» Articles » PMID: 29358395

Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations in Normal Tissues Have Differential Impacts on Cancer Risk Among Tissues

Abstract

Genetic and epigenetic alterations are both involved in carcinogenesis, and their low-level accumulation in normal tissues constitutes cancer risk. However, their relative importance has never been examined, as measurement of low-level mutations has been difficult. Here, we measured low-level accumulations of genetic and epigenetic alterations in normal tissues with low, intermediate, and high cancer risk and analyzed their relative effects on cancer risk in the esophagus and stomach. Accumulation of genetic alterations, estimated as a frequency of rare base substitution mutations, significantly increased according to cancer risk in esophageal mucosae, but not in gastric mucosae. The mutation patterns reflected the exposure to lifestyle risk factors. In contrast, the accumulation of epigenetic alterations, measured as DNA methylation levels of marker genes, significantly increased according to cancer risk in both tissues. Patients with cancer (high-risk individuals) were precisely discriminated from healthy individuals with exposure to risk factors (intermediate-risk individuals) by a combination of alterations in the esophagus (odds ratio, 18.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.69-89.9) and by only epigenetic alterations in the stomach (odds ratio, 7.67; 95% confidence interval, 2.52-23.3). The relative importance of epigenetic alterations upon genetic alterations was 1.04 in the esophagus and 2.31 in the stomach. The differential impacts among tissues will be critically important for effective cancer prevention and precision cancer risk diagnosis.

Citing Articles

The AP-2 Family of Transcription Factors-Still Undervalued Regulators in Gastroenterological Disorders.

Yu Y, Kolat D, Kaluzinska-Kolat Z, Liang Z, Peng B, Zhu Y Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(17).

PMID: 39273087 PMC: 11394946. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25179138.


Early-onset cancers: Biological bases and clinical implications.

Mauri G, Patelli G, Sartore-Bianchi A, Abrignani S, Bodega B, Marsoni S Cell Rep Med. 2024; 5(9):101737.

PMID: 39260369 PMC: 11525030. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101737.


MIR124-3 and NKX6-1 hypermethylation profiles accurately predict metachronous gastric lesions in a Caucasian population.

Lopes C, Almeida T, Macedo-Silva C, Costa J, Paulino S, Jeronimo C Clin Epigenetics. 2024; 16(1):113.

PMID: 39169394 PMC: 11340155. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-024-01712-z.


Tumor initiation and early tumorigenesis: molecular mechanisms and interventional targets.

Zhang S, Xiao X, Yi Y, Wang X, Zhu L, Shen Y Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2024; 9(1):149.

PMID: 38890350 PMC: 11189549. DOI: 10.1038/s41392-024-01848-7.


Statistical Models for High-Risk Intestinal Metaplasia with DNA Methylation Profiling.

Wang T, Huang Y, Yang J Epigenomes. 2024; 8(2).

PMID: 38804368 PMC: 11130831. DOI: 10.3390/epigenomes8020019.


References
1.
Martincorena I, Roshan A, Gerstung M, Ellis P, Van Loo P, McLaren S . Tumor evolution. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science. 2015; 348(6237):880-6. PMC: 4471149. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa6806. View

2.
Teschendorff A, Gao Y, Jones A, Ruebner M, Beckmann M, Wachter D . DNA methylation outliers in normal breast tissue identify field defects that are enriched in cancer. Nat Commun. 2016; 7:10478. PMC: 4740178. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10478. View

3.
Yamashita S, Iida N, Takeshima H, Hattori N, Maeda M, Kishino T . A novel method to quantify base substitution mutations at the 10 per bp level in DNA samples. Cancer Lett. 2017; 403:152-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.06.010. View

4.
Suzuki T, Itoh S, Nakajima M, Hachiya N, Hara T . Target organ and time-course in the mutagenicity of five carcinogens in MutaMouse: a summary report of the second collaborative study of the transgenic mouse mutation assay by JEMS/MMS. Mutat Res. 1999; 444(2):259-68. DOI: 10.1016/s1383-5718(99)00104-7. View

5.
Braakhuis B, Tabor M, Kummer J, Leemans C, Brakenhoff R . A genetic explanation of Slaughter's concept of field cancerization: evidence and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2003; 63(8):1727-30. View