Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2017 Feb 7;7:41737. doi: 10.1038/srep41737

A functional SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 is associated with gastric cancer in Chinese population

Wenjie Liu 1,*, Tian Tian 2,3,*, Li Liu 1, Jiangbo Du 2,4, Yayun Gu 2, Na Qin 2, Caiwang Yan 2, Zhaoming Wang 2, Juncheng Dai 2,4,a, Zhining Fan 1,b
PMCID: PMC5294397  PMID: 28169308

Abstract

FOSL1 (FOS like antigen 1) is one kind of proto-oncogene, and may play a vital role in carcinogenesis of multiple cancers. However, studies about the relationship between SNPs in FOSL1 and gastric cancer are still lacking. Thus, we investigated the association of seven SNPs in FOSL1 with gastric cancer using case-control design in a two-stage strategy (Screening stage: 1,140 gastric cancer cases and 1,547 controls; Replication stage: 1,006 cases and 2,273 controls). We found that rs1892901 was significantly associated with increased risk of gastric cancer in additive model (adjusted OR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.06–1.47, P = 0.008) in first stage. Following replication results revealed that the relationship between rs1892901 and gastric cancer risk was consistent with our primary results. In silico analysis showed that rs1892901 might alter multiple regulatory motifs, disturb protein binding, and affect the expression of FOSL1 and other important gastric cancer-related genes such as EGR1, CHD, EP300, FOS, JUN and FOSL2. Our findings indicated that functional SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 might affect the expression of FOSL1, and ultimately increase the risk of gastric cancer. Further functional studies and large-scale population studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

The incidence and mortality of gastric cancer have been steadily decreasing in the past decades throughout the world, especially in the developed countries1,2. However, in China, gastric cancer is still the second most common cancer with an estimated 679,100 new cases and the second leading cause of cancer deaths with an estimate of 498,000 deaths in 20153. Gastric cancer is the result of complex interactions of environmental exposures (including Helicobacter pylori infection, cigarette smoking, unhealthy diet, obesity, etc) and genetic factors4. A growing number of genotyping methods and strategies have been applied to explore the genetic risk of gastric cancer. Although association studies based on high-throughput technology (e.g., genome-wide association study) could identify numerous gastric cancer susceptibility SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), the findings could explain only a small fraction of gastric cancer heritability. Therefore, conventional candidate-gene based strategy is still a useful tool to detect crucial variants of gastric cancer.

FOS like antigen 1 (FOSL1) is a member of the Fos gene family that plays important roles in cell proliferation, differentiation, transformation and metastasis5,6. Proteins of the JUN family and FOSL1 can form activator protein-1 complexes (transcription factor AP-1), which are responsible for misregulation in carcinogenesis. AP-1 is a major mediator of transformation by Ras, and FOSL1 is the predominant protein which contributes to the activity of AP-17,8. It has been reported that FOSL1 was associated with a more malignant phenotype and might play a pivotal role in cancer progression9,10. FOSL1 can be regulated transcriptionally and post-translationally; besides, it can positively regulate transcription as well11. It has been confirmed that, FOSL1 is a kind of proto-oncogene, and elevated expression of FOSL1 is detected in multiple human carcinomas, including colon adenocarcinoma, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, head and neck, lung and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, etc9,12. In 2015, He et al. suggested that FOSL1 was upregulated in gastric cancer tissues and might affect the PI3K/Akt and p53 signaling pathway in gastric cancer6. Thus, FOSL1 may influence the occurrence and development of multiple types of cancers including gastric cancer. Nevertheless, so far there are limited studies focusing on the relationship of genetic variants in FOSL1 with gastric cancer.

In this study, we hypothesized that the SNPs in FOSL1 gene might play an important role in the carcinogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. Thus, we investigated the association of seven SNPs in FOSL1 gene with gastric cancer in a two-stage case-control study in Chinese (Screening stage: 1,140 gastric cancer cases and 1,547 controls; Replication stage: 1,006 cases and 2,273 controls).

