA bands showed CT genotype, B-122 bp and 86 bp DNA band depicted TT genotype.100 bp ladder was used as a marker.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

(inset): Electropherogram of Sanger sequencing for VEGF +936C/T SNP (arrow represent the site of polymorphism). A-Wildtype homozygous (CC), B-Variant heterozygous (CT), C-Variant homozygous (TT).

The genotypes for VEGF +936C/T polymorphism (CC, CT, and TT) were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for both cases and controls (HNC patients: χ2=0.08, 2 df, p >0.05; Controls: χ2=0.5, 2 df, p >0.05).

The genotypic and allelic frequencies of VEGF +936C/T polymorphism are given in the table 3. The chi-squared test of independence showed that VEGF +936C/T polymorphism was associated with the risk for HNCs. A significantly increased risk for HNCs was observed for T-allele, CT and T-carrier genotypes in the analyzed case-control group.

View this table:
Table 3. Distribution of the VEGF +936C/T genotypes and allele frequencies (with standard errors) in controls and cases (HNC patients). Chi-squared test and odds-ratios (95% Confidence Interval) for the risk of HNC.

Significant Association of VEGF +936 CT, and T-carrier Genotypes with Tumour Grade in HNCs

The association analysis of VEGF −2578C/A and +936C/T polymorphism with clinico-pathological features of HNC cases is shown in table 4. Significant associations were observed between CT- and T-carrier genotypes with tumour grade in HNCs. The odds ratios (95% CI) were 10.29 (1.45 – 72.81) and 9 (1.29 – 62.59), respectively.

View this table:
Table 4. Chi-squared test for the association of −2578 C/A and +936 C/T alleles with tumour characteristics in HNCs.

DISCUSSION

Cancer is a complex disorder. It has a number of etiologies. The underlying causes could be environmental (e.g. UV exposure), occupational (e.g. chemicals, radioactive materials and asbestos), life style related factors (e.g. tobacco, alcohol) and biological factors including age or inherited genetic defects. In the last group, VEGF plays an important role in tumour development and progression among different epithelial cancers [16].

Genetic variations in the regulatory region and/or the gene itself influence gene expression. Thus, these variations are potential genetic markers in disease susceptibility, progression, and treatment response [17]. In the highly polymorphic VEGF gene, SNVs in the regulatory regions, i.e. promoter, 5’ UTR, and 3’ UTR have been linked with variations in the gene expression [16, 18–19]. These polymorphisms have been associated with carcinomas including breast [20], melanoma [21], lung [22], kidney [13], and prostate [23] cancers.

Here, we report significant associations of two SNVs in the VEGF gene, −2578C/A in the promoter and +936C/T in 3’ (UTR), with HNCs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such report from South Asia.

Among the eligible published reports from other parts of the world (i.e. studies which fulfill STROBE criteria) [24], two studies each have reported association of VEGF −2578 C/A [25, 26] and +936 C/T with HNCs risk [25, 27].

The present study reports strong and significant protective effect of −2578 A-allele, A-carrier, and AA genotypes against HNCs. The earlier published reports are from Caucasian populations, one from Germany [25] and the other from Serbia [26]. In contrast to the present study, the German study reports increased risk for oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) with −2578CA genotype, while Serbian study does not report independent association of this SNV with HNCs. It is pertinent to mention here that the power of the present study for VEGF −2578C/A is more than 90%.

In 3’ UTR, +936C/T was not linked with risk for OSCCs in Taiwanese population [27]. However, in the German study +936 T allele was associated with increased risk [25], which is in agreement with the present report. The frequency of T allele in Caucasian populations is much higher (approx. 23%) than the South-Asian populations (approx. 10%) [9]. This frequency is further reduced to 7% in PJL (Punjabis in Lahore)-1000 genomes project, and the present study. Mechanistically, the role of VEGF polymorphisms in modulating the VEGF expression has been reported with varying results [28, 29]. For VEGF −2578C/A, the correlation of AA genotype with lower VEGF levels has been shown experimentally [30,31]. In agreement, another study reports that C-allele is associated with higher VEGF levels [32]. In contrast one study reports the co-relation of A allele to higher VEGF mRNA levels [33].

The possible mechanism for the observed association may be explained by the binding of two transcription factors, GATA-2 and MZF-1 to the promoter region of VEGF gene.

The −2578C/A SNP is positioned in the GATA-2 binding site. The A allele is likely to reduce the binding specificity. It is proposed that the −2578 C allele produces a binding site for GATA-2, that ultimately permits activation of VEGF gene. Therefore, the −2578 C allele may increase VEGF levels and promotes angiogenesis as well as tumor cells proliferation. Whereas, the −2578 A allele can reduce the transcription by decreasing the binding affinity to this region [34]. VEGF promoter region also has a binding site for the Myeloid Zinc Finger-1 (MZF-1), which is likely to regulate VEGF expression [35].

Additionally, it is reported that −2578 C/A polymorphism in VEGF promoter region has association with −2549 position, which has an18 bp fragment deletion/insertion (D/I) polymorphism. In the previous study it was shown that individuals with the −2578A allele had 18 bp insertion, while those with the −2578C allele did not have this insertion (−2549 D). It is also suggested that the linkage disequilibrium between these two sites is correlated with increased transcriptional activity [35].

Among different cancers, various studies have reported the contribution of VEGF gene expression with conflicting results in oral cancers. Still, a substantial number of studies have reported no association between VEGF expression and angiogenesis in oral cancers [34]. In Tunisian population, VEGF −2578C/A has been correlated with nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPCs), where C allele was associated with NPCs in this population [34]. In Caucasian population, this polymorphism has correlation with breast cancer [35]. While, in Pakistani population the −2578 A allele has significant association with increased risk of renal cell carcinomas [13], in contrast to the present study, which reports a protective effect in HNCs.

In the present study, T allele in VEGF +936C/T polymorphism has been associated with higher risk for HNCs. However, T allele has been associated with lower VEGF levels [38–39]. An AP-4 (Activator Enhancer-Binding Protein 4) DNA binding site (CAGCTG) is present in the 3′-UTR of VEGF. The C allele at +936 has the binding site for this protein, which is absent in case of +936 T allele [40], ultimately affect VEGF expression [41].

To address these discrepancies, we propose, that the allele could be in linkage disequilibrium with another locus, which increases the risk for HNCs. Indeed, +1451 C/T (rs3025040) in 3’UTR, located in the miR-199a or miR-199b binding site exhibits strong linkage disequlibrium (r2 = 1.0) with +936C/T in Chinese population [37].

Most of the published literature presents the association of these polymorphisms with tumour properties such as invasion, stage or grade. The present study also reports significant association of the polymorphism in 3’UTR with tumour grade.

Furthermore, the inconsistencies between the polymorphisms and serum concentration levels may arise from differences in the health and disease status of the participants. Thus, we recommend that well designed studies, clearly describing the characteristics of participants should be carried out.

In conclusion, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first report of strong and significant association of VEGF −2578 C/A and +936 C/T polymorphisms with HNCs in South-Asian population. This molecular investigation shall aid in establishing genotypic markers for risk and prognosis of HNCs

Data Availability

Data available on request.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None to declare.

FUNDING DISCLOSURE

None to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Institution core facilities (PCMD/ICCBS), AEMC, JPMC staff and all the participants of the study for their co-operation.

Footnotes

  • Background: Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) has a potent role in tumorigenesis and metastasis. However, data for the role of common single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in the highly polymorphic VEGF gene in head and neck cancers (HNCs) is limited in general and unavailable in South Asian populations.

    The present study addresses this shortfall. It investigates the association of two VEGF SNVs, −2578 C/A (rs699947) in the promoter region and +936 C/T (rs3025039) in 3’-UTR, with the risk of HNCs and tumour characteristics.

    Methods: The study comprised 323 participants with 121 HNC patients and 202 controls. Germline DNA was isolated from peripheral blood samples. PCR-RFLP methods were optimized and validated by Sanger sequencing. After Hardy-Weinberg evaluation, the independent associations were analyzed by applying genetic models. The χ2 test of independence or Fisher’s Exact test (significant p-values at <0.05) were performed and ORs (odds ratios) with 95% confidence interval were tabulated.

    Results: VEGF −2578 A-allele, A-carrier and AA genotypes had significant protective association against HNCs. The respective ORs were: 0.651 (0.469 – 0.904), 0.613 (0.381 – 0.985), and 0.393 (0.193 – 0.804). VEGF +936 T-allele, CT and T-carrier genotypes had significantly increased susceptibility for HNCs. The respective ORs were 1.882 (1.001 – 3.536), 2.060 (1.035 – 4.102), and 2.023 (1.032 – 3.966). Additionally, VEGF +936 CT and T-carrier genotypes showed significant associations with higher tumour grade (p-value <0.029, and <0.037, respectively).

    Conclusion: The present study is the foremost report of independent and unique associations of the investigated VEGF SNVs with HNCs.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Arcondeguy T, Lacazette E, Millevoi S, Prats H, Touriol C. VEGF-A mRNA processing, stability and translation: a paradigm for intricate regulation of gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jul 12;41(17):7997–8010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.
    Genetic Home Reference. Retrieved [02.05.2018] from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/VEGFA#location
  3. 3.↵
    Koutras A, Kotoula V, Fountzilas G. Prognostic and predictive role of vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms in breast cancer. Pharmacogenomics. 2015 Jan;16(1):79–94.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Ghias K. Role of VEGF in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. J Pioneer Med Sci. 2014 Jul;4(4):163–4.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Zhao SF, Yang XD, Lu MX, Sun GW, Wang YX, Zhang YK, Pu YM, Tang EY. Prognostic significance of VEGF immunohistochemical expression in oral cancer: a meta-analysis of the literature. Tumor Biol. 2013 Oct 1;34(5):3165–71
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Kämmerer PW, AlLNawas B, Kalkan S, Liese J, Fruth K, Frerich B, Brieger J. AngiogenesisLrelated prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma—role of the VEGF+ 936 C/T polymorphism. J Oral Pathol Med. 2015 Jul;44(6):429–36.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
  9. 9.↵
    Formento JL, Etienne-Grimaldi MC, Francoual M, Pagès G, Onesto C, Formento P, Chamorey E, Dassonville O, Poissonnet G, Milano G. Influence of the VEGF-A 936C> T germinal polymorphism on tumoral VEGF expression in head and neck cancer. Pharmacogenomics. 2009 Aug;10(8):1277–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Makni L, Stayoussef M, Ghazouani E, Mezlini A, Almawi WY. Distinct association of VEGF-A polymorphisms with laryngeal and nasopharyngeal cancer. Meta Gene. 2016 Dec 31;10:90–4.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Fitzmaurice, 2018
  12. 12.↵
    Sambrook, J. & Russell, D.W. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. 2001. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 2001).
  13. 13.↵
    Ajaz S, Khaliq S, Abid A, Hassan AS, Hashmi A, Sultan G, et al. Association of a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the promoter region of the VEGF gene with the risk of renal cell carcinoma. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2011 Sep 1;15(9):653–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Ajaz, S., Siddiqa, A., Ali, S. M., Firasat, S., Abid, A., Khaliq, S., & Memon, M. A. (2019). Association analysis of the VEGF gene variants with breast cancer susceptibility and tumor characteristics in an indigenous population: A pilot study. Gene Reports, 16, 100447.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.
  16. 16.↵
    Lee SH, Jeong D, Han YS, Baek MJ. Pivotal role of vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor angiogenesis. Annals of surgical treatment and research. 2015 Jul 1;89(1):1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Dong PP. Association of vascular endothelial growth factor expression and polymorphisms with the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2018 Oct 23:e22686.
  18. 18.↵
    Paradowska-Gorycka A, Pawlik A, Romanowska-Prochnicka K, Haladyj E, Malinowski D, Stypinska B, Manczak M, Olesinska M. Relationship between VEGF gene polymorphisms and serum VEGF protein levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PloS one. 2016 Aug 11;11(8):e0160769.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Koukourakis MI, Papazoglou D, Giatromanolaki A, Bougioukas G, Maltezos E, Siviridis E. VEGF gene sequence variation defines VEGF gene expression status and angiogenic activity in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung cancer. 2004 Dec 1;46(3):293–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Shevchenko AV, Konenkov VI, Garbukov EY, Stakheeva MN. Polymorphism of regulatory regions of growth factor gene of vascular endothelium VEGFA in breast cancer patients with family history. Problems in oncology. 2012 Dec 15;58(6):773–6.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Howell WM, Bateman AC, Turner SJ, Collins A, Theaker JM. Influence of vascular endothelial growth factor single nucleotide polymorphisms on tumour development in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Genes and immunity. 2002 Jun;3(4):229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Li Y, Liang J, Liu X, Liu H, Yin B, Xiao J, Bi Z. Correlation of polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor gene and the risk of lung cancer in an ethnic Han group of North China. Experimental and therapeutic medicine. 2012 Apr 1;3(4):673–6.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Martinez-Fierro ML, Garza-Veloz I, Rojas-Martinez A, Ortiz-Lopez R, Castruita-de la Rosa C, Ortiz-Castro Y, Lazalde-Ramos BP, Cervantes-Villagrana AR, Castañeda-Lopez ME, Gomez-Guerra L, Delgado-Enciso I. Positive association between vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-2578 C/A variant and prostate cancer. Cancer Biomarkers. 2013 Oct 31;13(4):235–41.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Strobe Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. International journal of surgery. 2014 Dec 1;12(12):1495–9.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Kämmerer PW, Toyoshima T, Eletr S, Kämmerer P, Kuhr K, AlLNawas B, Brieger J. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor gene associated with incidence of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of oral pathology & medicine. 2010 Nov;39(10):786–92.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Cheng, C. Y., Chang, C. S., Liu, C. J., & Kao, S. Y. (2008). Vascular endothelial growth factor 936 C/T polymorphism is associated with vascular invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 106(1), 79–84.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Supic G, Jovic N, Zeljic K, Kozomara R, Magic Z. Association of VEGF-A genetic polymorphisms with cancer risk and survival in advanced-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma patients. Oral oncology. 2012 Nov 1;48(11):1171–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    EtienneLGrimaldi MC, Formento P, Degeorges A, Pierga JY, Delva R, Pivot X, et al. Prospective analysis of the impact of VEGFLA gene polymorphisms on the pharmacodynamics of bevacizumabLbased therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Jun;71(6):921–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Jain L, Vargo CA, Danesi R, Sissung TM, Price DK, Venzon D, et al. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor SNPs as predictive and prognostic markers for major solid tumors. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009 Sep 15:1535–7163.
  30. 30.↵
    Schneider BP, Radovich M, Miller KD. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor genetic variability in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Aug 25:1078–0432.
  31. 31.↵
    Schneider BP, Wang M, Radovich M, Sledge GW, Badve S, Thor A, et al. Association of vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 genetic polymorphisms with outcome in a trial of paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in advanced breast cancer: ECOG 2100. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Oct 1;26(28):4672.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    Shahbazi M, Fryer AA, Pravica V, Brogan IJ, Ramsay HM, Hutchinson IV, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor gene polymorphisms are associated with acute renal allograft rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002 Jan 1;13(1):260–4
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Zang J, Hu Y, Xu X, Ni J, Yan D, Liu S, et al. Elevated serum levels of vascular endothelial growth factor predict a poor prognosis of platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:409.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Nasr, H. B., Chahed, K., Bouaouina, N., and Chouchane, L. (2008). Functional vascular endothelial growth factor −2578C/A polymorphism in relation to nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk and tumor progression. Clinica Chimica Acta, 395(1-2), 124–129.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Yang, B., Cross, D. F., Ollerenshaw, M., Millward, B. A., and Demaine, A. G. (2003). Polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor and susceptibility to diabetic microvascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications, 17(1), 1–6.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.
    Yapijakis, C., Vairaktaris, E., Vassiliou, S., Vylliotis, A., Nkenke, E., Nixon, A., Neukam, F. (2007). The low VEGF production allele of the+ 936C/T polymorphism is strongly associated with increased risk for oral cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 133(10), 787–791.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Zhao J, Bai Y, Jin L, Weng Y, Wang Y, Wu H, Li X, Huang Y, Wang S. A functional variant in the 3L-UTR of VEGF predicts the 90-day outcome of ischemic stroke in Chinese patients. PloS one. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):p e0172709.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Doi K, Noiri E, Nakao A, Fujita T, Kobayashi S, Tokunaga K. Functional polymorphisms in the vascular endothelial growth factor gene are associated with development of end-stage renal disease in males. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Mar 1;17(3):823–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Krippl P, Langsenlehner U, Renner W, YazdaniLBiuki B, Wolf G, Wascher TC, et al. A common 936 C/T gene polymorphism of vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with decreased breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2003 Sep 10;106(4):468–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Renner, W., Kotschan, S., Hoffmann, C., Obermayer-Pietsch, B., and Pilger, E. (2000). A common 936 C/T mutation in the gene for vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with vascular endothelial growth factor plasma levels. Journal of Vascular Research, 37(6), 443–448.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Cao, J., Tang, M., Li, W. L., Xie, J., Du, H., Tang, W. B., Li, Y. (2009). Upregulation of activator protein-4 in human colorectal cancer with metastasis. International Journal of Surgical Pathology, 17(1), 16–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted March 08, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Strong and Significant Associations of Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) in the Promoter and 3’-Untranslated Region (3’-UTR) of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Gene with Head and Neck Cancers
Sadia Ajaz, Rabbia Muneer, Aisha Siddiqa, Muhammad Ali Memon, Sadaf Firasat, Aiysha Abid, Shagufta Khaliq
medRxiv 2021.03.02.21252743; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252743
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area