Skip to main content
Carcinogenesis logoLink to Carcinogenesis
. 2010 Jan 22;31(4):607–613. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgp310

Antioxidant genes, diabetes and dietary antioxidants in association with risk of pancreatic cancer

Hongwei Tang 1, Xiaoqun Dong 1, RSue Day 1, Manal M Hassan 1, Donghui Li 1,*
PMCID: PMC2847085  PMID: 20097730

Abstract

To test the hypothesis that polymorphic variants of antioxidant genes modify the risk of pancreatic cancer, we examined seven single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of genes coding for superoxide dismutase (SOD) 2, glutathione S-transferase alpha 4 (GSTA4), catalase and glutathione peroxidase in 575 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 648 healthy controls in a case–control study. Information on risk factors was collected by personal interview and dietary information was collected by a self-administered food frequency questionnaire. Genotypes were determined using the Taqman method. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression. No significant main effect of genotype was observed. A borderline significant interaction between diabetes and SOD2 Ex2+24T>C CT/TT genotype was observed (Pinteraction = 0.051); the AORs (95% CI) were 0.98 (0.73–1.32) for non-diabetics carrying the CT/TT genotype, 1.73 (0.94–3.18) for diabetics carrying the CC genotype and 3.49 (2.22–5.49) for diabetics carrying the CT/TT genotype compared with non-diabetics carrying the CC genotype. Moreover, the SOD2 −1221G>A AA genotype carriers had a significantly increased risk for pancreatic cancer among those with a low dietary vitamin E intake but decreased risk among those with a high vitamin E intake (Pinteraction = 0.002). There was a non-significant interaction between diabetes and GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A genotypes (Pinteraction = 0.078). No significant interaction between genotype with cigarette smoking or vitamin C intake was observed. These data suggest that genetic variations in antioxidant defenses modify the risk of pancreatic cancer in diabetics or individuals with a low dietary vitamin E intake.

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the USA. Cigarette smoking, obesity and diabetes are the major modifiable risk factors for this disease (1). Increased oxidative stress and proinflammatory response may be the common mechanisms by which cigarette smoking, obesity and diabetes contribute to pancreatic cancer development (25). Antioxidant system includes enzymatic and non-enzymatic mechanisms that work together against oxidative stress (6). Dietary antioxidants (e.g. vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium) provide the primary non-enzymatic defense mechanisms. Serum levels of antioxidants have been positively associated with fruit and vegetable intake (7). An inverse association of dietary intake of fruits, vegetables and vitamin C with the risk of pancreatic cancer has been observed in previous studies (8,9).

The enzymatic antioxidant system mainly includes superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPX) and other relevant enzymes and proteins. Genetic variations in antioxidant pathways have been shown to modify the risk of cancers of the breast, prostate and lung (1012), especially in presence of low intake of antioxidants (11). To date, there is only one study with limited sample size that has reported the association of antioxidant genes polymorphisms with pancreatic cancer (13). To fill this gap, we examined the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of several common antioxidant genes, SOD2, CAT, GPX and GSTA4, alone or in interaction with other risk factors in pancreatic cancer development.

SOD2 codes for mitochondrial manganese SOD (Mn-SOD), which catalyzes the dismutation of superoxides into water and hydrogen peroxide (6). CAT catalyzes the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water, thereby preventing cell damage from highly reactive oxygen free radicals (14). GPXs are selenoproteins that reduce organic peroxides and hydrogen peroxide through the coupled oxidation of glutathione. GSTA4 is a member of the glutathione S-transferase family with a substrate affinity to lipid peroxidation products. Expression of the SOD2, CAT and GPX genes has been detected in the human pancreas (15,16). Overexpression of SOD2 is known to suppress the cell growth or reverse the malignant phenotype of pancreatic cancer (17).

We hypothesized that polymorphic variations in these antioxidant genes modify the risk of pancreatic cancer, especially when oxidative stress is increased and non-enzymatic antioxidants are deficient.

Materials and methods

Study population

The study population is a subset of those enrolled in a case–control study of pancreatic cancer at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from January 2000 to May 2007. The subjects with DNA sample, complete risk factors as well as dietary information were included in this study. Details of the study design and methods have been described previously (18). Briefly, case patients were diagnosed with a pathologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Control subjects were cancer-free healthy individuals recruited from non-blood relatives (mainly spouses) and friends of patients with cancers other than gastrointestinal cancer or lung cancer. The response rate to recruitment was 83.9% for patients and 83.6% for control subjects. Patients and control subjects were frequency matched by age (±5 years), sex and race. Each participant provided written informed consent for an interview and blood sample. The Institutional Review Board of M. D. Anderson approved this study.

Data collection

Using a structured questionnaire in in-person interviews, trained personnel collected information on demographics, cigarette smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, medical history and family history of cancer. A self-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) that was previously developed and validated by the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health (19) was used to collect dietary information about the period 1 year prior to the patients’ cancer diagnoses or control subjects’ recruitment to the study. The FFQ captured intake information ∼84 food items and contained 19 questions related to dietary habits and use of supplements. The FFQ return rate was 76.2% for control subjects and 59.3% for cancer patients. Those who did not return the FFQ tended to be minorities (both patients and control subjects), male control subjects who were <50 or >70 years old and patients with poor performance status or late-stage disease. Each participant in the current study had complete epidemiological and dietary information and a DNA sample, which represent 56% of the total study population. The dietary variables examined in the current study included total daily intake of vitamins C and E or supplements.

DNA extraction and genotyping

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected from freshly drawn blood by Ficoll–Hypaque (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ) density gradient centrifugation and stored at −80°C. DNA was extracted with a FlexiGene DNA kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA) and a Maxwell 16 automated system (Promega, Madison, WI) and stored at 4°C for immediate use. The seven examined SNPs—rs1802061 (GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A, Q117Q), rs182623 (GSTA4 −2816T>A), rs316141 (GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C), rs4880 (SOD2 Ex2+24T>C, V16A), rs2758346 (SOD2 −1221G>A), rs1001179 (CAT −369 C>T, aka −262 C>T) and rs1050450 (GPX1, EX1−226 C>T, P200L)—were genotyped using the TaqMan method and an ABI 7900HT Fast Real-time PCR System (ABI, Foster City, CA). These SNPs were selected based on their functional significance and previously reported associations with the risk of cancers (2023). Each of the SNPs had a minor allele frequency of >10% among Caucasians. About 5% of the samples were genotyped in duplicate and 100% consistency was achieved.

Statistical analysis

For statistical analyses, we used SPSS 15.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) and Stata 9.0 (Stata, College Station, TX) software. All the tests were two tailed, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A chi-square test was used to examine the differences in risk factor and genotype distributions between the patients and control subjects, as well as the deviation of the genotype distribution from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in control subjects. Genotype-specific risks were estimated as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by unconditional logistic regression models; adjustments for age (continuous), race (non-Hispanic white, Hispanic and black), sex, smoking (never or ever), alcohol (≤60 g/day, >60 g/day), diabetes (yes or no) and family history of cancer among first-degree relatives (yes or no). Body mass index was not included in the model because this information was not collected from individuals recruited before 2004. Individuals who were homozygous for the common alleles were used as the referent group. Carriers of heterozygous and homozygous mutations were combined in the analyses of interactions with exposure variables. Dietary intake of antioxidant nutrients were calorie adjusted using the residual method described by Willett et al. (24). After adjustment, we divided the dietary data into low versus high using the median of control value as the boundary arbitrarily. Because diabetes could be a manifestation of pancreatic cancer, individuals with recent diabetes onset (i.e. within 2 years before the patients’ cancer diagnoses and before control subjects’ recruitment to the study) were excluded from the analyses of interaction between genes and diabetes.

To detect possible interactions between genotype and smoking, genotype and diabetes or genotype and antioxidant intake, individuals without the risk factor (e.g. non-diabetic) and without the at-risk genotype were used as the reference group, and AOR for non-diabetics with the at-risk genotype (OR10), diabetics with the referent genotype (OR01) and diabetics with the at-risk genotype (OR11) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Interaction contrast ratios (ICRs), calculated as OR11 − OR10 − OR01 + 1, were used to measure the interaction effect of genotype and risk factor (25). ICR > 0 indicates a more than additive effect (positive interaction), ICR = 0 indicates a simple additive effect (no interaction) and ICR < 0 indicates a less than additive effect (negative interaction). ICR > 0 and 95% CI excluding 0 was considered as statistically significant. Similarly, OR11 > OR10 × OR01 − 1 indicates a more than multiplicative effect (25). The cross-product term of the genotype and the variable of interest was generated with logistic regression models. The significance of the interaction term (Pinteraction) was tested using a likelihood ratio test, with the full model containing the interaction term, the main effect of the genotype and the exposure variable and the reduced model lacking the interaction term. The Bonferroni correction was applied to control false discover rate related to multiple comparisons.

Results

Demographics and risk factors

The demographics and risk factors for pancreatic cancer in this study population are summarized in Table I. We found no significant difference in demographic distribution between patients and control subjects. Cigarette smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, history of diabetes and family history of cancer were significantly associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer, as previously reported (18). When the median intake value of controls was used as the cut point, a higher intake of total vitamin C (both dietary and supplemental) or dietary E (including food fortification) was associated with significantly reduced risk of pancreatic cancer. The median daily intakes of total vitamin C and vitamin E (dietary and supplement) were 163.10 and 6.97 mg for patients and 181.41 and 7.21 mg for control subjects, respectively.

Table I.

Distribution of selected variables among patient and control subjects

Variables Case (N = 575) n (%) Control (N = 648) n (%) P2) OR (95% CI)a
Sex
    Female 229 (39.8) 246 (38.0) 0.445
    Male 346 (60.2) 402 (62.0)
Race
    White 523 (91.0) 600 (92.6) 0.238
    Hispanic 29 (5.0) 33 (5.1)
    Black 23 (4.0) 15 (2.3)
Age
    <50 68 (11.8) 88 (13.6) 0.448
    51–60 151 (26.3) 183 (28.2)
    61–70 226 (39.3) 251 (38.7)
    >70 130 (22.6) 126 (19.4)
Education
    Bachelor's degree or less 457 (79.5) 522 (80.6) 0.638 1.00
    Higher than bachelor's degree 118 (20.5) 126 (19.4) 1.20 (0.89–1.62)
History of diabetes
    No 437 (76.0) 582 (89.8) 0.000 1.00
    Yes 138 (24.0) 66 (10.2) 2.78 (2.00–3.86)
Cigarette smoking
    Never 245 (42.6) 323 (49.9) 0.011 1.00
    Ever 330 (57.4) 325 (50.2) 1.33 (1.05–1.70)
Alcohol (g/day)
    ≤60 509 (88.5) 603 (93.1) 0.006 1.00
    >60 66 (11.5) 45 (6.9) 1.65 (1.09–2.50)
Cancer history in first-degree relativesb
    No 198 (34.6) 291 (45.2) 0.000 1.00
    Yes 375 (65.5) 353 (54.8) 1.57 (1.24–2.00)
Total vitamin C (mg/day)
    ≥169.77 245 (42.6) 288 (49.9) 0.013 1.00
    <169.77 330 (57.4) 289 (50.1) 1.37 (1.07–1.75)
Dietary vitamin C (mg/day)
    ≥110.39 308 (53.6) 288 (49.9) 0.215 1.00
    <110.39 267 (46.4) 289 (50.1) 0.88 (0.69–1.12)
Total vitamin E (mg/day)
    ≥19.01 278 (48.4) 287 (49.8) 0.616 1.00
    <19.01 297 (51.7) 289 (50.2) 0.91 (0.71–1.16)
Dietary vitamin Ec (mg/day)
    ≥7.07 246 (42.8) 289 (50.0) 0.013 1.00
    <7.07 329 (57.2) 288 (49.9) 1.45 (1.14–1.86)
a

Odds ratios was adjusted for sex, age, race, education, cigarette smoking, alcohol, history of diabetes and cancer history in first-degree relatives.

b

Information was missing from two cases and four controls because of adopted family.

c

Include vitamin E from food fortification.

Genotype distribution

Except GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A (P = 0.027) and GSTA4 −2816T>A (P = 0.006), genotype distributions were in HWE in controls. GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A failed to follow HWE because the extremely low frequency of the homozygous mutant. GSTA4 −2816T>A followed HWE among cases but did not among controls; perhaps due to some unidentified experimental errors. Genotype distributions were comparable between patients and control subjects for all the SNPs examined (Table II).

Table II.

Distribution of genotype frequencies

Genotype Case n (%) Control n (%) P2) OR (95% CI)a
GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A
    GG 460 (83.3) 470 (83.0) 0.895 1.00
    AG 89 (16.1) 96 (17.0) 0.97 (0.70–1.35)
    AA 3 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
GSTA4 −2816T>A
    AA 284 (50.6) 338 (54.6) 0.270 1.00
    AT 225 (40.1) 220 (35.5) 1.16 (0.76–1.76)
    TT 52 (9.3) 61 (9.9) 1.02 (0.68–1.52)
GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C
    CC 180 (33.1) 207 (34.4) 0.894 1.00
    CT 272 (50.0) 294 (48.8) 1.00 (0.76–1.31)
    TT 92 (16.9) 101 (16.8) 1.01 (0.71–1.45)
SOD2 Ex2+24T>C
    TT 143 (25.6) 167 (26.2) 0.738 1.00
    CT 278 (49.8) 309 (48.4) 1.12 (0.84–1.50)
    CC 137 (24.6) 162 (25.4) 1.07 (0.77–1.50)
SOD2 −1221G>A
    AA 120 (22.5) 131 (22.1) 0.710 1.00
    GA 268 (50.2) 294 (49.6) 1.08 (0.79–1.48)
    GG 146 (27.3) 168 (28.3) 1.00 (0.71–1.42)
CAT329T>C
    CC 349 (63.3) 366 (60.8) 0.599 1.00
    CT 174 (31.6) 207 (34.4) 0.90 (0.69–1.17)
    TT 28 (5.1) 29 (4.8) 1.03 (0.59–1.80)
GPX1 EX1226C>T
    CC 263 (47.6) 316 (51.3) 0.347 1.00
    CT 240 (43.5) 242 (39.3) 1.15 (0.90–1.46)
    TT 49 (8.9) 58 (9.4) 2.49 (0.47–13.10)
a

Odds ratio was adjusted for sex, age, race, education, cigarette smoking, alcohol, history of diabetes and cancer history in first-degree relatives.

Interaction between genotypes and risk factors

Next, we examined the possible interactions of genotypes with cigarette smoking or genotypes with diabetes. We did not detect any interaction of genotypes with smoking (data not shown). We observed a significant additive interaction of diabetes with the SOD2 Ex2+24T>C genotype with an ICR of 1.78 (95% CI: 0.16–3.39). Furthermore, this interaction was borderline significant on a multiplicative scale (Pinteraction = 0.051) (Table III). When we excluded individuals with diabetes onset ≤2 years before their cancer diagnoses or recruitment to the study from the analyses, the interaction between the SOD2 Ex2+24T>C and diabetes diminished. The ICR was 1.22 (−0.20 to 2.64) and Pinteraction = 0.111. Meanwhile, a non-significant interaction between GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A and diabetes was observed (Pinteraction = 0.078). We did not detect a significant interaction of diabetes with CAT or GPX genotypes (Table III).

Table III.

Interaction between genotype and diabetes

Genotype Diabetes Case/control (n) OR (95% CI)a Pb OR (95% CI)c Pd
GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A
    GG No 348/419 1.00 0.469 1.00 0.071
    AG/AA No 71/88 0.93 (0.65–1.32) 0.93 (0.65–1.32)
    GG Yes 112/51 2.52 (1.74–3.66) 1.57 (0.98–2.49)
    AG/AA Yes 21/8 3.33 (1.43–7.74) 4.33 (1.37–13.71)
    ICRe 0.88 (−2.03 to 3.78) 2.83 (−2.17 to 7.84)
GSTA4 −2816T>A
    AA No 221/305 1.00 0.431 1.00 0.170
    AT/TT No 204/253 1.06 (0.82–1.38) 1.06 (0.82–1.38)
    AA Yes 63/33 2.55 (1.60–4.07) 1.51 (0.85–2.66)
    AT/TT Yes 73/28 3.54 (2.19–5.73) 2.91 (1.57–5.39)
    ICR 0.93 (−1.00 to 2.86) 1.34 (−0.57 to 3.24)
GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C
    CC/CT No 341/450 1.00 0.308 1.00 0.302
    TT No 70/95 0.95 (0.67–1.35) 0.95 (0.67–1.34)
    CC/CT Yes 111/51 2.84 (1.96–4.12) 1.99 (1.25–3.18)
    TT Yes 22/6 4.58 (1.81–11.60) 3.39 (1.05–10.96)
    ICR 1.78 (−2.54 to 6.11) 1.45 (−2.61 to 5.51)
SOD2 Ex2+24T>C
    CC No 106/138 1.00 0.051 1.00 0.099
    CT/TT No 316/436 0.98 (0.73–1.32) 0.98 (0.73–1.32)
    CC Yes 31/24 1.73 (0.94–3.18) 1.22 (0.59–2.50)
    CT/TT Yes 105/40 3.49 (2.22–5.49) 2.42 (1.40–4.17)
    ICR 1.78 (0.16–3.39) 1.22 (−0.20 to 2.64)
SOD2 −1221G>A
    GG No 111/150 1.00 0.542 1.00 0.469
    GA/AA No 288/383 1.02 (0.76–1.36) 1.02 (0.76–1.37)
    GG Yes 35/18 2.55 (1.36–4.80) 1.59 (0.73–3.50)
    GA/AA Yes 100/42 3.27 (2.09–5.13) 2.35 (1.37–4.03)
    ICR 0.70 (−1.20 to 2.61) 0.74 (−0.89 to 2.37)
CAT −329T>C
    CT/TT No 156/212 1.00 0.505 1.00 0.638
    CC No 259/330 1.06 (0.81–1.38) 1.05 (0.81–1.38)
    CT/TT Yes 46/24 2.55 (1.48–4.39) 1.90 (0.97–3.72)
    CC Yes 90/36 3.40 (2.16–5.35) 2.22 (1.28–3.87)
    ICR 0.80 (−1.07 to 2.66) 0.27 (−1.39 to 1.94)
GPX1 EX1−226C>T
    CT/TT No 224/267 1.00 0.219 1.00 0.625
    CC No 192/288 0.81 (0.63–1.05) 0.81 (0.63–1.05)
    CT/TT Yes 65/33 2.41 (1.53–3.81) 1.79 (1.03–3.12)
    CC Yes 71/28 2.98 (1.81–4.89) 1.82 (0.97–3.43)
    ICR 0.75 (−0.95 to 2.46) 0.22 (−1.23 to 1.68)
a

Odds ratio was adjusted for sex, age, race, education, cigarette smoking, alcohol and cancer history in first-degree relatives.

b

Likelihood ratio test for genotype and diabetes without excluding individuals with diabetes duration ≤2 years.

c

Individuals with diabetes duration ≤2 years were excluded from the logistic regression model.

d

Likelihood ratio test for genotype and diabetes excluding individuals with diabetes duration ≤2 years.

e

Interaction contrast ratio calculated as OR11 − OR10 − OR01 + 1.

Interaction of genotypes and dietary antioxidants

Next, we examined the genotype associations with the risk of pancreatic cancer among individuals with different levels of vitamin C and vitamin E intake. We observed a significant interaction of SOD2 −1221G>A with dietary vitamin E intake (Pinteraction = 0.002, Table IV). This association remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction (P < 0.007). We also observed a borderline significant interaction of dietary vitamin E intake with GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C (P = 0.069) and SOD2 Ex2+24T>C (P = 0.080) genotype (Table IV). In subgroup analysis (Table V), we observed that the TT genotype of GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C was associated with decreased risk of pancreatic cancer among individuals with a lower intake of dietary vitamin C or vitamin E but increased risk among those with a higher intake of those dietary antioxidants (Pinteraction = 0.062 for the interaction with vitamin C). Furthermore, the AG and AA genotype in SOD2 −1221G>A was associated with a significantly increased risk of pancreatic cancer among individuals with a low dietary vitamin E intake with AOR (95% CI) of 1.86 (1.21–2.86) and 1.98 (1.17–3.36), respectively. In contrast, the AA genotype was associated with a significantly decreased risk among those with a high dietary vitamin E intake (AOR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35–0.95). No other genotypes were significantly associated with risk of pancreatic cancer in this analysis.

Table IV.

Interactions between genotype and dietary Vitamin E intakea

Genotype Vitamin Eb Case (n) Control (n) OR (95% CI)c Pd
GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A
    GG ≥7.07 195 235 1.00 0.715
    AG/AA ≥7.07 39 47 1.02 (0.63–1.64)
    GG <7.07 265 235 1.39 (1.07–1.82)
    AG/AA <7.07 53 49 1.26 (0.81–1.96)
GSTA4 −2816T>A
    AA ≥7.07 117 161 1.00 0.164
    AT/TT ≥7.07 125 121 1.38 (0.97–1.96)
    AA <7.07 172 150 1.59 (1.14–2.21)
    AT/TT <7.07 148 130 1.55 (1.10–2.19)
GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C
    CC/CT ≥7.07 199 238 1.00 0.069
    TT ≥7.07 38 37 1.33 (0.81–2.20)
    CC/CT <7.07 253 213 1.48 (1.13–1.94)
    TT <7.07 54 58 1.07 (0.70–1.65)
SOD2 Ex2+24T>C
    CC ≥7.07 56 82 1.00 0.080
    CT/TT ≥7.07 182 202 1.36 (0.91–2.04)
    CC <7.07 81 61 1.97 (1.21–3.21)
    CT/TT <7.07 239 225 1.63 (1.10–2.42)
SOD2 −1221G>A
    GG ≥7.07 73 64 1.00 0.002
    GA/AA ≥7.07 158 202 0.70 (0.47–1.05)
    GG <7.07 73 93 0.71 (0.45–1.13)
    GA/AA <7.07 230 179 1.18 (0.79–1.77)
CAT −329T>C
    CT/TT ≥7.07 89 108 1.00 0.954
    CC ≥7.07 146 167 1.05 (0.73–1.51)
    CT/TT <7.07 113 103 1.37 (0.93–2.04)
    CC <7.07 203 167 1.46 (1.02–2.09)
GPX1 EX1−226C>T
    CT/TT ≥7.07 135 138 1.00 0.160
    CC ≥7.07 103 143 0.74 (0.52–1.05)
    CT/TT <7.07 168 151 1.14 (0.82–1.60)
    CC <7.07 149 129 1.19 (0.85–1.68)
a

Vitamin E intake without supplements but including food fortification.

b

Median value of control was used as the cut points.

c

Odds ratio was adjusted for sex, age, race, education, cigarette smoking, alcohol, history of diabetes and cancer history in first-degree relatives.

d

Likelihood ratio test for genotype and dietary vitamin E intake.

Table V.

Association of genotype and risk of pancreatic cancer in subgroups of vitamin C and E intake

Case/control (n)
OR (95% CI)a
Case/control (n)
OR (95% CI)a
Case/control (n)
OR (95% CI)a
Case/control (n)
OR (95% CI)a
Genotype Total vitamin C
Dietary vitamin C
≤169.77 (mg/day)
>169.77 (mg/day)
≤110.39 (mg/day)
>110.39 (mg/day)
GSTA4 Ex5−64G>Ab
    GG 242/220 1.00 218/250 1.00 224/249 1.00 236/221 1.00
    AG/AA 47/47 0.86 (0.54–1.37) 45/49 1.07 (0.68–1.69) 45/45 1.09 (0.68–1.75) 47/51 0.91 (0.58–1.42)
GSTA4 −2816T>A
    TT 32/35 1.00 23/29 1.00 29/36 1.00 26/28 1.00
    AT 107/89 1.26 (0.70–2.26) 111/98 1.35 (0.72–2.56) 104/103 1.19 (0.66–2.16) 114/84 1.35 (0.72–2.53)
    AA 155/140 1.22 (0.70–2.15) 134/171 0.99 (0.53–1.83) 138/151 1.23 (0.69–2.17) 151/160 0.95 (0.52–1.73)
GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C
    CC 85/88 1.00 95/99 1.00 79/87 1.00 101/100 1.00
    CT 147/128 1.11 (0.74–1.67) 125/136 0.92 (0.63–1.35) 136/136 1.00 (0.66–1.51) 136/128 1.03 (0.70–1.50)
    TT 51/40 1.34 (0.78–2.31) 41/55 0.75 (0.45–1.25) 44/58 0.75 (0.44–1.28) 48/37 1.33 (0.78–2.25)
SOD2 Ex2+24T>C
    CC 71/67 1.00 66/76 1.00 60/74 1.00 77/69 1.00
    CT 149/130 1.24 (0.80–1.91) 129/147 1.01 (0.67–1.54) 142/145 1.30 (0.83–2.02) 136/132 0.99 (0.65–1.50)
    TT 73/73 1.07 (0.65–1.76) 70/77 1.04 (0.64–1.67) 69/77 1.24 (0.75–2.07) 74/73 0.92 (0.57–1.47)
SOD2 −1221G>A
    GG 71/78 1.00 75/79 1.00 67/81 1.00 79/76 1.00
    AG 144/120 1.25 (0.79–1.99) 124/143 0.99 (0.63–1.55) 134/134 1.40 (0.88–2.24) 134/129 0.87 (0.55–1.36)
    AA 64/55 0.86 (0.51–1.44) 56/63 1.07 (0.65–1.76) 53/65 1.11 (0.66–1.88) 67/53 0.84 (0.51–1.38)
CAT −329T>C
    CC 180/159 1.00 169/175 1.00 167/173 1.00 182/161 1.00
    CT 91/89 0.93 (0.64–1.37) 83/96 0.93 (0.64–1.35) 81/97 0.93 (0.63–1.36) 93/88 0.92 (0.63–1.34)
    TT 18/9 1.75 (0.74–4.15) 10/17 0.68 (0.29–1.57) 18/12 1.63 (0.73–3.61) 10/14 0.61 (0.25–1.46)
GPX1 EX1−226C>Tc
    CC 142/130 1.00 110/142 1.00 115/145 1.00 137/127 1.00
    CT/TT 146/134 0.98 (0.69–1.40) 157/155 1.28 (0.91–1.81) 151/144 1.27 (0.89–1.81) 152/145 0.99 (0.70–1.40)
Genotype Total vitamin E
Dietary vitamin E
≤19.01 (mg/day)
>19.01 (mg/day)
≤7.07 (mg/day)
>7.07 (mg/day)
GSTA4 Ex5−64G>Ab
    GG 232/228 1.00 228/242 1.00 249/217 1.00 211/253 1.00
    AG/AA 48/45 1.06 (0.66–1.69) 44/51 0.90 (0.57–1.42) 49/46 0.84 (0.53–1.34) 43/50 1.09 (0.69–1.73)
GSTA4 −2816T>A
    TT 32/35 1.00 23/29 1.00 31/31 1.00 24/33 1.00
    AT 106/84 1.40 (0.78–2.51) 112/103 1.18 (0.62–2.23) 106/92 1.05 (0.57–1.95) 112/95 1.42 (0.77–2.62)
    AA 150/152 1.09 (0.63–1.91) 139/159 1.07 (0.57–1.99) 164/136 1.24 (0.69–2.23) 125/175 0.91 (0.50–1.65)
GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C
    CC 89/95 1.00 91/92 1.00 95/83 1.00 85/104 1.00
    CT 140/120 1.20 (0.80–1.78) 132/144 0.86 (0.58–1.27) 141/112 1.08 (0.71–1.62) 131/152 0.94 (0.64–1.38)
    TT 47/47 1.02 (0.60–1.73) 45/48 0.92 (0.55–1.55) 52/55 0.74 (0.45–1.25) 40/40 1.28 (0.74–2.20)
SOD2 Ex2+24T>C
    CC 72/69 1.00 65/74 1.00 76/58 1.00 61/85 1.00
    CT 133/134 1.12 (0.73–1.73) 145/143 1.11 (0.73–1.70) 154/126 0.99 (0.64–1.53) 124/151 1.21 (0.80–1.85)
    TT 80/74 1.12 (0.69–1.82) 63/76 0.98 (0.60–1.61) 70/81 0.67 (0.41–1.10) 73/69 1.57 (0.97–2.54)
SOD2 −1221G>A
    GG 78/77 1.00 68/80 1.00 65/87 1.00 81/70 1.00
    AG 133/125 1.17 (0.77–1.79) 135/138 1.13 (0.75–1.72) 151/119 1.86 (1.21–2.86) 117/144 0.71 (0.47–1.08)
    AA 60/56 0.98 (0.59–1.63) 60/62 1.09 (0.66–1.79) 68/46 1.98 (1.17–3.36) 52/72 0.57 (0.35–0.95)
CAT −329T>C
    CC 180/162 1.00 169/172 1.00 189/157 1.00 160/177 1.00
    CT 85/88 0.88 (0.60–1.30) 89/97 0.97 (0.67–1.40) 89/82 0.92 (0.62–1.36) 85/103 0.93 (0.65–1.35)
    TT 15/10 1.32 (0.56–3.12) 13/16 0.86 (0.39–1.91) 18/10 1.95 (0.83–4.55) 10/16 0.65 (0.28–1.52)
GPX1 EX1−226C>Tc
    CC 137/139 1.00 115/133 1.00 142/122 1.00 110/150 1.00
    CT/TT 146/131 1.14 (0.81–1.63) 157/158 1.10 (0.78–1.56) 155/137 0.91 (0.64–1.30) 148/152 1.39 (0.98–1.97)
a

Odds ratio was adjusted for sex, age, race, education, cigarette smoking, alcohol, history of diabetes and cancer history in first-degree relatives.

b

Three cases with AA genotype were combined with those with AT genotype.

c

Five cases and two controls had TT genotype.

Discussion

The major findings of this study indicate that specific antioxidant gene SOD2 and GSTA4 polymorphisms were associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer among diabetics or individuals with low dietary vitamin E intake. These findings support the hypotheses that genetic variations in antioxidant defense modify the risk of pancreatic cancer among individuals with increased oxidative stress or a low intake of dietary antioxidants.

SOD2 (Mn-SOD) is perhaps the most extensively studied antioxidant gene in the cancer field and the results are inconsistent. The functional SNP SOD2 Val16Ala (Ex2+24T>C), which confers higher than normal antioxidant activity (26,27), has been associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer (12), bladder cancer (28) and pancreatic cancer (13) but an increased risk of breast cancer (10) and prostate cancer (11). Null associations have been reported in other studies of breast cancer and bladder cancer (2931). The current study failed to confirm the previously reported association of SOD2 Val16Ala genotype and increased risk of pancreatic cancer that was observed in a previous study of 122 cases and 331 controls (13). This discrepancy may have been resulted from a selection bias induced by small sample size because the allele frequency was much lower in the control group of the previous study compared with the reported frequency in SNP500 and HapMap databases and in the current study. Nevertheless, the current study showed that diabetics carrying the Val16 allele (the low activity allele) had a 3.49-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer compared with non-diabetics carrying the Ala homozygote. These observations are consistent with previous reports that the Val allele was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (13) and type II diabetes (32). In addition to its antioxidant activity, SOD2 has been suggested as a tumor suppressor gene in pancreatic cancer because of its growth-regulating activity (33). Like many other solid tumors, pancreatic tumors have been demonstrated to have low levels of antioxidant enzymes compared with normal human pancreas (15). In pancreatic carcinoma cell lines, SOD2 levels were associated with cell doubling time and SOD2 overexpression inhibited the growth and reversed the oncogenic phenotypes of pancreatic cancer cells (16,33). Our observation that the low activity allele of the SOD2 Ex2+24T>C genotype was associated with a higher risk for pancreatic cancer is consistent with the gene's tumor suppressor role.

The SOD2 −1221G>A sequence variant is located in the regulatory region of the gene. Although no functional study has been conducted on this SNP, it could affect the gene's transcription factor binding. We found the A allele of the SOD2 −1221G>A genotype was associated with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer among individuals with a low dietary vitamin E intake but a lower risk among those with a higher vitamin E intake (Pinteraction = 0.002). SOD2 catalyzes the conversion of superoxide anion to oxygen and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). H2O2 is an important intermediate product in reactive oxygen species metabolism. It can be either reduced to H2O by CAT or GPx, or it can go through Fenton reaction to generate more reactive hydroxyl free radicals that initiate the lipid peroxidation chain reactions (34). Vitamin E is one of the most efficient antioxidants to break this chain reaction (35). Thus, under vitamin E sufficient conditions, a higher level of SOD2 would protect cells from the superoxide anion-caused damages without the risk of increasing hydroxyl radicals. In contrast, under vitamin E deficient conditions, a higher level of SOD2 may lead to a higher level of H2O2 and subsequently a higher level of hydroxyl free radical and lipid peroxidation reactions. Further investigation is required to confirm this observation and to illustrate the functional significance of this SNP under different levels of antioxidant nutrients.

GST gene polymorphisms have been studied extensively in association with the risk of human cancers, including pancreatic cancer. For example, the GSTT1 null genotype in smokers and GSTP1 SNPs in younger individuals have been associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (36,37). GSTA4 genotypes have previously been investigated in liver cancer (38) and lung cancer (39) but not in pancreatic cancer. The current study found that GSTA4 Ex5−64G>A (Q117Q) genotypes did not modify the risk of pancreatic cancer in general but did do so in diabetics. Although the functional significance of the SNPs examined is not well known, their association with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer is biologically plausible. GSTA4 has a substrate affinity to lipid peroxidation products (40,41); thus, it plays a major role in protecting cell membranes from lipid radicals. Vitamin E, α-tocopherol especially, has been claimed the most important lipid-soluble antioxidant, and it is known to protect cell membranes from oxidation by reacting with lipid radicals produced in the lipid peroxidation chain reaction (35). If the variant alleles of the GSTA4 gene reduced the enzyme's activity, the combined enzymatic antioxidant deficiency and increased oxidative stress in diabetes would render the cells subject to excessive lipid peroxidation-induced damages. Furthermore, a differential effect of the GSTA4 IVS6+1214T>C genotype by dietary vitamin C and E intake was observed. The variant genotype unexpectedly showed a protective effect among individuals with a lower intake of dietary antioxidants but a detrimental effect among those with a higher intake of dietary antioxidants. We do not have a biological explanation for this intriguing observation. Since these associations were statistically non-significant, they could be spurious associations related to small sample size. However, the consistent observations in genotype interaction with both vitamin C and vitamin E intake suggest that further investigation on the functional significance of this SNP and the gene expression regulation at different levels of antioxidant is needed.

Accumulating evidence supports the role of long-term type II diabetes in pancreatic cancer development. Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia, which often leads to abnormally high levels of superoxide anion radicals and high oxidative stress (2,42). The inflammatory response and insulin resistance associated with diabetes may also contribute to pancreatic cancer development. Previous studies have shown that antioxidants such as vitamin C and vitamin E can improve insulin resistance, reduce the risk of diabetes in overweight individuals and reduce the risk of heart attack in diabetics (43,44). Consistent with these observations, the current study demonstrated a protective effect of total vitamin C intake and dietary vitamin E against pancreatic cancer, which suggests that diabetes and pancreatic cancer may share a common mechanism, e.g. increased oxidative stress.

Our study is a hospital-based case–control study with inherent limitations. For example, the low return rate of the FFQ and the patients’ referral pattern led to selection bias, i.e. underrepresentation of minorities, older people and patients with most advanced diseases. However, there was no significant difference in the race and age distribution between cases and controls in this study. Furthermore, we did not find any association between the nutrient intake level and disease stage (data not shown). Thus, it is unlikely that the risk estimates in this study were significantly affected by these factors. Some patients may have changed their dietary pattern 1 year before their cancer diagnosis because of early symptoms, so the dietary information collected was subject to information bias and recall bias. Some of the observations of genotype association with risk of pancreatic cancer may be derived by chance alone. Because of the limited sample size, we could not examine the association of genotype with extremely low dietary antioxidant intake. The fact that diabetes is easily diagnosed among patients than among control subjects may lead to overestimation of diabetes risk on pancreatic cancer. Nevertheless, our study has generated some very interesting data that are consistent with previous reports that genetic variations in antioxidant genes could reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer in the presence of diabetes or low antioxidant intake.

Funding

National Institutes of Health (RO1 grant CA98380); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center (grant P30 ES07784).

Acknowledgments

Conflict of Interest Statement: None declared.

Glossary

Abbreviations

AOR

adjusted odds ratio

CAT

catalase

CI

confidence interval

FFQ

food frequency questionnaire

GPX

glutathione peroxidase

GSTA4

glutathione S-transferase alpha 4

HWE

Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium

ICR

interaction contrast ratio

SNP

single-nucleotide polymorphism

SOD

superoxide dismutase

References

  • 1.Hart AR, et al. Pancreatic cancer: a review of the evidence on causation. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008;6:275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.12.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baynes JW, et al. Role of oxidative stress in diabetic complications: a new perspective on an old paradigm. Diabetes. 1999;48:1–9. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.48.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pryor WA, et al. Oxidants in cigarette smoke: Radicals, hydrogen peroxides, peroxynitrate, and peroxynitrite. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1993;686:12–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb39148.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Church DF, et al. Free-radical chemistry of cigarette smoke and its toxicological implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 1985;64:111–126. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8564111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vincent HK, et al. Biomarkers and potential mechanisms of obesity-induced oxidant stress in humans. Int. J. Obes. (Lond.) 2006;30:400–418. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Maritim AC, et al. Diabetes, oxidative stress, and antioxidants: a review. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2003;17:24–38. doi: 10.1002/jbt.10058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dauchet L, et al. Relationships between different types of fruit and vegetable consumption and serum concentrations of antioxidant vitamins. Br. J. Nutr. 2008;100:633–641. doi: 10.1017/S000711450892170X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nkondjock A, et al. Dietary patterns and risk of pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Cancer. 2005;114:817–823. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lin Y, et al. Nutritional factors and risk of pancreatic cancer: a population-based case-control study based on direct interview in Japan. J. Gastroenterol. 2005;40:297–301. doi: 10.1007/s00535-004-1537-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ambrosone CB, et al. Manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) genetic polymorphisms, dietary antioxidants, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1999;59:602–606. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kang D, et al. Functional variant of manganese superoxide dismutase (SOD2 V16A) polymorphism is associated with prostate cancer risk in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1581–1586. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zejnilovic J, et al. Association between manganese superoxide dismutase polymorphism and risk of lung cancer. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 2009;189:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2008.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wheatley-Price P, et al. Myeloperoxidase and superoxide dismutase polymorphisms are associated with an increased risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2008;112:1037–1042. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yung LM, et al. Reactive oxygen species in vascular wall. Cardiovasc. Hematol. Disord. Drug Targets. 2006;6:1–19. doi: 10.2174/187152906776092659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cullen JJ, et al. Expression of antioxidant enzymes in diseases of the human pancreas: another link between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2003;26:23–27. doi: 10.1097/00006676-200301000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cullen JJ, et al. The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in the growth of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63:1297–1303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ough M, et al. Inhibition of cell growth by overexpression of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) in human pancreatic carcinoma. Free Radic. Res. 2004;38:1223–1233. doi: 10.1080/10715760400017376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hassan MM, et al. Risk factors for pancreatic cancer: case-control study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2696–2707. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01510.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Willett WC, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1985;122:51–65. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang S, et al. Association between manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) Val-9Ala polymorphism and cancer risk—A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45:2874–2881. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang J, et al. [Association of genetic polymorphisms in selenoprotein GPX1 and TXNRD2 with genetic susceptibility of gastric cancer] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008;42:511–514. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rajaraman P, et al. Oxidative response gene polymorphisms and risk of adult brain tumors. Neuro. Oncol. 2008;10:709–715. doi: 10.1215/15228517-2008-037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Qian J, et al. Association between polymorphisms in the GSTA4 gene and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study in a Southeastern Chinese population. Mol. Carcinog. 2009;48:253–259. doi: 10.1002/mc.20478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Willett W, et al. Implications of total energy intake for epidemiological analysis. In: Willett W, editor. Nutritional Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998. pp. 273–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rothman KJ, et al. Concepts of interaction. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1998. pp. 329–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sutton A, et al. The Ala16Val genetic dimorphism modulates the import of human manganese superoxide dismutase into rat liver mitochondria. Pharmacogenetics. 2003;13:145–157. doi: 10.1097/01.fpc.0000054067.64000.8f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sutton A, et al. The manganese superoxide dismutase Ala16Val dimorphism modulates both mitochondrial import and mRNA stability. Pharmacogenet. Genomics. 2005;15:311–319. doi: 10.1097/01213011-200505000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hung RJ, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of MPO, COMT, MnSOD, NQO1, interactions with environmental exposures and bladder cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:973–978. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgh080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cai Q, et al. Genetic polymorphism in the manganese superoxide dismutase gene, antioxidant intake, and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:R647–R55. doi: 10.1186/bcr929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kocabas NA, et al. Genetic polymorphism of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) and breast cancer susceptibility. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2005;23:73–76. doi: 10.1002/cbf.1128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ichimura Y, et al. Increased risk of bladder cancer associated with a glutathione peroxidase 1 codon 198 variant. J. Urol. 2004;172:728–732. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000130942.40597.9d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nakanishi S, et al. Manganese superoxide dismutase Ala16Val polymorphism is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes in Japanese-Americans. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2008;81:381–385. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Weydert C, et al. Suppression of the malignant phenotype in human pancreatic cancer cells by the overexpression of manganese superoxide dismutase. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2003;2:361–369. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hauptmann N, et al. The oxygen paradox: biochemistry of active oxygen. In: Scandalios JG, editor. Oxidative Stress and The Molecular Biology of Antioxidant Defenses. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997. pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yamauchi R. Addition products of alpha-tocopherol with lipid-derived free radicals. Vitam. Horm. 2007;76:309–327. doi: 10.1016/S0083-6729(07)76011-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Duell EJ, et al. A population-based, case-control study of polymorphisms in carcinogen-metabolizing genes, smoking, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:297–306. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.4.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jiao L, et al. Glutathione S-transferase gene polymorphisms and risk and survival of pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2007;109:840–848. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.McGlynn KA, et al. Susceptibility to aflatoxin B1-related primary hepatocellular carcinoma in mice and humans. Cancer Res. 2003;63:4594–4601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Qian J, et al. Association between polymorphisms in the GSTA4 gene and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study in a Southeastern Chinese population. Mol. Carcinog. 2008;48:253–259. doi: 10.1002/mc.20478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Awasthi YC, et al. Regulation of 4-hydroxynonenal mediated signaling by glutathione S-transferases. Methods Enzymol. 2005;401:379–407. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(05)01024-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hubatsch I, et al. Human glutathione transferase A4-4: an alpha class enzyme with high catalytic efficiency in the conjugation of 4-hydroxynonenal and other genotoxic products of lipid peroxidation. Biochem. J. 1998;330 doi: 10.1042/bj3300175. (Pt 1),175–179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Niedowicz DM, et al. The role of oxidative stress in diabetic complications. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2005;43:289–330. doi: 10.1385/CBB:43:2:289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Vincent HK, et al. Effects of antioxidant supplementation on insulin sensitivity, endothelial adhesion molecules, and oxidative stress in normal-weight and overweight young adults. Metabolism. 2009;58:254–262. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2008.09.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jain SK, et al. The effect of modest vitamin E supplementation on lipid peroxidation products and other cardiovascular risk factors in diabetic patients. Lipids. 1996;31(suppl.):S87–S90. doi: 10.1007/BF02637057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Carcinogenesis are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES