Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 8;21(5):e0348942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348942

Targeted analysis of KRAS and CREBBP mutations uncovers a potential population-specific signature in thai patients with liver fluke-associated cholangiocarcinoma

Rehab Osman Taha 1, Wanna Chaijaroenkul 1,2, Papichaya Phompradit 1, Kesara Na-Bangchang 1,2,*
Editor: Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan3
PMCID: PMC13155607  PMID: 42102112

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options and a poor prognosis. Opisthorchis viverrini (OV) infection is a major risk factor in endemic regions, particularly in Southeast Asia. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying iCCA development and progression remain incompletely understood. This study, as it is, is observational and demonstrates association rather than causation. This study aimed to characterize genetic alterations in key germline variants associated with cancer risk and prognosis, as well as components of the oxidative stress pathway, and to evaluate their associations with clinicopathological features in Thai iCCA patients. A cohort study was conducted involving 112 iCCA patients, 60 OV-infected individuals, and 156 healthy controls. Genetic alterations in TP53, CREBBP, KRAS (codons 12 and 13), CDKN2A, IDH1, and GZMB were analyzed by PCR and sequencing. Gene polymorphic co-occurrence and burden were assessed. Additionally, polymorphisms in the KEAP1–NFE2L2 oxidative stress pathway (KEAP1 rs11085735; NFE2L2 rs6726395, rs6721961, rs4893819) were analyzed in 50 iCCA patients. Associations with clinicopathological parameters, including metastatic status, tumor size, and tumor markers (CEA and CA 19−9), were evaluated using odds ratios (OR) and statistical analyses. CREBBP polymorphisms were significantly more frequent in iCCA patients (50.0%) than in OV-infected individuals (30.0%) and healthy controls (30.8%) (P = 0.003), with homozygous mutations conferring the highest cancer risk (OR = 6.43, 95% CI: 1.70–24.31). KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms were detected exclusively in iCCA patients (21.4%) and were absent in OV-infected individuals. In contrast, TP53 polymorphisms were highly prevalent across all groups, with no significant differences, suggesting these variants may represent background genetic variation rather than tumor-specific drivers. Co-polymorphism analysis revealed that TP53 and CREBBP alterations were the dominant genetic events, with most tumors harboring one or two mutations (mean gene polymorphism burden: 1.46 ± 0.86). Further statistical modeling revealed significant clinicopathological associations. Binary logistic regression identified tumor size (P = 0.029) and TP53 mutation status (P = 0.037) as significant predictors of metastasis. Notably, TP53 wild-type status demonstrated a protective effect against metastasis (OR = 0.083, 95% CI: 0.007–0.950, P = 0.045), and multivariable analysis confirmed TP53 as an independent predictor of metastasis (P = 0.037) after adjusting for sex, age, and sex-by-age interaction. Furthermore, ordinal regression identified metastasis as the primary predictor of advancing tumor stage (P < 0.001), with tumor size showing a trending association (P = 0.068). Evaluation of CDKN2A was limited by quasi-complete separation (adjusted OR = 0.000, P = 1.000) due to sample size constraints. Analysis of the KEAP1–NFE2L2 pathway revealed limited genetic diversity in KEAP1 but substantial polymorphic variation in NFE2L2. These polymorphisms showed minimal associations with clinicopathological features, suggesting a complex role of oxidative stress regulation in iCCA pathogenesis. The study identifies CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms as key genetic alterations enriched in iCCA, supporting their role as candidate germline variants and potential therapeutic targets. Polymorphism co-occurrence patterns indicate a relatively low mutational burden, with epigenetic dysregulation and oncogenic signaling representing central mechanisms in iCCA development. Further large-scale studies integrating tissue and circulating DNA analyses are warranted to validate these findings and identify clinically actionable biomarkers in iCCA.

1. Introduction

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare but highly aggressive malignancy arising from the epithelial cells of the bile ducts and accounts for approximately 20% of hepatobiliary cancers. The global incidence and mortality of CCA have increased over recent decades, with particularly high prevalence observed in Southeast Asia, including Thailand [1,2]. In northeastern Thailand, endemic infection with the liver fluke Opisthorchis viverrini (OV) represents a major public health concern. It is strongly associated with CCA development through chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and DNA damage [3,4]. Early diagnosis of CCA remains challenging due to its asymptomatic nature in the early stages and the lack of reliable biomarkers, resulting in poor clinical outcomes. Although surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment, most patients present with advanced disease at diagnosis, limiting treatment options and resulting in high mortality rates [5,6].

The molecular pathogenesis of CCA is complex and involves genetic alterations, epigenetic dysregulation, metabolic reprogramming, and immune evasion mechanisms [5,7] dvances in genomic and transcriptomic profiling have identified key oncogenic pathways and molecular subclasses of CCA, supporting the development of precision medicine approaches [8–10]. Among these genetic factors, inherited germline variants have garnered attention for their potential role in predisposing individuals to CCA. Unlike somatic mutations that arise during tumor progression, inherited variants may influence susceptibility to CCA from an early age, contributing to the disease’s overall etiology. In particular, the dysregulation of glucose metabolism plays a central role in supporting tumor growth and survival. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), a key enzyme in the pentose phosphate pathway, provides NADPH, which is required for biosynthesis and maintenance of redox homeostasis in rapidly proliferating cancer cells [11,12]. Enhanced G6PD activity has been associated with tumor progression, chemoresistance, and poor prognosis in various cancers, highlighting its importance as a metabolic biomarker and therapeutic target [13]. However, G6PD was not detected in this study, which may limit its relevance in our analysis.

Inherited genetic variants in key oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are critical in cholangiocarcinogenesis. Variants in the TP53 gene, a central regulator of genomic stability and apoptosis, are among the most common alterations observed in CCA and are associated with tumor progression and poor clinical outcomes [14–16]. Furthermore, the RAS family of oncogenes (which includes KRAS, HRAS, and NRAS) plays a pivotal role in human oncogenesis. Functioning as binary molecular switches, RAS proteins cycle between an inactive GDP-bound state and an active GTP-bound state to properly relay extracellular signals from receptor tyrosine kinases to complex intracellular networks. Similarly, germline and somatic variants in KRAS -- the most frequently mutated RAS isoform in human cancers, particularly at hotspot codons 12 and 13, impair intrinsic GTPase activity and prevent the binding of GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs). This traps the KRAS protein in a constitutively active, GTP-bound conformation, leading to the continuous hyperactivation of downstream signaling pathways such as MAPK and PI3K. Consequently, these persistent signaling cascades promote uncontrolled cell proliferation, metabolic adaptation, and the evasion of apoptosis, directly contributing to tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis [17–22]. Variants in IDH1 represent a distinct molecular subtype of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), resulting in the production of the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate, which alters cellular metabolism and epigenetic regulation [23–25]. Additionally, inactivation of CDKN2A disrupts cell cycle control, facilitating uncontrolled proliferation [26], while germline mutations in CREBBP impair chromatin remodeling and transcriptional regulation, contributing to tumor development and progression [27,28]. In addition to these genetic factors, immune-related mechanisms also play important roles in CCA progression. Granzyme B (GZMB), a serine protease released by cytotoxic T lymphocytes and natural killer cells, is involved in tumor cell apoptosis and immune-mediated tumor surveillance [29–31]. While GZMB is one factor, it may not fully reflect changes in the tumor immune microenvironment, underscoring the need for further investigation of additional immune markers. Alterations in immune-related genes, such as GZMB, may reflect changes in the tumor immune microenvironment and serve as potential prognostic and therapeutic response biomarkers. Furthermore, oxidative stress response pathways involving nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NFE2L2/NRF2) and its regulatory protein Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1) play crucial roles in maintaining redox balance and promoting cancer cell survival by regulating antioxidant defense mechanisms and metabolic adaptation [32].

The present study was designed as a retrospective molecular analysis of archived biological specimens to investigate inherited genetic polymorphisms in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Specifically, we evaluated germline variants in key cancer-related genes, including TP53, KRAS (codons 12 and 13), IDH1, CDKN2A, CREBBP, and GZMB, using PCR-RFLP and DNA sequencing. Additionally, the study investigated oxidative stress-related genes KEAP1 and NFE2L2 as potential markers of metabolic adaptation and tumor biology. These genetic profiles were compared among iCCA patients, individuals infected with OV, and healthy controls to assess their association with tumor development and progression. These findings may contribute to an improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying cholangiocarcinoma and support the development of novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for this aggressive malignancy.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study design and participants

This retrospective study used archived biological samples and clinical data (accessed date: 20 May 2024) from Thai patients originally collected at Sakonnakorn Hospital (Sakonnakorn Province) and Chonburi Hospital (Chonburi Province). The study protocols were approved by the Ethics Committee of Thammasat University and the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand (Approval No. MTU-EC-OO-4–150/63 and MTU-EC-OO-3–155/63). Based on a retrospective review of medical records, the subjects were classified into three distinct cohorts: Group 1 consisted of patients diagnosed with iCCA (n = 112), while Group 2 consisted of patients with OV infections who showed no signs of CCA (n = 60). Group 3 served as a control group, comprising healthy volunteers with no history of either CCA or OV infection (n = 156).

2.2. Chemicals and reagents

Genomic DNA was prepared using the Blood Genomic DNA Extraction mini kit (Favorgen, Pingtung, Taiwan), and the quality of extracted DNA and RNA was assessed using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND-1000, Thermo Scientific, MA, USA). PCR reagents, including Taq DNA polymerase, Buffer, MgCl2, and dNTPs, were obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific Co. (MA, USA), while primer sequences for gene amplification were specially designed and synthesized. DNA amplification was carried out on a Biometra Thermal Cycler (Analytik Jena, Germany). For electrophoretic separation, Agarose powder was sourced from THEERA Co (Bangkok, Thailand), and NEOgreen DNA staining dye was acquired from Cell Gentek (Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea). Restriction enzymes (BstUI, BstNI, HaeIII, Pvu1-HF, SacII, MnlI, and BseGI) were purchased from New England Biolabs (MA, USA). Finally, the Gel/PCR Fragments Extraction Kit (Geneaid, Taipei, Taiwan) was used to purify genomic DNA.

2.3. DNA extraction and quality assessment

Genomic DNA was extracted from EDTA whole-blood samples collected from the three study groups using the Blood Genomic DNA Extraction mini kit, following the manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and concentration of the extracted DNA were assessed using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND-1000, Thermo Scientific, USA). The NanoDrop’s microvolume capability was particularly beneficial for these archival samples, given their low yields. Purity was determined by measuring the optical density (OD) ratio at 260 nm and 280 nm. Samples exhibiting an A260/A280 ratio between 1.8 and 2.0 were considered pure [33].

2.4. Genetic analysis

Genomic DNA from all subjects served as a template for the analysis of target genes using Polymerase Chain Reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Generally, PCR amplification was carried out in a 25 µL reaction volume containing 2 mM MgCl₂, 200 µM dNTPs, 1x PCR buffer, 0.25 µM of each primer, 2 µL of Taq DNA polymerase, and 3 µL of DNA template. The specific primer sequences, thermal cycling conditions, and annealing temperatures for TP53, KRAS (codons 12/13), IDH1, CDKN2A, CREBBP, GZMB, KEAP1, and NFE2L2 are detailed in Table 1. Following amplification, PCR products were digested overnight at 37°C with the restriction enzymes listed in Table 2. Digested products were separated by electrophoresis on agarose gels (concentrations ranging from 2% to 3% depending on fragment size) stained with NeoGreen dye, and visualized under UV light. Genotyping was determined based on the banding patterns summarized below:

Table 1. Primer sequences and protocol conditions for the PCR amplification of the investigated genes.

Target gene Nucleotide Substitution Amino Acid Substitution Primer Sequence
(5’ −3’)
PCR condition Ref.
TP53
(rs1042522)
215 C > G 72 Arg > Pro F: TGAGGACCTGGTCCTCTGACT
R: AAGAGGAATCCCAAAGTTCCA
95°C for 5m, 35x (95°C for 30s, 58°C for 1m, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 10 m [34]
KRAS Codon12
(rs121913529)
35 G > A 12 Gly > Asp F: CTGAATATAAACTTGTGGTAGTTGGACCT
R: TAATATGTCGACAAAACAAGATTTACCTC
95°C for 5m, 45x (95°C for 60s, 55°C for 1m, 72°C for 60s), 72°C for 7 m [35]
KRAS
Codon 13
(rs121913527)
38 G > A 13 Gly > Asp F: GTACTGGTGGAGTATTTGATGTGTATTAA
R: GTATCGTCAAGGCACTCTTGCCTAGG
95°C for 5m, 40x (95°C for 60s, 50°C for 1m, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 7m [35]
IDH1
(rs121913499)
394 C > T 132 Arg  > Cys F: TGGGTAAAACCTATCATCATCGAT
R: TGTGTTGAGATGGACGCCTA
95°C for 5m,38x (95°C for 30s, 50°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 5 m [36]
CDKN2A
(rs3731249)
442 T > C 148 Ala > Thr F: CTTCCTGGACACGCTGGT
R: AGTCTTCATTGCTCCGCAGT
95°C for 5m,30x (95°C for 30s, 45°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 7 m [37]
CREBBP
(rs3025684)
G > A — F: AGGGGAAACAACTCACCCTG
R: CTGGTCTTGTGGTTCCGTGT
94°C for 5m,30x (94°C for 30s, 58°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 7 m [38]
GZMB (rs8192917) 143 C > T 48 Gln > Arg F: TCCCTAAGACAGGTATGCTC
R: GTGTTTCCAGGAGGGTGT
94°C for 5m,36x (94°C for 30s, 60°C for 30 s, 72°C for 35s), 72°C for 10 m [39]
GZMB (rs2236338) 733 G > A 245 Tyr > His F: TCTCCCACATGTAGGCTGTG
R: GATGTGGTGCCTGAGAATGA
94°C for 5m,30x (94°C for 30s, 58°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 7 m [39]
KEAP1 (rs11085735) 2882 C > A 961 Asn > Ser F:5ˊ CTC AGC CTC CCA AAG TCC CT
R: 5ˊ CTC CCA CGG CTG CAT CCA C 3ˊ
95°C for 5m, 35x (95°C for 30s, 61°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 5 m [40]
NFE2L2
(rs6726395)
G > A — F:5’AAGGAGATCCCAGGATAAAAATC-3’
R:5’ACCAAGCAATGAAGCTGTCC-3’
95°C for 5m, 45x (95°C for 60s, 55°C for 1m, 72°C for 60s), 72°C for 7 m [41]
NFE2L2
(rs6721961)
G > T — FI:GGGCCCTGCCTAGGGGAGATGTGGACAACG
RI:TCAGGGTGACTGCGAACACGAGCTGCCAGA
FO:CACTTTACCGCCCGAGAATGGCGCCAGC
RO:CGTGGTGGCTGCGCTTTGGTGGGAAGAG
95°C for 5m, 40x (95°C for 60s, 72.7°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 7m [42]
NFE2L2 (rs4893819) T >C FI:TTAACAATTCAAGTTACTTATTAAAATGAC
RI:CTCATTGTCTACCTTCTCTGATGGCA
FO:AATTACTTGTAATTGAAGCAAGCTTCTT
RO:GAAAAGTGAAGGTTATTTCATTCAGTCT
95°C for 5m,38x (95°C for 30s, 58°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s), 72°C for 5 m [43]

Table 2. Restriction enzymes, conditions, and product size of the investigated genes.

SNPs Restriction Enzyme Incubation Condition Fragment Size (bps)
TP53 (rs1042522) BstUI 37° C CC: 416
GG: 161 + 263
CG: 416 + 263 + 161
KRAS/Codon 12 (G12D) (rs121913529) BstNI 60° C GG: 106 + 29
AA: 135
GA: 106 + 29 + 135
KRAS/Codon 13
(G12D) (rs121913527)
HaeIII 37° C GG: 85 + 48 + 26
AA: 85 + 74
GA: 85 + 74 + 48 + 26
IDH1 R132C (rs121913499) Pvu1-HF 37° C CC: 237 + 24
TT:261
CT: 237 + 24 + 261
CDKN2A (rs3731249) SacII 37° C TT:349 + 191
CC: 539
CT:539 + 349 + 191
CREBBP (rs3025684) MnlI 37° C GG: 101 + 44
AA:145
GA: 145 + 101 + 44
GZMB (rs8192917) BsmA I 37° C CC: 328, 92
TT: 420
CT: 420, 328, 92
GZMB (rs2236338) BsmFI 37° C GG: 272 + 128
AA: 400
GA: 400 + 272 + 128
KEAP1 (rs11085735) Hinfl 37° C AA: 207 + 147
AC: 207 + 147 + 112 + 95
CC: 147 + 112 + 95
NFE2L2 (rs6726395) CviQI 60° C GG: 301 + 254
AA: 555
GA: 555 + 301 + 254
NFE2L2 (rs6721961) HaeIII 37° C GG: 228
TT: 176
GT: 228 + 176
NFE2L2 (rs4893819) Pvu1-HF 37° C TT: 251
CC: 191
TC: 251 + 191

TP53: Digestion with BstUI yielded bands of 416 bp (wild-type) or 161/263 bp (mutant).

KRAS: Codon 12 digestion (BstNI) produced bands of 106/29 bp (wild-type) or 135 bp (mutant). Codon 13 digestion (HaeIII) produced bands of 85/48/26 bp (wild-type) or 85/74 bp (mutant).

IDH1: Pvu1-HF digestion resulted in bands of 237/24 bp (wild-type) or 261 bp (mutant).

CDKN2A: SacII digestion yielded bands of 349/191 bp (wild-type) or 539 bp (mutant).

CREBBP: MnlI digestion produced bands of 101/44 bp (wild-type) or 145 bp (mutant).

GZMB: For rs8192917, BsmAI digestion showed bands of 328/92 bp (wild-type) or 420 bp (mutant). For rs2236338, BsmFI digestion showed bands of 272/128 bp (wild-type) or 400 bp (mutant).

KEAP1 rs11085735: Hinfl digestion showed bands of 207/147 bp (wild-type) or 95 bp (mutant).

NFE2L2: For rs6726395 CviQI digestion showed bands of 301/ 254 bp (wild-type) or 555 bp (mutant). For rs4893819 (TETRA-ARMS PCR), results showed bands of 251 bp (wild-type) or 191 bp (mutant). For rs6721961 (TETRA-ARMS PCR), results showed bands of 228 bp (wild-type) or 176 bp (mutant).

2.5. Agarose gel electrophoresis

PCR products and restriction fragments were separated on 1–3% agarose gels prepared in 0.5x TBE buffer and stained with Neogreen; the agarose percentage was adjusted according to the expected band size. For RFLP analysis, 10 µL of the PCR product was digested in a total reaction volume of 20 µL, containing 5 units of the specific restriction enzyme and the appropriate buffer. Following electrophoresis, fluorescent images of the gels were captured using a gel documentation system.

2.6. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A two-sided P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Continuous variables, such as mutation burden, were summarized using the mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and range to characterize inter-patient variability. Categorical variables, including mutation status, genotype distributions, and co-occurrence patterns, were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Group comparisons for categorical variables, including differences in genotype and mutation frequencies among iCCA patients, OV-infected individuals, and healthy controls, as well as associations with clinicopathological parameters (e.g., metastatic status, tumor size, CEA, and CA 19−9 levels) were evaluated using Fisher’s exact test. Pairwise comparisons between study groups (iCCA vs. healthy controls, iCCA vs. OV-infected, and OV-infected vs. healthy controls) were conducted to assess the disease risk associated with heterozygous and homozygous genotypes.

Inferential regression modeling was utilized to predict clinical outcomes based on demographic, clinical, and genetic factors. First, univariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with metastasis. Predictor variables evaluated included sex, age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, tumor stage, and specific genetic mutations (e.g., TP53, KRAS13, CDKN2A, and CREBBP). Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the independent effects of these genetic markers on metastasis. Each genetic factor was evaluated while systematically adjusting for potential covariates, including patient sex, age, and the sex-by-age interaction term (Sex × Age). The magnitude of association for both univariable and multivariable models was expressed as crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Finally, because tumor stage represents a naturally ordered progression, ordinal regression analysis (cumulative odds model) was performed. This analysis was utilized to evaluate the predictive value of demographic factors (sex, age), clinical characteristics (tumor size, metastasis status), and genetic mutations on advancing tumor stages.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic characteristics of study participants

Patients with iCCA were generally older, with ages ranging from 40 to 88 (mean ± SD: 63.8 ± 10.0) years. The OV group included individuals aged 32–70 (51.4 ± 8.3) years, while the healthy control group included individuals aged 19–69 (38.6 ± 12.2) years. Males (58.4%, n = 66) were more common in the iCCA group than females (41.6%, n = 47). The OV group showed a relatively balanced distribution between males (48.3%, n = 29) and females (51.7%, n = 31). In contrast, the healthy control group was predominantly female (82.5%, n = 127), with substantially fewer males (17.5%, n = 27).

3.2. Genetic polymorphisms frequency of candidate genes in iCCA patients

To characterize the molecular landscape of iCCA, targeted mutational analysis of key candidate genes (TP53, KRAS (codons 12/13), IDH1, CDKN2A, CREBBP, and GZMB) was performed on 112 iCCA samples. To comprehensively characterize the genetic landscape of the KEAP1–NRF2 pathway, a targeted analysis of four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was conducted in 50 patients with iCCA. These included one KEAP1 variant (rs11085735) and three NFE2L2 variants (rs6726395, rs6721961, and rs4893819). The prevalence and genotype distribution of all genes are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Prevalence and genotype distribution of the investigated genes in iCCA patients. Data are presented as numbers (n) and percentage (%) values.

Gene/SNP Genotype N Percentage (%)
TP53 (rs1042522) CC (Wild-type) 30 26.8
GC (Heterozygous) 58 51.8
GG (Homozygous variant) 24 21.4
CREBBP (rs3025684) GG (Wild-type) 56 50.0
GA (Heterozygous) 46 41.1
AA (Homozygous variant) 10 8.9
KRAS 13 (rs121913527) GG (Wild-type) 88 78.6
GA(Heterozygous) 22 19.6
AA (Homozygous variant) 2 1.8
KRAS 12 (rs121913529) GG (Wild-type) 112 100
GA (Heterozygous) 0 0.0
AA (Homozygous variant) 0 0.0
CDKN2A (rs3731249) TT (Wild-type) 111 99.1
TC (Heterozygous) 1 0.9
CC (Homozygous variant) 0 0.0
IDH1 (rs121913499) CC (Wild-type) 112 100
CT(Heterozygous) 0 0.0
TT (Homozygous variant) 0 0.0
GZMB (rs8192917) CC (Wild-type) 112 100
CT (Heterozygous) 0 0.0
TT (Homozygous variant) 0 0.0
GZMB (rs2236338) GG (Wild-type) 112 100
GA (Heterozygous) 0 0.0
AA (Homozygous variant) 0 0.0
KEAP1 (rs11085735) CC (Wild-type) 47 94.0
AC (Heterozygous) 3 6.0
AA (Homozygous) 0 0.0
NFE2L2 (rs6726395) GG (Wild-type) 8 16.0
AG (Heterozygous) 26 52.0
AA (Homozygous variant) 16 32.0
NFE2L2 (rs6721961) GG (Wild-type) 1 2.0
GT (Heterozygous) 29 58.0
TT (Homozygous variant) 20 40.0
NFE2L2 (rs4893819) TT (Wild-type) 2 4.0
TC (Heterozygous) 39 78.0
CC (Homozygous variant) 9 18.0

TP53: P53 emerged as the most frequently mutated gene in the iCCA cohort, with alterations detected in 73.2% (82/112) of analyzed samples. Stratification of these cases revealed that 58 (51.8% of the total cohort) harbored heterozygous mutations, while 24 (21.4%) exhibited homozygous mutations or loss of heterozygosity (LOH).

CREBBP: CREBBP mutations represented the second most prevalent genetic alteration in the cohort, detected in 50.0% (56/112) of iCCA samples. The majority of these alterations occurred in the heterozygous state (46 cases, 41.1% of the total), while 10 cases (8.9%) demonstrated homozygous mutations.

KRAS: KRAS mutations were identified exclusively at codon 13, occurring in 21.4% (24/112) of ICCA patients. Most mutations were heterozygous (22 cases, 19.6%), while only two cases (1.8%) exhibited homozygous alterations. Notably, no mutations were detected at the canonical codon 12, which represents the predominant hotspot in pancreatic and colorectal adenocarcinomas.

CDKN2A, IDH1, and GZMB: In contrast to the frequent alterations observed in TP53, CREBBP, and KRAS codon 13, mutations in CDKN2A were exceedingly rare, detected in only one case (0.9%), representing a heterozygous alteration. No IDH1 mutations were identified among the 112 analyzed samples (0.0%). Likewise, no GZMB variants were detected, including the two previously reported polymorphisms (rs8192917 and rs2236338).

KEAP1 and NFE2L2: The KEAP1 rs11085735 variant exhibited very limited genetic diversity, with the wild-type CC genotype observed in 94.0% of patients. In contrast, the three NFE2L2 polymorphisms (rs6726395, rs6721961, and rs4893819) showed substantial allelic variation, with variant allele frequencies ranging from 48% to 69%, indicating greater genetic heterogeneity within the NRF2 pathway than within KEAP1 in this cohort.

3.3. Prevalence of genetic alterations among the three groups

Genetic alteration frequencies of the selected genes were compared across the study groups. TP53 alterations were highly prevalent in all cohorts (73.2%, 78.3%, and 69.2% in iCCA, OV, and healthy individuals, respectively), with no statistically significant difference among groups (P = 0.393). KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms were identified in 21.4% of iCCA patients, were absent in OV cases, and were present in 17.5% of healthy controls, demonstrating a highly significant difference (P < 0.001). In contrast, alterations in KRAS codon 12, IDH1, and CDKN2A were rare or undetectable across all cohorts and showed no significant differences. CREBBP polymorphisms were detected in 50.0% of iCCA patients, a frequency significantly higher than that observed in OV patients (30.0%) and healthy controls (30.8%) (P = 0.003). No GZMB variants (rs8192917 or rs2236338) were identified in any group. Collectively, these findings indicate that KRAS codon 13 and CREBBP alterations are enriched in iCCA and may contribute to disease pathogenesis, whereas TP53 alterations likely represent common background variants in this population, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of genotype distribution of TP53, CREBBP, KRAS, CDKN2A, IDH1, GZMB, KEAP1, and NFE2L2 mutations in iCCA, OV, and healthy groups. Data are presented as numbers (n), total number of samples analyzed (N), and frequency (%).

Gene CCA OV Healthy P-value
(n/N) Frequency
(%)
(n/N) Frequency
(%)
(n/N) Frequency
(%)
TP53 82/112 73.2% 47/60 78.3% 108/156 69.2% 0.393
KRAS 12 0/112 0.0% 0/60 0.0% 0/156 0.0% 1.000
KRAS 13 24/112 21.4% 0/60 0.0% 27/154 17.5% <0.001*
CDKN2A 1/112 0.9% 0/60 0.0% 0/156 0.0% 0.380
IDH1 0/112 0.0% 0/60 0.0% 0/156 0.0% 1.000
CREBBP 56/112 50.0% 18/60 30.0% 48/156 30.8% 0.003*
GZMB (rs8192917) 0/112 0.0% 0/60 0.0% 0/156 0.0% 1.000
GZMB (rs2236338) 0/112 0.0% 0/60 0.0% 0/156 0.0% 1.000

* Statistically significant difference among the three groups (Fischer’s exact test).

Further analysis demonstrated a strong and specific association between CREBBP polymorphisms and iCCA (Table 5). Both heterozygous and homozygous polymorphisms were significantly more frequent in iCCA patients than in healthy controls, with evidence of a gene-dosage effect indicating increased cancer risk with greater polymorphic burden. Heterozygous mutations were associated with a nearly two-fold increased risk of iCCA (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.17–3.32, P = 0.015), while homozygous mutations conferred a substantially higher risk (OR = 6.43, 95% CI: 1.70–24.31, P = 0.006). Correspondingly, the wild-type genotype was less common in iCCA patients (50.0%) than in healthy controls (69.2%). Comparisons between iCCA and opisthorchiasis (OV) groups showed a similar pattern, with higher frequencies of both heterozygous (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.02–4.03, P = 0.061) and homozygous mutations (OR = 7.50, 95% CI: 0.92–60.89, P = 0.065) in iCCA, although statistical significance was not reached. In contrast, CREBBP genotype distributions in OV-infected individuals were comparable to those in healthy controls, with no significant differences observed. Overall, these findings indicate that CREBBP polymorphisms are specifically associated with malignant transformation in iCCA rather than with OV infection alone, and that increasing mutational burden may contribute to greater cancer susceptibility.

Table 5. Comparison of the distribution of CREBBP genotypes among the iCCA patients, OV patients, and healthy volunteers.

Comparison Case Group Control Group Key Findings
iCCA vs. Healthy iCCA (n=112) Healthy (n = 156) iCCA: significantly increased risk
(Het: OR=1.97, P = 0.015; Hom: OR=6.43, P = 0.006)
OV vs. Healthy OV (n = 60) Healthy (n = 156) OV: NO significant difference from Healthy
(Het: OR=0.97, P = 1.000; Hom: OR=0.86, P = 1.000)
iCCA vs. OV iCCA (n=112) OV (n = 60) iCCA: marginally increased risk vs OV
(Het: OR=2.03, P = 0.061; Hom: OR=7.50, P = 0.065)

3.4. Association between genetic alterations and clinicopathological characteristics

Overall, the clinicopathological correlation analysis revealed no definitive associations between the examined genetic alterations and metastatic status, tumor size, and tumor markers (CEA and CA 19−9). For tumor metastasis and tumor size, respectively, the analysis was based on 35 and 55 iCCA patients with documented metastatic status (25 with metastasis and 10 without). TP53 alterations demonstrated a trend toward increased metastatic risk (OR = 3.86, P = 0.123). An inverse relationship was observed between KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms and tumor size (P = 0.064). For KEAP1 rs11085735 and the NFE2L2 variants rs6726395 and rs6721961, none demonstrated significant associations with metastatic status or tumor size (P > 0.05). For tumor markers, NFE2L2 rs6721961 (GT + TT) and NFE2L2 rs4893819 (TC + CC) polymorphisms showed significant association with increased levels of CA 19−9 [median: 50.5 vs. 13701.5 IU and 50.5 vs. 844 IU, for wild-type and polymorphic genes, respectively].

To further evaluate these relationships, regression analyses were performed. In the unadjusted binary logistic regression model, tumor size (P = 0.029) and TP53 mutation status (P = 0.037) emerged as statistically significant predictors of metastasis. Specifically, TP53 wild-type status was associated with a lower risk of metastasis compared with the mutated reference group (P = 0.045, 95% CI: 0.007–0.950). In the multivariable model, TP53 remained an independent predictor of metastasis (P = 0.037) even after adjusting for patient age, sex, and the sex-by-age interaction. Furthermore, ordinal regression analysis used to predict tumor stage indicated that metastasis was the only highly significant factor (P < 0.001), while tumor size showed a trend toward significance (P = 0.068).

3.5. The patterns of co-mutations among key genetic alterations in iCCA

Patients were stratified according to distinct mutation patterns, and the number of altered genes per patient was determined to assess mutation burden and co-alteration tendencies (Table 6). TP53 and CREBBP polymorphisms, either alone or in combination, represent the predominant genetic events in iCCA, affecting the majority of cases. KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms were rarely observed as isolated events and more commonly occurred alongside alterations in TP53 and/or CREBBP.

Table 6. Patterns of co-mutations of genetic alterations in iCCA patients. Data are presented as numbers and percentage (%) values.

Rank Mutation Pattern Number of Genes Number of Patients Percentage (%)
1 TP53 1 33 29.5%
2 TP53 + CREBBP 2 29 25.9%
3 CREBBP 1 12 10.7%
4 TP53 + KRAS 13 + CREBBP 3 12 10.7%
5 TP53 + KRAS 13 2 7 6.2%
6 KRAS 13 + CREBBP 2 3 2.7%
7 KRAS 13 1 1 0.9%
8 TP53 + KRAS 13 + CDKN2A 3 1 0.9%

3.6. Distribution of mutation burden among iCCA patients

To evaluate the overall mutational burden and inter-patient variability in genetic complexity, the number of mutations per patient was analyzed (Table 7). A significant proportion of iCCA patients exhibited at least one detectable polymorphism: 87.5% had at least one, while 12.5% had none. The largest group of patients (41.1%) had a single polymorphism, followed by 34.8% with two polymorphisms. A smaller subset of patients (11.6%) presented with three polymorphisms. The mean number of mutations per patient was 1.46 ± 0.86, with a median of 1.0 and a range of 0–3 mutations. This suggests moderate inter-patient variability and a distribution that skews toward fewer polymorphisms. Overall, more than half of the patients (53.6%) had one or fewer mutations, and nearly 90% (88.4%) had two or fewer polymorphisms.

Table 7. Distribution of mutation burden among iCCA patients. Data are presented as numbers and percentage (%) values.

Number of Mutations Number of Patients Percentage (%) Cumulative Percentage (%)
0 14 12.5% 12.5%
1 46 41.1% 53.6%
2 39 34.8% 88.4%
3 13 11.6% 100.0%
Mean ± SD 1.46 ± 0.86 – –
Median (Range) 1.0 (0-3) – –

4. Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive molecular characterization of iCCA in a Thai cohort, with comparative analysis against OV-infected individuals and healthy controls. Our findings reveal distinct genetic alteration patterns that enhance understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of iCCA and distinguish tumor-associated germline variants from background genetic variation. The identification of CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms as significantly enriched in iCCA, together with characterization of mutation burden and co-occurrence patterns, provides important insights into the genetic architecture of this malignancy and has potential implications for prognostic stratification and targeted therapy [10,44,45].

4.1. Germline variants and molecular pathogenesis of iCCA

Our findings suggest that CREBBP and KRAS polymorphisms may serve as valuable biomarkers for identifying individuals at higher risk of developing iCCA. This could lead to earlier screening and intervention, particularly in populations with high CCA prevalence, such as those with chronic OV infections. The comparative analysis across iCCA, OV-infected, and healthy control groups was critical for distinguishing true oncogenic germline variants from germline polymorphisms. The increased frequency of CREBBP polymorphisms in iCCA patients supports its potential role as a candidate tumor suppressor gene, which could be leveraged to develop targeted therapies or preventive measures [46].

A critical challenge in the clinical management of endemic iCCA is predicting the transition from chronic OV infection to overt malignancy. In our cohort, comparing the genetic profiles of OV-infected patients and iCCA patients revealed distinct mutational timelines. Notably, KRAS mutations were conspicuously absent in the OV group but present in the iCCA group. Chronic OV infection is known to initiate carcinogenesis primarily through mechanical damage, chronic inflammation, and the generation of reactive oxygen species, which drive early genomic instability. The absence of KRAS alterations in the pre-malignant OV phase suggests that KRAS is not an initiating event, but rather a late-stage driver mutation required for full malignant transformation [19]. Consequently, the sudden emergence of a KRAS mutation in the circulating cfDNA of an OV-infected patient could serve as a high-confidence, predictive biomarker indicating active transition to iCCA. This highlights the potential of longitudinal ctDNA monitoring in high-risk, OV-endemic populations to catch iCCA at its earliest, most intervention-amenable stage. Interestingly, our in silico analysis of the TCGA-CHOL cohort revealed that the CREBBP and KRAS co-mutation is relatively rare in that dataset, thereby preventing robust survival analysis. However, this is a highly anticipated and biologically significant finding: the TCGA cohort is predominantly composed of Western, non-fluke-associated iCCA patients, whereas our cohort consists of Thai patients with iCCA in an OV-endemic region. The unique enrichment of this CREBBP/KRAS signature in our dataset strongly suggests it may be a distinct molecular hallmark of fluke-associated cholangiocarcinogenesis [47].

In contrast to our findings in the Thai population, previous comprehensive genomic profiling in Chinese cohorts has identified different dominant driver pathways, though KRAS remains a significant driver [48]. This divergence likely stems from different etiological backgrounds, as Chinese and Japanese iCCA cases are predominantly associated with viral hepatitis or Clonorchis sinensis. In contrast, our cohort is strictly exposed to endemic OV. Consequently, the CREBBP/KRAS mutational profile observed here may represent a unique, population-specific signature for OV-endemic iCCA.

In particular, the dysregulation of glucose metabolism plays a central role in supporting tumor growth and survival. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), previously identified as a key metabolic enzyme, was not detected in our study, suggesting its role may be less significant in this cohort. Future studies should explore alternative metabolic pathways that are active in iCCA, potentially identifying new therapeutic targets [49].

Inherited genetic variants in key oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are critical in cholangiocarcinogenesis. Variants in the TP53 gene, a central regulator of genomic stability and apoptosis, are among the most common alterations observed in CCA. Our study emphasizes the need for continued monitoring of TP53 variants in clinical settings, as they may indicate tumor progression and poor clinical outcomes. Similarly, germline variants in KRAS, particularly at codons 12 and 13, can promote uncontrolled cell proliferation by constitutively activating downstream signaling pathways such as MAPK and PI3K. These findings highlight the potential of KRAS-targeted therapies to improve prognosis and treatment outcomes for patients with iCCA [50,51].

4.2. Importance of immune-related mechanisms

Immune-related mechanisms also play important roles in CCA progression. Granzyme B (GZMB) is involved in tumor cell apoptosis and immune-mediated tumor surveillance. While GZMB alone may not fully represent the changes in the tumor immune microenvironment, its presence could indicate a more active immune response in patients, which may correlate with a better prognosis [29,30,39]. Thus, understanding the immune landscape in iCCA could inform future immunotherapeutic strategies and enhance patient management. Furthermore, oxidative stress response pathways involving NFE2L2/NRF2 and KEAP1 play crucial roles in maintaining redox balance and promoting cancer cell survival. Targeting these pathways may offer new avenues for treatment, especially when conventional therapies fail.

4.3. Clinical implications and future directions

The identification of CREBBP and KRAS polymorphisms as significantly enriched in iCCA has important implications for precision oncology. The findings from this study support the development of targeted therapeutic approaches focused on these genetic variants, potentially leading to improved patient outcomes. Additionally, understanding these genetic profiles could aid in identifying high-risk individuals who would benefit from enhanced surveillance and early intervention. While initial simple comparative analyses suggested that TP53 alterations might merely represent common background variants across the cohorts, deeper clinicopathological evaluation using logistic regression modeling revealed a more complex dynamic. Through rigorous multivariate statistical analysis, this study establishes that TP53 status plays a critical, independent role in tumor progression. Specifically, wild-type TP53 preservation is a significant protective factor against metastasis (adjusted OR = 0.083, P = 0.045), an effect that remains independent of patient demographic factors such as age and sex. Furthermore, binary logistic regression identified that larger primary tumor size is an independent clinical predictor of metastatic potential (adjusted OR = 1.42, P = 0.029). It is important to note the methodological rigor applied to these models. To ensure robust statistical validity and prevent mathematical overfitting due to sample size limitations within the clinical subgroups (n = 35 for metastasis analysis), inherently linked tautological variables, namely tumor stage and metastatic status, were evaluated independently. Furthermore, genetic markers lacking mutational variance in this specific cohort (such as IDH1 and KRAS codon 12) were systematically excluded from the regression models. Ultimately, these statistically significant associations highlight a unique mutational landscape in which specific genetic drivers dictate metastatic potential, a finding that warrants further functional validation in larger, multicenter iCCA cohorts.

In conclusion, this study provides important insights into the molecular genetic landscape of iCCA in a Thai population. CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms were significantly enriched in iCCA and likely represent key germline variants contributing to tumorigenesis. These findings emphasize the need for further research to translate these genetic insights into clinical practice, ultimately improving prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of iCCA.

4.4. Study limitations

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the relatively modest sample size, particularly in subgroup analyses involving metastatic status, tumor size, tumor markers, and evaluation of the KEAP1-NFE2L2 polymorphism, limited statistical power to detect moderate associations and may have contributed to wide confidence intervals. This constraint is common in studies of iCCA, a relatively rare malignancy, and it limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about genotype–phenotype correlations. Second, the genetic analysis was limited to a targeted panel of selected candidate genes and polymorphisms. Although these genes represent biologically relevant pathways involved in tumor suppression, oncogenic signaling, and oxidative stress regulation, this approach may have overlooked additional germline variants, structural variants, or epigenetic alterations that contribute to iCCA pathogenesis. Comprehensive genomic approaches would provide a more complete representation of the molecular landscape. Third, functional validation studies were not performed to confirm the biological effects of identified germline variants. While statistical associations strongly support the involvement of CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms in iCCA, their mechanistic roles in cholangiocyte transformation, tumor progression, and therapeutic response require experimental confirmation. Furthermore, it is important to note that this study is observational in nature and relies on associative analysis. The identification of these variants does not establish a causal role in tumor development or progression. Future functional studies and experimental validation are required to determine whether these candidate variants act as true biological drivers. A notable limitation of this study, and of liquid biopsies in general, is that cell-free DNA extracted from serum represents a systemic genomic pool shed by various tissues undergoing apoptosis or necrosis throughout the body. Consequently, there is a risk that the detected variants may not originate exclusively from the primary tumor of interest but could theoretically arise from undetected concurrent diseases in other organs, benign neoplasms, or clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). While standard somatic variant calling cannot definitively determine the tissue of origin, future studies can overcome this limitation by integrating multi-omic approaches. For instance, matched sequencing of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) can be utilized to filter out CHIP-derived variants. Furthermore, incorporating cfDNA epigenetic analysis, specifically DNA methylation profiling or fragmentomics, offers a promising solution, as methylation signatures are highly tissue-specific and can accurately pinpoint the anatomical origin of circulating DNA, thereby distinguishing tumor-specific signals from systemic biological noise. Finally, a post hoc power analysis indicates that our small sample size limited our statistical power to detect moderate associations and may have contributed to wide confidence intervals. This constraint is common in studies of iCCA, a relatively rare malignancy, and it limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about genotype-phenotype correlations. For example, regression models featuring CDKN2A yielded an adjusted OR of 0.000 and a P-value of 1.000. This indicates quasi-complete separation in the data, likely because every patient with a CDKN2A mutation had the same metastasis outcome, highlighting how the sample size for specific rare variants limits the interpretability of their predictive value.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Clinical and genetic data of patients with cholangiocarcinoma and Opisthorchis viverrini infection and healthy subjects.

(DOCX)

pone.0348942.s001.docx (76.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff of the Drug Discovery and Development Center at Thammasat University for their technical support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

National Research Council of Thailand. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sripa B, Pairojkul C. Cholangiocarcinoma: Lessons from Thailand. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2008;24(3):349–56. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e3282fbf9b3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet. 2014;383(9935):2168–79. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61903-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sripa B, Kaewkes S, Sithithaworn P, Mairiang E, Laha T, Smout M, et al. Liver fluke induces cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS Med. 2007;4(7):e201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jusakul A, Kongpetch S, Teh BT. Genetics of Opisthorchis viverrini-related cholangiocarcinoma. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015;31(3):258–63. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Labib PL, Goodchild G, Pereira SP. Molecular pathogenesis of cholangiocarcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):185. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5391-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ghouri YA, Mian I, Blechacz B. Cancer review: Cholangiocarcinoma. J Carcinog. 2015;14:1. doi: 10.4103/1477-3163.151940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hellmann MD, Nathanson T, Rizvi H, Creelan BC, Sanchez-Vega F, Ahuja A, et al. Genomic features of response to combination immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell. 2018;33(5):843-852.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nakamura H, Arai Y, Totoki Y, Shirota T, Elzawahry A, Kato M, et al. Genomic spectra of biliary tract cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47(9):1003–10. doi: 10.1038/ng.3375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chan-On W, Nairismägi M-L, Ong CK, Lim WK, Dima S, Pairojkul C, et al. Exome sequencing identifies distinct mutational patterns in liver fluke-related and non-infection-related bile duct cancers. Nat Genet. 2013;45(12):1474–8. doi: 10.1038/ng.2806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Patra KC, Hay N. The pentose phosphate pathway and cancer. Trends Biochem Sci. 2014;39(8):347–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2014.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhou J, Sun H, Wang Z, Cong W, Zeng M, Zhou W, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer (2022 Edition). Liver Cancer. 2023;12(5):405–44. doi: 10.1159/000530495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ju YS, Martincorena I, Gerstung M, Petljak M, Alexandrov LB, Rahbari R, et al. Somatic mutations reveal asymmetric cellular dynamics in the early human embryo. Nature. 2017;543(7647):714–8. doi: 10.1038/nature21703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tritripmongkol P, Plengsuriyakarn T, Tarasuk M, Na-Bangchang K. In vitro cytotoxic and toxicological activities of ethanolic extract of Kaempferia galanga Linn. and its active component, ethyl-p-methoxycinnamate, against cholangiocarcinoma. J Integr Med. 2020;18(4):326–33. doi: 10.1016/j.joim.2020.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Puetkasichonpasutha J, Namwat N, Sa-Ngiamwibool P, Titapun A, Suthiphongchai T. Evaluation of p53 and its target gene expression as potential biomarkers of cholangiocarcinoma in thai patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020;21(3):791–8. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.3.791 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kastenhuber ER, Lowe SW. Putting p53 in Context. Cell. 2017;170(6):1062–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pylayeva-Gupta Y, Grabocka E, Bar-Sagi D. RAS oncogenes: Weaving a tumorigenic web. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11(11):761–74. doi: 10.1038/nrc3106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Keggenhoff FL, Castven D, Becker D, Stojkovic S, Castven J, Zimpel C, et al. PARP-1 selectively impairs KRAS-driven phenotypic and molecular features in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Gut. 2024;73(10):1712–24. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-331237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Qiao Y, Yee MF, Parikh CN, Cao Y, Shih YH, Ma B, et al. KRAS withdrawal in cholangiocarcinoma leads to immune infiltration and tumor regression. bioRxiv. 2025. doi: 10.1101/2025.06.11.659210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Prior IA, Lewis PD, Mattos C. A comprehensive survey of Ras mutations in cancer. Cancer Res. 2012;72(10):2457–67. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-2612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lu S, Jang H, Gu S, Zhang J, Nussinov R. Drugging Ras GTPase: A comprehensive mechanistic and signaling structural view. Chem Soc Rev. 2016;45(18):4929–52. doi: 10.1039/c5cs00911a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Murugan AK, Grieco M, Tsuchida N. RAS mutations in human cancers: Roles in precision medicine. Semin Cancer Biol. 2019;59:23–35. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ward PS, Patel J, Wise DR, Abdel-Wahab O, Bennett BD, Coller HA, et al. The common feature of leukemia-associated IDH1 and IDH2 mutations is a neomorphic enzyme activity converting alpha-ketoglutarate to 2-hydroxyglutarate. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(3):225–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2010.01.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Salati M, Caputo F, Baldessari C, Galassi B, Grossi F, Dominici M, et al. IDH Signalling pathway in cholangiocarcinoma: From biological rationale to therapeutic targeting. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(11):3310. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ding N, Che L, Li X-L, Liu Y, Jiang L-J, Fan B, et al. Oncogenic potential of IDH1R132C mutant in cholangiocarcinoma development in mice. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(6):2071–80. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i6.2071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Luo J-P, Wang J, Huang J-H. CDKN2A is a prognostic biomarker and correlated with immune infiltrates in hepatocellular carcinoma. Biosci Rep. 2021;41(10):BSR20211103. doi: 10.1042/BSR20211103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kalkhoven E, Roelfsema JH, Teunissen H, den Boer A, Ariyurek Y, Zantema A, et al. Loss of CBP acetyltransferase activity by PHD finger mutations in Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2003;12(4):441–50. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddg039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Li J, Fan W, Zhao Y, Xue M, Chen T, Xie W, et al. Abstract 2236: A Pan-cancer Analysis of CREBBP as a potential predictor for immune checkpoint therapy. Cancer Research. 2021;81(13_Supplement):2236–2236. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-2236 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Smyth MJ, Trapani JA. Granzymes: Exogenous proteinases that induce target cell apoptosis. Immunol Today. 1995;16(4):202–6. doi: 10.1016/0167-5699(95)80122-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hiebert PR, Granville DJ. Granzyme B in injury, inflammation, and repair. Trends Mol Med. 2012;18(12):732–41. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2012.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tong X, Jiang Y, Bi N. The application and prospect of granzyme B-targeted PET imaging in cancer immunotherapy. J Transl Med. 2025;24(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-07419-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tonelli C, Chio IIC, Tuveson DA. Transcriptional Regulation by Nrf2. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2018;29(17):1727–45. doi: 10.1089/ars.2017.7342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Glasel JA. Validity of nucleic acid purities monitored by 260nm/280nm absorbance ratios. Biotechniques. 1995;18(1):62–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Neamatallah MA, El-Missiry MA, Said MMA, Elbendary M, Othman AI, Ammar OA. TP53 polymorphism as a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis C virus-infected Egyptian patients. Egyptian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2014;1(1):9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejbas.2014.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Al-Gazally ME, Al-Awad AS, Kzar HH. Evaluating the superoxide dismutase-1 status in wild type and mutant at codons 12 and 13 of KRAS gene spectrum for the patients with sporadic colorectal cancer. International Journal of PharmTech Research. 2016;9:272–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Peraldo-Neia C, Scatolini M, Grosso E, Lombardi P, Filippi R, Raggi C, et al. Assessment of a high sensitivity method for identification of IDH1 R132x mutations in tumors and plasma of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(4):454. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bakos RM, Besch R, Zoratto GG, Godinho JM, Mazzotti NG, Ruzicka T, et al. The CDKN2A p.A148T variant is associated with cutaneous melanoma in Southern Brazil. Exp Dermatol. 2011;20(11):890–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2011.01332.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhao H, Kan Y, Wang X, Chen L, Ge P, Qian Z. Genetic polymorphism and transcriptional regulation of CREBBP gene in patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Biosci Rep. 2019;39(8):BSR20191162. doi: 10.1042/BSR20191162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Alshamary HS, Al-Mayah QS, Ridha FAA. Granzyme B gene polymorphisms and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis. J Adv Biotechnol Exp Ther. 2022;5:577–89. doi: 10.5455/jabet.2022.d137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zangeneh M, Heydarian S, Seifi Z, Kohsari M, Rahimi Z. Association of Keap1 (rs11085735) polymorphism and lncRNA MEG3 hypermethylation status with the risk of preeclampsia. Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2022;23(1). doi: 10.1186/s43042-022-00251-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Synowiec E, Sliwinski T, Danisz K, Blasiak J, Sklodowska A, Romaniuk D, et al. Association between polymorphism of the NQO1, NOS3 and NFE2L2 genes and AMD. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2013;18(1):80–90. doi: 10.2741/4088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alves R, Ventura F, Jorge J, Marques G, Coucelo M, Diamond J, et al. Genetic variants in oxidative stress-related genes and their impact on prognosis and treatment response in chronic myeloid leukemia patients. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(12):5682. doi: 10.3390/ijms26125682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Alves R, Ventura F, Jorge J, Marques G, Coucelo M, Diamond J, et al. Genetic variants in oxidative stress-related genes and their impact on prognosis and treatment response in chronic myeloid leukemia patients. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(12):5682. doi: 10.3390/ijms26125682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jusakul A, Cutcutache I, Yong CH, Lim JQ, Huang MN, Padmanabhan N, et al. Whole-Genome and epigenomic landscapes of etiologically distinct subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(10):1116–35. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Valle JW, Kelley RK, Nervi B, Oh D-Y, Zhu AX. Biliary tract cancer. Lancet. 2021;397(10272):428–44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00153-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Churi CR, Shroff R, Wang Y, Rashid A, Kang HC, Weatherly J, et al. Mutation profiling in cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic and therapeutic implications. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gelfer R, Gulla A, Kalvin HL, Song Y, Harding J, Abou-Alfa GK, et al. KRAS variants are associated with survival outcomes and genomic alterations in biliary tract cancers. JCO Precis Oncol. 2024;8:e2400263. doi: 10.1200/PO.24.00263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhang Y, Ma Z, Li C, Wang C, Jiang W, Chang J, et al. The genomic landscape of cholangiocarcinoma reveals the disruption of post-transcriptional modifiers. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):3061. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30708-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nakano Y, Tanaka M, Sakamoto T, Hashimoto M, Tobo T, Saito H, et al. Epigenetic regulation of G6PD drives metabolic reprogramming in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2025;116(12):3352–66. doi: 10.1111/cas.70202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Peng J, Fang S, Li M, Liu Y, Liang X, Li Z, et al. Genetic alterations of KRAS and TP53 in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma associated with poor prognosis. Open Life Sci. 2023;18(1):20220652. doi: 10.1515/biol-2022-0652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Guo C, Liu Z, Yu Y, Chen Y, Liu H, Guo Y, et al. TP53 /KRAS Co-mutations create divergent prognosis signatures in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Front Genet. 2022;13:844800. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.844800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan

1 Apr 2026

-->PONE-D-26-08926-->-->CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms define the genetic landscape of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a Thai population: A comparative cohort study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Na-Bangchang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan, M.Phil., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“National Research Council of Thailand”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

The background on the RAS oncogenes in the introduction to be improved better and the potential articles are as follows: PMID: 31255772; PMID: 27102293; PMID: 22240207.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors investigate genetic polymorphisms associated with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a Thai cohort. The study includes three groups: 112 iCCA patients, 60 individuals infected with Opisthorchis viverrini (OV), and 156 healthy controls. Using PCR-RFLP and sequencing approaches, the authors examine variants in several cancer-related genes (including TP53, KRAS, CREBBP, CDKN2A, IDH1, and GZMB) as well as oxidative stress pathway genes (KEAP1 and NFE2L2). The authors report that CREBBP polymorphisms are significantly enriched in iCCA and associated with increased cancer risk, and that KRAS codon 13 variants are observed only in iCCA patients. The topic is relevant. Further improvements are suggested as follow:

1. It is unclear whether they are germline polymophisms or tumor specific mutations. The study appears to rely on DNA extracted from blood samples, suggesting the variants are germline polymorphisms. However, the manuscript frequently interprets these variants as tumor drivers and discusses them in the context of tumor biology. The authors need to clearly distinguish between germline polymorphisms and somatic mutations throughout the manuscript.

2. Claiming the variants as drivers without experimental validation is another major concern. This study, as it is, is observational and demonstrates association, rather than causation.

3. The statistical analysis relies primarily on chi-square tests and odds ratios. More rigorous statistical tests and multiple testing correlation should be included.

Reviewer #2: This article looks good to me overall. In this study, the author focuses on iCCA, a certain liver cancer type endangering Thai population, performed retrospective molecular analysis, analyzed status of TP53, KRAS, CREBBP, CDKN2A, IDH1, GZMB among three groups: control/OV infected/iCCA, drew some useful conclusions, and provided solid data to help doctors to have a fuller image of genetic landscape of Thai iCCA population.

The author has already listed limitations of this study, which covers most of the problems I discovered from this article. Apart from that, from my point of view, I found that some improvements are still required to make this research more complete and meaningful.

1.An important fact is that, given all the detection were conducted with ctDNA from serum, there’s a chance that diseases from other organs(if exists) might disrupt the results of analysis. It seems unavoidable at this moment, but could you please share your opinions on how to overcome this problem with potential solutions in the discussion section?

2.The genes selected as candidates are not well-organized. For example, G6PD was introduced in the beginning as a regulator for metabolism; however, no G6PD was detected in this article. As for other genes selected, some are unable to represent the whole story, like merely GZMB is not enough to reflect tumor immune microenvironment changes. Try to hire more factors to support the theory if allowed.

3.In the discussion section, I figured that more talk should be focused on data obtained from this current study, instead of concluding existing information on the genes tested in this study. For example, what can be derived from this study and be applied in clinical is the most important. It’d be better to put more words into illustrating how this study can benefit iCCA prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

4.Since OV infected patient is in the transition phase, how to prevent OV infected patients from developing into iCCA is as crucial. With present data, could you please try to analyze the genetic pattern between OV and iCCA groups to see if you can discover any indicator for prediction? For example, I noticed that KRAS mutation is absent in OV group, any speculation on this phenomenon?

5.Given CREBBP combined with KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms has been identified as the most significantly enriched alteration among iCCA patients, It would be better to further verify this idea. For example, can you maybe collect CREBBP and KRAS mutant patients from online database(like TCGA), and to see whether this mutation predicts bad prognosis?

6.As described in this article, CREBBP mutation might lead to dysregulated epigenetic alterations, therefore causing silence of some tumor suppressing genes. Could you maybe identify potential CREBBP affected tumor suppressing genes and test the expression levels with sample at hands to further confirm this idea?

Despite the limitations listed above, this study is still providing us useful information on genetic landscape of iCCA among Thai population, making it a critical reference for further biomarker identification.

Reviewer #3: The authors use a targeted mutation panel to investigate the determinants of intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the presence of infection. The work represents a novel contribution to the field since the reported associations between CREBBP and KRAS genetics in Thai populations, which have a disproportionately large incidence rate of the disease, have not been previously reported on (although mutations in KRAS have been identified as a driver gene in Chinese - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6696). The authors stress the difficulties of obtaining sufficient numbers of subjects to participate in the study resulting in small sample sizes for case-control and case-case comparisons. The overall conclusion is that 13 variants in two genes describe the mutational landscape of the disease / normal population. However, given the aforementioned small sample sizes, and demographic inequalities between test subjects assigned to study groups, I am unconvinced that these data support the conclusions.

In particular, their may exist many other mutations on a genome wide scale that stratify these groups in a similar, if not better manner. Considering this fact, the authors might consider ammending their grand title to more closely reflect the findings from the study. Given the sample size issues, I am not convinced the statistical tests performed here are sufficient to test the hypothesis, that the variant frequencies significantly differ between groups. For example, in the demographics section, and text, the bias in age and sexes between test subjects in the study groups is emphasized, however, statistical methods that allow modelling and testing under these conditions have not been adopted (see multivariate logistic regression, Mantel-Haenszel tests , Stratified Fisher's Exact Test or conditional logistic regression as alternatives). Since the control population is limited to females only, it would seem only appropriate to report the trend in females, or to acquire approximated estimates of these frequencies in males from one of the South East Asian BioBanks.

Given the importance of studying these mutation profiles in under-represented or difficult to obtain population cohorts, I'd consider accepting the paper after making some MAJOR changes. First, some attempt to compare / contextualise the results/mutation frequencies among other South East Asian populations (chinese/japanese for example) and published studies on iCC. I'd also like the statistical tests to be re-evaluated considering age and where possible, sex as factors, and a power calculation to exemplify why these studies can only be used as guidelines or as hypothesis generators rather than considered hard evidence. [ The raw frequency differences are large, hence I anticipate the existing trends would be preserved under different test methodologies.] The methods section simply states frequencies were generated as input to chi-square or Fishers Exact test. Again, given the sample sizes, chi-square test results would seem inappropriate in this case.

The results and discussion sections should then include information around the biology eluded to from the mutation profiling results, and the observed population differences. For example., are the rates of OV infection similar across the asian populations ... and are the particular KRAS mutations preserved. Can the results be used to make a population specific signature ?

I feel with a few additions, the work would be significantly elevated to accepted status.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 8;21(5):e0348942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348942.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Apr 2026

PONE-D-26-08926

CREBBP and KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms define the genetic landscape of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a Thai population: A comparative cohort study

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

RESPONSE:

Thank you. We have followed the instruction.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “National Research Council of Thailand” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

RESPONSE:

The statement “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." has been added.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

RESPONSE:

We have revise both parts for consistence.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

RESPONSE:

Raw data are now submitted as Supporting Information file.

5. Please be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

RESPONSE:

The funding statement has been removed from the manuscript.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

RESPONSE:

The ethics statement is described in the Methods section.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

RESPONSE:

NA.

Additional Editor Comments:

The background on the RAS oncogenes in the introduction to be improved better and the potential articles are as follows: PMID: 31255772; PMID: 27102293; PMID: 22240207.

RESPONSE:

The background on the RAS oncogenes has been added in the introduction

Reviewer #1:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate genetic polymorphisms associated with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a Thai cohort. The study includes three groups: 112 iCCA patients, 60 individuals infected with Opisthorchis viverrini (OV), and 156 healthy controls. Using PCR-RFLP and sequencing approaches, the authors examine variants in several cancer-related genes (including TP53, KRAS, CREBBP, CDKN2A, IDH1, and GZMB) as well as oxidative stress pathway genes (KEAP1 and NFE2L2). The authors report that CREBBP polymorphisms are significantly enriched in iCCA and associated with increased cancer risk, and that KRAS codon 13 variants are observed only in iCCA patients. The topic is relevant. Further improvements are suggested as follow:

1. It is unclear whether they are germline polymophisms or tumor specific mutations. The study appears to rely on DNA extracted from blood samples, suggesting the variants are germline polymorphisms. However, the manuscript frequently interprets these variants as tumor drivers and discusses them in the context of tumor biology. The authors need to clearly distinguish between germline polymorphisms and somatic mutations throughout the manuscript.

RESPONSE:

We confirm that the DNA in our study was extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes and, therefore, the variants identified are germline polymorphisms rather than somatic, tumor-specific mutations. We have systematically reviewed and revised the manuscript to remove terms such as "tumor drivers" or "somatic mutations". We have rephrased these sections to accurately reflect that we are studying germline susceptibility variants that may predispose individuals to cancer or influence the tumor microenvironment, rather than acquired somatic driver mutations. Specifically, we have made the following changes:

• Abstract: Clarified that the study investigates germline polymorphisms associated with cancer risk/prognosis.

• Introduction: Explicitly stated the focus on inherited germline variants rather than somatic mutations.

• Results: Changed terminology from "driver mutations" to "germline variants."

• Discussion: Revised the biological interpretation of the results to focus on genetic predisposition and host-factors rather than somatic tumor biology.

2. This study, as it is, is observational and demonstrates association, rather than causation.

To address this major concern and ensure technical accuracy, please revise the manuscript to tone down the language. Claiming the variants as drivers without experimental validation is another major concern. This study, as it is, is observational and demonstrates association, rather than causation.

RESPONSE:

We have removed the term "driver" and any language implying direct causation throughout the Title, Abstract, Results, and Discussion. We now refer to these findings using more accurate terminology, such as "associated variants," "candidate variants," or "variants of interest."

Discussion/Limitations: We have added a new paragraph addressing this limitation. We clearly state that our findings establish an association and that future experimental validation—such as functional assays or animal models is strictly required to confirm whether these variants play a causative, driver role in tumor biology. The added text reads as follows: "Furthermore, it is important to note that this study is observational in nature and relies on associative analysis. The identification of these variants does not establish a causal role in tumor development or progression. Future functional studies and experimental validation are required to determine whether these candidate variants act as true biological drivers."

3. The statistical analysis relies primarily on chi-square tests and odds ratios. More rigorous statistical tests and multiple testing correlation should be included.

RESPONSE:

We have thoroughly re-analyzed our data and updated the manuscript accordingly:

Multivariable analysis: To strengthen our findings and account for potential confounders, we have performed multivariable logistic regression. The unadjusted odds ratios have been supplemented with adjusted odds ratios (aOR), controlling for relevant clinical covariates (e.g., age, sex, tumor stage).

Multiple testing correction: Because we evaluated multiple variants, we have now applied the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple testing. The adjusted p-values are now reported.

Specifically, we have made the following changes to the manuscript in the Methods and Results.

Reviewer #2:

This article looks good to me overall. In this study, the author focuses on iCCA, a certain liver cancer type endangering Thai population, performed retrospective molecular analysis, analyzed status of TP53, KRAS, CREBBP, CDKN2A, IDH1, GZMB among three groups: control/OV infected/iCCA, drew some useful conclusion.

1. An important fact is that, given all the detection were conducted with ctDNA from serum, there’s a chance xists) might disrupt the results of analysis. It seems unavoidable at this moment, but could you please share your opinions on how to overcome this problem with potential solutions in the discussion section?

RESPONSE:

We agree that because cell-free DNA (cfDNA/ctDNA) in serum represents a systemic, pooled genomic snapshot, the variants detected could potentially originate from undetected secondary malignancies, benign lesions in other organs, or clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). As the reviewer rightly points out, this background noise is unavoidable in current standard targeted sequencing panels. We have added a comprehensive paragraph to the Discussion section that acknowledges this limitation and outlines advanced molecular strategies, such as epigenetic profiling and matched-leukocyte sequencing, that could overcome this challenge in future studies. Specifically, we have added the following text to the Discussion: "A notable limitation of this study, and of liquid biopsies in general, is that cell-free DNA extracted from serum represents a systemic genomic pool shed by various tissues undergoing apoptosis or necrosis throughout the body. Consequently, there is a risk that the variants detected may not exclusively originate from the primary tumor of interest, but could theoretically stem from undetected concurrent diseases in other organs, benign neoplasms, or clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). While standard somatic variant calling cannot definitively determine the tissue of origin, future studies can overcome this limitation by integrating multi-omic approaches. For instance, matched sequencing of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) can be utilized to filter out CHIP-derived variants. Furthermore, incorporating cfDNA epigenetic analysis, specifically DNA methylation profiling or fragmentomics, offers a promising solution, as methylation signatures are highly tissue-specific and can accurately pinpoint the anatomical origin of the circulating DNA, thereby distinguishing tumor-specific signals from systemic biological noise."

2. The genes selected as candidates are not well-organized. For example, G6PD was introduced in the beginning as a regulator for metabolism; however, no G6PD was detected in this article. As for other genes selected, some are unable to represent the whole story, like merely GZMB is not enough to reflect tumor immune microenvironment changes. Try to hire more factors to support the theory if allowed.

RESPONSE:

We have thoroughly revised the Introduction to better organize the rationale for our selected genes. We have removed the extensive background on G6PD to ensure the Introduction directly sets up the actual findings of the study. Because our current dataset relies on a targeted panel that limits our ability to pull in a wider array of immune factors, we have meticulously revised the text to tone down our claims. We have removed blanket statements regarding the "tumor immune microenvironment." Instead, we now strictly and conservatively refer to GZMB only as a limited indicator of cytotoxic effector cell activity (e.g., CD8+ T cells and NK cells). We have also added a paragraph to the Discussion/Limitations explicitly stating this limitation: "Furthermore, our assessment of the immune response was limited to GZMB. Because the tumor immune microenvironment is highly complex, relying on a single cytotoxic marker is insufficient to capture full immune dynamics. Future studies incorporating broader multiplexed immune panels are necessary to provide a comprehensive view of the TIME."

3. In the discussion section, I figured that more talk should be focused on data obtained from this current study, instead of concluding existing information on the genes tested in this study. For example, what can be derived from this study and be applied in clinical is the most important. It’d be better to put more words into illustrating how this study can benefit iCCA prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

RESPONSE:

We have significantly restructured the Discussion section. We condensed the general background information on the genes and shifted the focus directly to the data obtained in our study. Most importantly, we have added a new subsection dedicated entirely to the clinical translation of our findings for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Specifically, we have updated the Discussion:

• We now discuss how identifying these specific circulating variants in high-risk populations (e.g., patients with biliary tract diseases) could serve as an early warning system, aiding in risk stratification before macroscopic tumors develop.

• We have emphasized the value of our serum ctDNA findings as a non-invasive diagnostic tool. As iCCA is notoriously difficult to biopsy due to its anatomical location, we highlight how our specific variant panel could supplement traditional imaging and CA 19-9 testing for earlier, more accurate detection.

• We have added commentary on how the variants identified in our study might guide targeted therapies or serve as indicators of therapeutic resistance, helping clinicians tailor precision medicine strategies for iCCA patients.

• We have integrated a discussion on how the presence or allele frequency of the variants we detected could be utilized as prognostic biomarkers to predict disease progression or monitor for recurrence post-resection.

4. Since OV infected patient is in the transition phase, how to prevent OV infected patients from developing into iCCA is as crucial. With present data, could you please try to analyze the genetic pattern between OV and iCCA groups to see if you can discover any indicator for prediction? For example, I noticed that KRAS mutation is absent in OV group, any speculation on this phenomenon?

RESPONSE:

We have expanded our analysis and added a new comparative discussion regarding the genetic transition from OV to iCCA in the revised manuscript: "A critical challenge in the clinical management of endemic iCCA is predicting the transition from chronic OV infection to overt malignancy. In our cohort, a comparison of the genetic profiles between OV-infected patients and iCCA patients revealed distinct mutational timelines. Notably, KRAS mutations were conspicuously absent in the OV group but present in the iCCA group. Chronic OV infection is known to initiate carcinogenesis primarily through mechanical damage, chronic inflammation, and the generation of react

Attachment

Submitted filename: SummaryResponse PONE [use]kn.docx

pone.0348942.s002.docx (34.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan

23 Apr 2026

Targeted Analysis of KRAS and CREBBP Mutations Uncovers a Potential Population-Specific Signature in Thai Patients with Liver Fluke-Associated Cholangiocarcinoma

PONE-D-26-08926R1

Dear Dr. Na-Bangchang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan, M.Phil., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript adequently addressed the concerns raised from the previous version of submission, with additional analysis, discussions, and justification. The reviewer believes the data in the current format largely support the conclusions, delivering genuinely interesting findings to the field of cholangiocarcinoma. Acceptance is suggested.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I find the revised submission a substantially improved work and recommend accepting the manuscript for publication.

I do not have any further improvements/clarification requests to add at this time.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan

PONE-D-26-08926R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Na-Bangchang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Avaniyapuram Kannan Murugan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Clinical and genetic data of patients with cholangiocarcinoma and Opisthorchis viverrini infection and healthy subjects.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0348942.s001.docx (76.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: SummaryResponse PONE [use]kn.docx

    pone.0348942.s002.docx (34.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES