Oncotarget

Research Papers:

IRS-2 rs1805097 polymorphism is associated with the decreased risk of colorectal cancer

PDF |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:25107-25114. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15342

Metrics: PDF 1983 views  |   HTML 2204 views  |   ?  

Jiefeng Yin, Zhe Zhang, Huajun Zheng and Lei Xu _

Abstract

Jiefeng Yin1, Zhe Zhang1, Huajun Zheng2, Lei Xu2

1General Surgery Department, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

2Department of Digestion, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Correspondence to:

Lei Xu, email: [email protected]

Keywords: IRS-2, single nucleotide polymorphism, colorectal cancer, meta-analysis, rs1805097

Received: November 14, 2016     Accepted: January 27, 2017     Published: February 15, 2017

ABSTRACT

Recent studies explored the association between insulin receptor substrate-2 (IRS-2) gene rs1805097 polymorphism and colorectal cancer (CRC) with contradictory findings. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis by searching the databases of PubMed and Embase. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using fixed-effect or random-effect models. A total of 5 citations containing 6 case-control studies involving 4,333 cases and 5,333 controls were included. Our data indicated that IRS-2 rs1805097 polymorphism was associated with decreased risk of CRC. Stratification analysis of ethnicity found that rs1805097 polymorphism decreased the risk of CRC among Americans. Stratification analysis of cancer type suggested that this polymorphism decreased the risk of colon cancer. In summary, this meta-analysis indicates that IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism plays an important role in the pathogenesis of CRC.


INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide [1]. CRC is one of the primary causes of cancer-related mortality. To date, the etiology of CRC is still unclear. Some environmental factors including diet, cigarette smoking, physical inactivity, and alcohol consumption, are considered to influence the risk of CRC [2]. Studies demonstrated that those environmental factors through the insulin pathway are significantly associated with the risk of CRC [3, 4]. Several researches provided evidence to support that insulin is associated with the risk of CRC [3, 4]. Some researchers reported that hyperinsulinaemia and type 2 diabetes influence the risk of colon cancer [5]. Animal research found that insulin enhances the growth of aberrant crypt foci, CRC precursor lesions, and increases the number and the size of the tumors [4].

Insulin receptor substrates (IRSs) are involved in insulin signaling pathway [6]. IRS-2 plays an important role in glucose metabolism, tumor progression, and metastasis [7]. A host of studies [812] investigated the association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk, but with conflicting findings. These conflicting and inconclusive results may due to clinical heterogeneity, diverse ethnic populations, different tumor types, and small sample sizes. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to clarify the possible association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the included studies

We yielded a total of 51 citations after initial search. 33 citations were removed after removing duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts. 18 citations were selected for further full text review. 13 citations were excluded: 1 investigated other polymorphisms; 5 were about other diseases; 2 were meta-analyses. Finally, 5 citations [812] containing 6 studies (4,333 cases and 5,333 controls) were included in this meta-analysis. Selection for eligible studies included in this meta-analysis was presented in Figure 1. The characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores of all included studies ranged from 5 to 8 stars. All studies conformed to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).

Table 1: Characteristics of included studies

Author and year

Country

SOC

Genotype methods

Ethnicity

Case

Control

HWE

NOS

GG

GA

AA

GG

GA

AA

Mahmoundi_2014

Iran

HB

PCR

Caucasian

109

118

34

139

153

47

Y

6

Yukselogu_2014

Turkey

HB

PCR-RFLP

Caucasian

79

58

24

88

85

24

Y

7

Pechivanis_2007

Czech

HB

PCR

Caucasian

211

277

81

268

309

106

Y

7

Samowitz_2006

USA

HB

PCR

American

718

657

197

829

906

229

Y

8

Slattery_2004a

USA

PB

PCR

American

467

409

128

481

552

134

Y

6

Slattery_2004b

USA

PB

PCR

American

325

343

562

421

423

139

Y

6

Abbreviations: SOC, source of control; PB, population-based controls; HB, hospital-based controls; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Selection for eligible publications included in this meta-analysis.

Figure 1: Selection for eligible publications included in this meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis of IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism

As shown in Table 2, we detected an association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG: OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.99, P = 0.022, Figure 2). Stratification analysis by ethnicity indicated that rs1805097 polymorphism was significantly associated with a decreased risk of CRC among Americans (AA+GA vs. GG: OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80–0.97, P = 0.007, Figure 3), but not among other Caucasians. Stratification analysis of cancer type suggested that this polymorphism decreased the risk of colon cancer (AA+GA vs. GG: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76–0.94, P = 0.002, Figure 4). Regarding stratification analysis by source of control (SOC), no positive result was obtained in both population-based population and hospital-based population (Table 3).

Table 2: Meta-analysis of association between IRS-2 rs1805097 polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk

Comparison

OR(95%CI)

P-value

P for heterogeneity

I2 (%)

Model

A vs. G

0.96(0.90,1.01)

0.132

0.939

0

Fixed

AA+GA vs. GG

0.91(0.84,0.99)

0.022

0.260

23.2

Fixed

AA vs. GG+GA

1.02(0.91,1.15)

0.721

0.695

0

Fixed

AA vs. GG

0.97(0.86,1.10)

0.669

0.994

0

Fixed

GA vs. GG

0.91(0.79,1.05)

0.189

0.055

53.7

Random

Table 3: Summary of the subgroup analyses in this meta-analysis

Comparison

Category

Category

Studies

OR (95% CI)

P-value

P for heterogeneity

A vs. G

Ethnicity

Caucasians

3

1.00(0.88,1.13)

0.943

0.913

Americans

3

0.94(0.88,1.01)

0.093

0.939

Cancer type

mixed

3

1.00(0.88,1.13)

0.943

0.913

Colon cancer

2

0.93(0.86,1.01)

0.078

0.696

Rectal cancer

1

0.98(0.85,1.13)

0.772

<0.001

SOC

HB

4

0.96(0.89-1.04)

0.350

0.892

PB

2

0.94(0.86-1.04)

0.218

0.472

AA+GA vs. GG

Ethnicity

Caucasians

3

1.01(0.85,1.20)

0.884

0.519

Americans

3

0.88(0.80,0.97)

0.007

0.198

Cancer type

mixed

3

1.01(0.85,1.20)

0.884

0.519

Colon cancer

2

0.84(0.76,0.94)

0.002

0.499

Rectal cancer

1

1.02(0.84,1.23)

0.867

<0.001

SOC

HB

4

0.92(0.83,1.02)

0.125

0.358

PB

2

0.89(0.79,1.01)

0.082

0.076

AA vs.GA+ GG

Ethnicity

Caucasians

3

0.96(0.75,1.22)

0.732

0.625

Americans

3

1.04(0.91,1.20)

0.541

0.422

Cancer type

mixed

3

0.96(0.75,1.22)

0.732

0.625

Colon cancer

2

1.10(0.94,1.29)

0.238

0.825

Rectal cancer

1

0.89(0.67,1.18)

0.414

<0.001

SOC

HB

4

1.03(0.88,1.20)

0.704

0.674

PB

2

1.01(0.84,1.22)

0.920

0.225

AA vs.GG

Ethnicity

Caucasians

3

0.98(0.76,1.27)

0.875

0.900

Americans

3

0.97(0.84,1.12)

0.687

0.898

Cancer type

mixed

3

0.98(0.76,1.27)

0.875

0.900

Colon cancer

2

0.99(0.84,1.17)

0.904

0.957

Rectal cancer

1

0.91(0.68,1.23)

0.549

<0.001

SOC

HB

4

0.99(0.84,1.17)

0.882

0.975

PB

2

0.95(0.78,1.16)

0.662

0.718

GA vs.GG

Ethnicity

Caucasians

3

1.01(0.82,1.24)

0.929

0.292

Americans

3

0.91(0.79,1.05)

0.099

0.062

Cancer type

mixed

3

1.01(0.82,1.24)

0.929

0.292

Colon cancer

2

0.81(0.72,0.90)

<0.001

0.428

Rectal cancer

1

1.05(0.86,1.29)

0.635

<0.001

SOC

HB

4

0.93(0.78,1.11)

0.404

0.145

PB

2

0.89(0.65,1.22)

0.475

0.021

Abbreviations: SOC, source of control; PB, population-based controls; HB, hospital-based controls.

Forest plot shows odds ratio for the associations between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

Figure 2: Forest plot shows odds ratio for the associations between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

Stratification analyses by ethnicity shows odds ratio for the associations between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

Figure 3: Stratification analyses by ethnicity shows odds ratio for the associations between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

Stratification analyses of cancer type between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

Figure 4: Stratification analyses of cancer type between rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA+GA vs. GG).

We assessed sensitivity by omitting each study once at a time in every genetic model for rs1805097 polymorphism. Our data indicated that the findings of this meta-analysis were stable and trustworthy (AA vs. GG+GA, Figure 5). Both Egger's and Begg's tests (A vs. G, Figure 6) revealed that there was no obvious publication bias for rs1805097 polymorphism (data not shown).

Sensitivity analysis about rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA vs. GG+GA).

Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis about rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (AA vs. GG+GA).

Begg&#x2019;s tests for rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (A vs. G).

Figure 6: Begg’s tests for rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk (A vs. G).

DISCUSSION

In this current meta-analysis, we found that IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism decreased the risk of CRC. Stratification analysis revealed that rs1805097 polymorphism was associated with a decreased risk of CRC among Americans. In addition, stratification analysis of cancer type suggested that rs1805097 polymorphism decreased the risk of colon cancer.

Insulin, a hormone, controls the energy homeostasis by functioning on target tissues. Insulin increases cell proliferation and decreases apoptosis [4, 13]. Many studies indicated that hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance (IR) are involved in the etiology of CRC [14]. Hyperinsulinemia interacting with obesity was an important risk factor for CRC [4, 14]. Larsson et al. found a relationship between diabetes and increased risk of CRC [13]. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF), insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs), insulin and IRS play crucial roles in the initiation of cell growth and CRC proliferation [15, 16]. IRS-2 mediates the major metabolic, proliferative, and antiapoptotic functions of the IGF1 [17, 18]. IRS-2 gene variants were reported to be involved in the modulation of IRS-1 or IRS-2 functions and could be relevant to colorectal tumorigenesis [19]. So far, a number of studies [812] investigated the association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk. However, these studies yield contradictory results. Thus, we conducted this current meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analysis by Hu et al. indicated that IRS-2 rs1805097 polymorphism was not associated with CRC risk [20]. They only included 4 studies. To date, two studies [9, 11] have been reported in recent years since the meta-analysis [20]. In analysis of all included studies, our meta-analysis found that rs1805097 polymorphism was associated with decreased CRC risk. We believed that Hu et al. falsely extracted the genotype numbers of cases and controls from an American study [8]. Actually, the genotype numbers of this study were as following: colon cancers (GG=467, GA=409, AA=128), controls (GG=481, GA=552, AA=134); rectal cancers (GG=325, GA=343, AA=98), controls (GG=421, GA=423, AA=139). In addition, the above false data explained the reason why the HWE value in this American study was wrong [8]. According to our data, the study [8] by Slattery et al. conformed to HWE. We also conducted stratification analysis of cancer type, which was not performed by Hu et al. [20]. Our data suggested that rs1805097 polymorphism was associated with a decreased risk of colon cancer.

We believe our meta-analysis more robust than previous meta-analysis by Hu et al. [20]. First, we included 2 extra studies and the sample size of this meta-analysis was larger than previous meta-analysis. Second, sensitivity analysis indicated that our data about rs1805097 polymorphism were trustworthy and stable. Third, the power analysis indicated that this meta-analysis had a power of 96.9% to detect the effect of rs1805097 polymorphism on CRC risk with an OR of 0.91.

Several potential limitations should be addressed in this meta-analysis. First, due to limited data, we could not investigate the association between CRC and other potential factors, such as age and sex. Second, our results were based on unadjusted estimates for confounding factors, which might have affected the final findings. Third, we could not assess potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions because of the lack of relevant data. Fourth, the sample size of this meta-analysis is not very large, and the number of included studies is small. Fifth, the findings of the stratified analyses should be interpreted with caution because of limited sample sizes.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism decreased the risk of CRC. Further studies are necessary to validate whether rs1805097 polymorphism contributes to CRC susceptibility in other ethnic groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search and inclusion criteria

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase to identify studies through August 19, 2016. The following search terms were used: “cancer,” ‘‘carcinoma,’’ “neoplasm,’’ ‘‘tumor,’’ ‘‘Insulin Receptor Substrate 2,’’ ‘‘IRS-2,’’ and ‘‘IRS 2’’. No restrictions were placed on the literature search. Reference lists were identified by hand screening. The identified studies conformed to the following criteria: (1) studies that evaluated the association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk, (2) study provided sufficient data to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), (3) case-control study.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Relevant information was carefully extracted from all eligible studies. The extracted information from all eligible studies including: name of first author, publication year, country of origin, ethnicity, genotype methods and genotype numbers of cases and controls. Two authors independently performed the extraction of data and assessed the study quality based on the NOS [21]. All disagreements were discussed and resolved with consensus.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the Stata 11.0 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). ORs and 95%CIs were used to assess the strength of association between IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism and CRC risk. Stratification analyses were carried out by ethnicity, SOC and cancer type. When a Q test indicated P < 0.1 or I2 > 50% indicated heterogeneity across studies, a random-effect model was used. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was applied [22]. Allele model, dominant model, recessive model, homozygous model, and heterozygous model were used in this meta-analysis. We performed leave-one-out sensitivity analysis to evaluate the stability of the overall results. We assessed the departure from the HWE in the controls using Pearson’s χ2 test. Potential publication bias was assessed by Begger's and Egger’s linear regression test [23]; P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant. The power of this meta-analysis was calculated with a significant value of 0.05 [24].

Abbreviations

CRC, colorectal cancer; IRS-2, insulin receptor substrate-2; IRS, insulin receptor substrates; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; IGFBP, insulin-like growth factor binding protein; IR, insulin resistance; SOC, source of control; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International journal of cancer. 2010; 127:2893-2917.

2. de la Chapelle A. Genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer. Nature reviews Cancer. 2004; 4:769-780.

3. Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL. Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002; 94:972-980.

4. Giovannucci E. Insulin, insulin-like growth factors and colon cancer: a review of the evidence. The Journal of nutrition. 2001; 131:3109S-3120S.

5. Keku TO, Lund PK, Galanko J, Simmons JG, Woosley JT, Sandler RS. Insulin resistance, apoptosis, and colorectal adenoma risk. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention. 2005; 14:2076-2081.

6. Withers DJ. Insulin receptor substrate proteins and neuroendocrine function. Biochemical Society transactions. 2001; 29:525-529.

7. Reuveni H, Flashner-Abramson E, Steiner L, Makedonski K, Song R, Shir A, Herlyn M, Bar-Eli M, Levitzki A. Therapeutic destruction of insulin receptor substrates for cancer treatment. Cancer research. 2013; 73:4383-4394.

8. Slattery ML, Samowitz W, Curtin K, Ma KN, Hoffman M, Caan B, Neuhausen S. Associations among IRS1, IRS2, IGF1, and IGFBP3 genetic polymorphisms and colorectal cancer. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention. 2004; 13:1206-1214.

9. Mahmoudi T, Majidzadeh AK, Karimi K, Karimi N, Farahani H, Dabiri R, Nobakht H, Dolatmoradi H, Arkani M, Zali MR. An exon variant in insulin receptor gene is associated with susceptibility to colorectal cancer in women. Tumour biology. 2015; 36:3709-3715.

10. Pechlivanis S, Pardini B, Bermejo JL, Wagner K, Naccarati A, Vodickova L, Novotny J, Hemminki K, Vodicka P, Forsti A. Insulin pathway related genes and risk of colorectal cancer: INSR promoter polymorphism shows a protective effect. Endocrine-related cancer. 2007; 14:733-740.

11. Yukseloglu EH, Celik SK, Kucuk MU, Yalin E, Ozkal SS, Ates C, Berkoz M, Yalin S, Ates NA. IRS-2 G1057D polymorphism in Turkish patients with colorectal cancer. Przeglad gastroenterologiczny. 2014; 9:88-92.

12. Samowitz WS, Wolff RK, Ma KN, Andersen K, Caan B, Slattery ML. Polymorphisms in insulin-related genes predispose to specific KRAS2 and TP53 mutations in colon cancer. Mutation research. 2006; 595:117-124.

13. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Diabetes mellitus and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005; 97:1679-1687.

14. Limburg PJ, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Vierkant RA, Roberts K, Sellers TA, Taylor PR, Virtamo J, Cerhan JR, Albanes D. Insulin, glucose, insulin resistance, and incident colorectal cancer in male smokers. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. 2006; 4:1514-1521.

15. Furstenberger G, Senn HJ. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. The Lancet Oncology. 2002; 3:298-302.

16. Jackson JG, Zhang X, Yoneda T, Yee D. Regulation of breast cancer cell motility by insulin receptor substrate-2 (IRS-2) in metastatic variants of human breast cancer cell lines. Oncogene. 2001; 20:7318-7325.

17. Schubert M, Brazil DP, Burks DJ, Kushner JA, Ye J, Flint CL, Farhang-Fallah J, Dikkes P, Warot XM, Rio C, Corfas G, White MF. Insulin receptor substrate-2 deficiency impairs brain growth and promotes tau phosphorylation. The Journal of neuroscience. 2003; 23:7084-7092.

18. Dearth RK, Cui X, Kim HJ, Hadsell DL, Lee AV. Oncogenic transformation by the signaling adaptor proteins insulin receptor substrate (IRS)-1 and IRS-2. Cell cycle. 2007; 6:705-713.

19. Esposito DL, Verginelli F, Toracchio S, Mammarella S, De Lellis L, Vanni C, Russo A, Mariani-Costantini R, Cama A. Novel insulin receptor substrate 1 and 2 variants in breast and colorectal cancer. Oncology reports. 2013; 30:1553-1560.

20. Hu Y, Zhou M, Zhang K, Kong X, Hu X, Li K, Liu L. Lack of association between insulin receptor substrate2 rs1805097 polymorphism and the risk of colorectal and breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PloS one. 2014; 9:e86911.

21. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010; 25:603-605.

22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002; 21:1539-1558.

23. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Jama. 2006; 295:676-680.

24. Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological methods. 2001; 6:203-217.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 15342