Results

As shown in Supplementary Table 1, the distributions of age, gender, drinking and smoking status between cases and controls for the Screening stage were comparable (P > 0.05). The detailed distributions of the characteristics mentioned above between cases and controls for the Replication stage were reported previously13. Genotyping rates for all of the seven SNPs in FOSL1 were more than 99% in the Screening stage. The observed genotype frequency for each SNP was in agreement with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in controls (P > 0.05). Among the seven SNPs, rs1892901 was significantly related to the gastric cancer risk in additive model (adjusted OR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.06–1.47, P = 0.008, P for FDR = 0.056). However, no significant associations were observed for the remaining six SNPs (rs637571, rs10791830, rs653914, rs614520, rs10896065, rs7940700) in additive model (Table 1).

Table 1. Primary information of 7 SNPs in FOSL1 gene.

SNP Location Allelesa Casesb (N = 1,140) Controlsb (N = 1,547) MAFc HWEd Genotyping rate (%) Additive modele
OR (95%CI) P
rs1892901 5′ near gene G/A 842/275/23 1199/330/16 0.141/0.117 0.221 99.9 1.25 (1.06–1.47) 0.008
rs637571 Intron G/A 712/378/47 918/547/76 0.208/0.227 0.664 99.7 0.89 (0.78–1.02) 0.094
rs10791830 Intron G/A 378/565/194 549/738/255 0.419/0.405 0.792 99.7 1.06 (0.95–1.19) 0.272
rs653914 5′ near gene A/G 307/561/270 388/781/376 0.484/0.496 0.684 99.9 0.95 (0.85–1.06) 0.349
rs614520 Intron A/G 717/369/54 969/517/60 0.209/0.206 0.437 100.0 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 0.812
rs10896065 5′ near gene G/A 819/289/31 1105/409/30 0.154/0.152 0.323 99.9 1.02 (0.87–1.18) 0.831
rs7940700 5′ near gene G/A 820/288/31 1105/408/30 0.154/0.152 0.322 99.8 1.02 (0.87–1.18) 0.848
Open in a new tab

aMajor/minor allele;

bMajor homozygote/heterozygote/Rare homozygote between cases and controls;

cMinor allele frequency between cases/controls;

dHardy-Weinberg equilibrium test among controls;

eLogistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, smoking and drinking status.

The genotype distributions of rs1892901 between cases and controls in two stages were shown in Table 2. In the Screening stage, after adjustment for age, gender, drinking status and smoking status, presence of AA genotype was significantly associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer (adjusted OR (odds ratio) = 2.13, 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.11–4.06, P = 0.022) in comparison with presence of GG genotype of rs1892901. However, presence of GA genotype were not related to gastric cancer risk (adjusted OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 0.99–1.43, P = 0.067). In the following replication stage (1,006 cases and 2,273 controls), the relationship between rs1892901 and gastric cancer risk was consistent with our primary results (adjusted OR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.04–1.44, P = 0.016, Table 2). The combined results of the two stages further showed rs1892901 was related to gastric cancer risk in additive model (adjusted OR = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.10–1.39, P < 0.001, Table 2). Compared with presence of GG of rs1892901, presence of GA and AA were both significantly associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer (Table 2, adjusted OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.04–1.35, P = 0.013 for GA; adjusted OR = 2.04, 95%CI: 1.30–3.20, P = 0.002 for AA). The risks of gastric cancer associated with rs1892901 were similar for both stages (Pheterogeneity > 0.05).

Table 2. Associations between SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 gene and gastric cancer risk.

Genotype or genetic model a Screening stage Replication stage Combinedb
Cases/Controls Adjusted OR (95% CI)c Pc Cases/Controls Adjusted OR (95% CI)c Pc Adjusted OR (95% CI)c Pc
GG 842/1199 1.00   759/1786 1.00   1.00  
GA 275/330 1.19 (0.99–1.43) 0.067 227/463 1.17 (0.97–1.41) 0.093 1.18 (1.04–1.35) 0.013
AA 23/16 2.13 (1.11–4.06) 0.022 20/24 1.96 (1.05–3.65) 0.034 2.04 (1.30–3.20) 0.002
Dominant   1.23 (1.03–1.47) 0.023   1.21 (1.01–1.45) 0.037 1.22 (1.08–1.39) 0.002
Additive   1.25 (1.06–1.47) 0.008   1.22 (1.04–1.44) 0.016 1.24 (1.10–1.39) <0.001
Open in a new tab

aMajor allele (G) of rs1892901 was recognized as reference allele;

bCombined results were calculated based on meta-analysis based method(fixed effect model);

cLogistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, smoking and drinking status.

In order to further explore the associations of rs1892901 with gastric cancer risk, we conducted the stratified analyses within subgroups according to age, gender, smoking and drinking status (Supplementary Table 2). No significant heterogeneity was identified between different subgroups for SNP rs1892901 (Pheterogeneity > 0.05). Rs637571 (A allele) was found to be a protective factor for gastric cancer development, and the association with decreased gastric cancer risk achieved a boundary significance (P = 0.094). Thus, we investigated the interaction of rs637571 with individuals’ demographics on gastric cancer risk. However, no significant multiplicative interaction was present (Supplementary Table 3).

Based on the UCSC Genome Bioinformatics website (http://genome.ucsc.edu/), we annotated rs1892901 in regulatory elements which catalogued in Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project. As shown in Fig. 1, rs1892901 is situated near the enhancer elements (H3K4Me1 mark) and also near the active promoter elements (H3K27Ac mark) on seven cell lines from ENCODE, which indicated that rs1892901 was probably involved in the regulation of gene expression. Besides, rs1892901 fell into DNase I Hypersensitivity peaks in 125 cell types from ENCODE, which suggested a possible mechanism for the effect on gastric cancer risk.

Figure 1. Functional annotation in proximity to SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 location.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

CHIP-seq tracks for promoter histone marks (H3K4Me3) and enhancer histone marks (H3K4Me1, H3K27Ac) in seven cell lines (GM12878, H1-hESC, HSMM, HUVEC, K562, NHEK, and NHLF cells) are present along with DNase hypersensitivity tracks from ENCODE data through UCSC website. The light blue, long vertical line indicates the position of SNP rs1892901.

Discussion

In the present study, we systematically evaluated the relationships of tagging SNPs in FOSL1 gene with gastric cancer risk in a two-stage case-control study in Chinese (Screening stage and Replication stage). The SNP rs1892901 was identified to be significantly associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer in both stages. Additionally, in silico analysis indicated that rs1892901 might affect transcriptional regulation and expression of certain important gastric cancer-related genes.

FOSL1 (also known as FRA-1) is a member of the Fos transcription factor family (including c-Fos, FosB, Fra-1 and Fra-2) that is highly expressed in multiple tumors14. FOSL1 and the JUN family (c-Jun, JunB, and JunD) can form activator protein-1 (AP-1) complexes that have been confirmed to mediate various biological processes including cell proliferation, cell differentiation, tumorigenesis, and neoplastic transformation15,16,17. It has been reported that both Fos family and JUN family could function as oncogenic transcription factors18, while the increased expression of FOSL1 might be more predictive of oncogenic activity19. Dysregulation of FOSL1 has been discovered in multiple cancers and tumor cell lines including colorectal cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer, etc. Besides, frequent over-expression of FOSL1 is identified in squamous cell carcinomas of the stomach and esophagus19,20. It has been reported that FOSL1 could regulate several cancer-related genes and microRNAs, including MMP-1, MMP-9, CD44, E2H2, microRNA-195 and microRNA-34a11,21,22,23. In addition, He et al. found that the expression of FOSL1 was higher in the gastric cancer samples in comparison with the adjacent non-cancerous tissues, and over-expression of FOSL1 could influence the expression of vital cancer-related genes including PI3K, Akt, MDM2, and p536. Thus, FOSL1 was up-regulated in gastric cancer and might affect the expression of certain important gastric cancer-related genes, and further affect the development of gastric cancer.

So far no association study has been conducted to explore the relationship of polymorphisms in FOSL1 with gastric cancer risk. Our study revealed that SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 was associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer. In silico analysis showed that SNP rs1892901 falls into DNase I Hypersensitivity peaks in 125 cell types from ENCODE, which suggested that there was a potential mechanism for the effect on gastric cancer risk. Besides, rs1892901 is situated near the enhancer elements (H3K4Me1 mark) and the active promoter elements (H3K27Ac mark) in 7 cell lines from ENCODE, which might suggest that this SNP is probably involved in the regulation of gene expression. In addition, according to SNPinfo (http://snpinfo.niehs.nih.gov/)24, an online tool, rs1892901 was confirmed to be a potential transcription factor binding site. Moreover, based on another web-based analysis tool, RegulomeDB (http://www.regulomedb.org/), the Regulome DB score of rs1892901 was 2b, which means this SNP is likely to alter multiple regulatory motifs and disturb protein binding activities. Rs1892901 might affect the binding of multiple important transcription-related proteins such as EGR1, CHD, EP300, FOS, JUN, FOSL1, and FOSL2. It has been reported that there are some relations between the proteins mentioned above and gastric cancer6,25,26,27,28. Among these proteins, the genes encoding FOS, FOSL1, and FOSL2 are members of Fos gene family, and the gene encoding JUN belongs to the JUN family. As mentioned above, the leucine zipper proteins encoded by Fos genes and proteins of genes of JUN family members could form the transcription factor complex AP-1. In 2011, Luo et al. revealed that negatively regulated AP-1 activity could lead to the decreasing mRNA level of cyclin D1 in gastric cancer cells27, which indicated that AP-1 might be involved in proliferation inhibition in gastric cancer. Besides, in 2015, Xia et al. proposed that tumor promoter-induced matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) could be inhibited through suppression of AP-1 activity in gastric cancer cells29. Totally, SNP rs1892901 may influence the expression of FOSL1 and other gastric cancer-related genes on the basis of some potential mechanisms (including modifying DNA methylation and transcription factor response elements), and ultimately affect the occurrence of gastric cancer. However, the functional evidence for rs1892901 in FOSL1 was based on in silico analysis. Further well-designed functional studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

In summary, our study revealed that functional SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 might affect the expression of FOSL1 and other gastric cancer-related genes, and ultimately modify the gastric cancer risk in Chinese. Our results could be a clue for further functional studies to reveal the underlying biological mechanisms in gastric carcinogenesis.

Materials and Methods

Ethics Statement

All aspects of our study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nanjing Medical University (FWA00001501), and the study was carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The design and the procedure of current study involving human individuals were described in a research protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before the start of the study.

Study subjects

The recruitment of subjects for screening stage in this study was described previously30. Briefly, gastric cancer cases were consecutively recruited from Jiangsu Province, Eastern China. All of the gastric cancer cases were histopathologically confirmed, and those with any other type of cancer or having received chemotherapy or radiotherapy were eliminated. Totally, 1,140 gastric cancer cases were included in this study. And a total of 1,547 cancer-free controls were randomly selected from the individuals in a screening program for non-infectious diseases in Jiangsu province. The controls were frequency-matched to gastric cancer cases for sex, age, and regions (city of residence). Each participant was asked to answer the questions from a standard questionnaire, and donate about 5 ml venous blood sample. Individuals who smoked at least once per day for more than one year were considered to be smokers. And individuals who drank equal to or more than twice a week for at least one year were defined as drinkers. For Replication stage, we analyzed the relationship of positive SNPs in FOSL1 (identified according to the Screening stage) and gastric cancer risk based on a published Chinese gastric cancer GWAS (including 1,006 gastric cancer cases and 2,273 controls)8, which was conducted using Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 chips.

Selection and genotyping assays of polymorphisms

Common SNPs (minor allele frequency, MAF ≥ 0.05) were screened in FOSL1 gene regions (including 10-kb up-stream region of this gene) in Chinese Han population (CHB) on the basis of the HapMap SNP database (phase II + III Feb 09, on NCBI B36 assembly, dbSNP b126). According to the above mentioned criteria, a total of 10 SNPs were identified. Based on an analysis website for SNP function prediction, SNPinfo Web Server (http://snpinfo.niehs.nih.gov/), four potentially functional SNPs (rs10896065, rs1892901, and rs637571, and rs7940700) were indicated. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis with an r2 threshold of 0.80 was further applied to filter the tagging SNPs in 10 SNPs mentioned above (the potentially functional SNPs were prioritized in the final selection). As a result, seven SNPs were selected in the current study, including rs1892901 (G > A), rs637571 (G > A), rs10791830 (G > A), rs653914 (A > G), rs614520 (A > G), rs10896065 (G > A), rs7940700 (G > A).

Genotyping for the discovery stage was carried out using Illumina Infinium® BeadChip (Illumina inc.), GenTrain version 1.0 clustering algorithm implemented in GenomeStudio V2011.1 (Illumina inc.) was used to call the clusters. Technicians were blinded to the case or control status of participants.

Statistical analyses

The chi-square (χ2) test was applied to analyze distribution differences of each variable between cases and controls, including demographic characteristics, selected variables and genotypes. The goodness-of-fit χ2 was performed to test the deviation of genotype distribution for each SNP from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Logistic regression analyses were used to compute ORs and their 95% CIs for the relationships of the genotypes to risk of gastric cancer. Covariates for adjustment in this study included age, sex, smoking and drinking. BH-FDR procedure (Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate) was used as multiple testing to control type-I error rate31. The χ2- based Q-test was applied to test the heterogeneity between corresponding subgroups. All tests were two-sided and the significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. All analyses were performed using R software (version 3.1.1, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.cran.r-project.org/).

In silico analysis

We annotated the promising SNPs in regulatory elements cataloged in Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project according to UCSC Genome Bioinformatics website (http://genome.ucsc.edu/). We analyzed the data of H3K4Me3, H3K27Ac, and H3K4Me1 Mark on seven cell lines including H1-hESC, GM12878, K562, HUVEC, HSMM, NHLF, and NHEK cells, and examined DNaseI Hypersensitivity (DNaseI HS) data in 125 cell types.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Liu, W. et al. A functional SNP rs1892901 in FOSL1 is associated with gastric cancer in Chinese population. Sci. Rep. 7, 41737; doi: 10.1038/srep41737 (2017).

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Tables
srep41737-s1.doc (85KB, doc)

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by National Natural Science of China (81521004, 81230067, 81573238, 81422042, 81373090, 81573228, 81302107), Excellent Youth Foundation of Jiangsu (BK20160095), Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Jiangsu (BK20130042), Key Grant of Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (15KJA330002), the Priority Academic Program for the Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [Public Health and Preventive Medicine] and Top-notch Academic Programs Project of Jiangsu Higher Education Institution. The authors wish to thank all the study participants, research staff and students who participated in this work.

Footnotes

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Author Contributions D.J. and F.Z. conceived and designed this study. L.W. and D.J. conducted the experiments. G.Y., Q.N., and Y.C. participated in data collection and preprocessing. T.T. and L.L. analyzed the data and conducted in silico analysis. L.W. and T.T. wrote the manuscript. W.Z. and D.J. verified the results and the article. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

References

  1. Kamangar F., Dores G. M. & Anderson W. F. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. Journal of clinical oncology:official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 24, 2137–2150, doi: 10.1200/jco.2005.05.2308 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Torre L. A. et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 65, 87–108, doi: 10.3322/caac.21262 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen W. et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 66, 115–132, doi: 10.3322/caac.21338 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen J. et al. TGFBR1 tagging SNPs and gastric cancer susceptibility: a two-stage case-control study in Chinese population. Molecular carcinogenesis 53, 109–116, doi: 10.1002/mc.21954 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lu D. et al. Fra-1 promotes breast cancer chemosensitivity by driving cancer stem cells from dormancy. Cancer research 72, 3451–3456, doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-2536 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. He J. et al. Fra-1 is upregulated in gastric cancer tissues and affects the PI3K/Akt and p53 signaling pathway in gastric cancer. International journal of oncology 47, 1725–1734, doi: 10.3892/ijo.2015.3146 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mechta F., Lallemand D., Pfarr C. M. & Yaniv M. Transformation by ras modifies AP1 composition and activity. Oncogene 14, 837–847, doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1200900 (1997). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Usui A. et al. The molecular role of Fra-1 and its prognostic significance in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer 118, 3387–3396, doi: 10.1002/cncr.26652 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Young M. R. & Colburn N. H. Fra-1 a target for cancer prevention or intervention. Gene 379, 1–11, doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2006.05.001 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Logullo A. F. et al. Role of Fos-related antigen 1 in the progression and prognosis of ductal breast carcinoma. Histopathology 58, 617–625, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03785.x (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Iskit S., Schlicker A., Wessels L. & Peeper D. S. Fra-1 is a key driver of colon cancer metastasis and a Fra-1 classifier predicts disease-free survival. Oncotarget 6, 43146–43161, doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6454 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Diesch J. et al. Widespread FRA1-dependent control of mesenchymal transdifferentiation programs in colorectal cancer cells. PloS one 9, e88950, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088950 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shi Y. et al. A genome-wide association study identifies new susceptibility loci for non-cardia gastric cancer at 3q13.31 and 5p13.1. Nature genetics 43, 1215–1218, doi: 10.1038/ng.978 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Angel P. & Karin M. The role of Jun, Fos and the AP-1 complex in cell-proliferation and transformation. Biochimica et biophysica acta 1072, 129–157 (1991). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shaulian E. & Karin M. AP-1 in cell proliferation and survival. Oncogene 20, 2390–2400, doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204383 (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eferl R. & Wagner E. F. AP-1: a double-edged sword in tumorigenesis. Nature reviews. Cancer 3, 859–868, doi: 10.1038/nrc1209 (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shaulian E. & Karin M. AP-1 as a regulator of cell life and death. Nature cell biology 4, E131–136, doi: 10.1038/ncb0502-e131 (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Langer S. et al. Jun and Fos family protein expression in human breast cancer: correlation of protein expression and clinicopathological parameters. European journal of gynaecological oncology 27, 345–352 (2006). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Milde-Langosch K. The Fos family of transcription factors and their role in tumourigenesis. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 41, 2449–2461, doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.08.008 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Adiseshaiah P., Lindner D. J., Kalvakolanu D. V. & Reddy S. P. FRA-1 proto-oncogene induces lung epithelial cell invasion and anchorage-independent growth in vitro, but is insufficient to promote tumor growth in vivo. Cancer research 67, 6204–6211, doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-4687 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Belguise K., Kersual N., Galtier F. & Chalbos D. FRA-1 expression level regulates proliferation and invasiveness of breast cancer cells. Oncogene 24, 1434–1444, doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208312 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu J. et al. MicroRNA-195-5p, a new regulator of Fra-1, suppresses the migration and invasion of prostate cancer cells. Journal of translational medicine 13, 289, doi: 10.1186/s12967-015-0650-6 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wu J. et al. MicroRNA-34a inhibits migration and invasion of colon cancer cells via targeting to Fra-1. Carcinogenesis 33, 519–528, doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgr304 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Xu Z. & Taylor J. A. SNPinfo: integrating GWAS and candidate gene information into functional SNP selection for genetic association studies. Nucleic acids research 37, W600–605, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp290 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim M. S., Chung N. G., Kang M. R., Yoo N. J. & Lee S. H. Genetic and expressional alterations of CHD genes in gastric and colorectal cancers. Histopathology 58, 660–668, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03819.x (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim M. S., Lee S. H., Yoo N. J. & Lee S. H. Frameshift mutations of tumor suppressor gene EP300 in gastric and colorectal cancers with high microsatellite instability. Human pathology 44, 2064–2070, doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2012.11.027 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Luo G. Q., Li J. H., Cao L., Zhou Y. H. & Wen J. F. Activator protein-1 involvement in proliferation inhibition by gene silencing of Twist in gastric cancer cells. Pathology 43, 697–701, doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e32834bf632 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang T. et al. EGR1 is critical for gastrin-dependent upregulation of anion exchanger 2 in gastric cancer cells. The FEBS journal 280, 174–183, doi: 10.1111/febs.12058 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Xia Y. et al. Chrysin inhibits tumor promoter-induced MMP-9 expression by blocking AP-1 via suppression of ERK and JNK pathways in gastric cancer cells. PloS one 10, e0124007, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124007 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sun P. et al. Genetic Variation in the 3′-Untranslated Region of NBN Gene Is Associated with Gastric Cancer Risk in a Chinese Population. PloS one 10, e0139059, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139059 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Benjamini Y. & Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57, 289–300 (1995). [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Tables
srep41737-s1.doc (85KB, doc)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES