Skip to main content
Oncotarget logoLink to Oncotarget
. 2017 Feb 15;8(15):25107–25114. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15342

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

Jiefeng Yin 1, Zhe Zhang 1, Huajun Zheng 2, Lei Xu 2
PMCID: PMC5421913  PMID: 28212577

Abstract

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

RESULTS

Characteristics of the included studies

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

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

Figure 1

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

Author and year Country SOC Genotype methods Ethnicity Case Control HWE NOS
GG GA AA GG GA AA
Mahmoundi_2014 Iran HB PCR Caucasian 109 118 34 139 153 47 Y 6
Yukselogu_2014 Turkey HB PCR-RFLP Caucasian 79 58 24 88 85 24 Y 7
Pechivanis_2007 Czech HB PCR Caucasian 211 277 81 268 309 106 Y 7
Samowitz_2006 USA HB PCR American 718 657 197 829 906 229 Y 8
Slattery_2004a USA PB PCR American 467 409 128 481 552 134 Y 6
Slattery_2004b USA PB PCR American 325 343 562 421 423 139 Y 6

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

Meta-analysis of IRS-2 gene rs1805097 polymorphism

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

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

Comparison OR(95%CI) P-value P for heterogeneity I2 (%) Model
A vs. G 0.96(0.90,1.01) 0.132 0.939 0 Fixed
AA+GA vs. GG 0.91(0.84,0.99) 0.022 0.260 23.2 Fixed
AA vs. GG+GA 1.02(0.91,1.15) 0.721 0.695 0 Fixed
AA vs. GG 0.97(0.86,1.10) 0.669 0.994 0 Fixed
GA vs. GG 0.91(0.79,1.05) 0.189 0.055 53.7 Random

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

Figure 2

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

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

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

Comparison Category Category Studies OR (95% CI) P-value P for heterogeneity
A vs. G Ethnicity Caucasians 3 1.00(0.88,1.13) 0.943 0.913
Americans 3 0.94(0.88,1.01) 0.093 0.939
Cancer type mixed 3 1.00(0.88,1.13) 0.943 0.913
Colon cancer 2 0.93(0.86,1.01) 0.078 0.696
Rectal cancer 1 0.98(0.85,1.13) 0.772 <0.001
SOC HB 4 0.96(0.89-1.04) 0.350 0.892
PB 2 0.94(0.86-1.04) 0.218 0.472
AA+GA vs. GG Ethnicity Caucasians 3 1.01(0.85,1.20) 0.884 0.519
Americans 3 0.88(0.80,0.97) 0.007 0.198
Cancer type mixed 3 1.01(0.85,1.20) 0.884 0.519
Colon cancer 2 0.84(0.76,0.94) 0.002 0.499
Rectal cancer 1 1.02(0.84,1.23) 0.867 <0.001
SOC HB 4 0.92(0.83,1.02) 0.125 0.358
PB 2 0.89(0.79,1.01) 0.082 0.076
AA vs.GA+ GG Ethnicity Caucasians 3 0.96(0.75,1.22) 0.732 0.625
Americans 3 1.04(0.91,1.20) 0.541 0.422
Cancer type mixed 3 0.96(0.75,1.22) 0.732 0.625
Colon cancer 2 1.10(0.94,1.29) 0.238 0.825
Rectal cancer 1 0.89(0.67,1.18) 0.414 <0.001
SOC HB 4 1.03(0.88,1.20) 0.704 0.674
PB 2 1.01(0.84,1.22) 0.920 0.225
AA vs.GG Ethnicity Caucasians 3 0.98(0.76,1.27) 0.875 0.900
Americans 3 0.97(0.84,1.12) 0.687 0.898
Cancer type mixed 3 0.98(0.76,1.27) 0.875 0.900
Colon cancer 2 0.99(0.84,1.17) 0.904 0.957
Rectal cancer 1 0.91(0.68,1.23) 0.549 <0.001
SOC HB 4 0.99(0.84,1.17) 0.882 0.975
PB 2 0.95(0.78,1.16) 0.662 0.718
GA vs.GG Ethnicity Caucasians 3 1.01(0.82,1.24) 0.929 0.292
Americans 3 0.91(0.79,1.05) 0.099 0.062
Cancer type mixed 3 1.01(0.82,1.24) 0.929 0.292
Colon cancer 2 0.81(0.72,0.90) <0.001 0.428
Rectal cancer 1 1.05(0.86,1.29) 0.635 <0.001
SOC HB 4 0.93(0.78,1.11) 0.404 0.145
PB 2 0.89(0.65,1.22) 0.475 0.021

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

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

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

Figure 5

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

Figure 6

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search and inclusion criteria

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

Data extraction and quality assessment

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

Statistical analyses

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

Abbreviations

CRC

colorectal cancer

IRS-2

insulin receptor substrate-2

IRS

insulin receptor substrates

IGF

insulin-like growth factor

IGFBP

insulin-like growth factor binding protein

IR

insulin resistance

SOC

source of control

CI

confidence interval

OR

odds ratio

NOS

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

HWE

Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium

SNP

single nucleotide polymorphism

Footnotes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International journal of cancer. 2010;127:2893–2917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.de la Chapelle A. Genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer. Nature reviews Cancer. 2004;4:769–780. doi: 10.1038/nrc1453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL. Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002;94:972–980. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.13.972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Giovannucci E. Insulin, insulin-like growth factors and colon cancer: a review of the evidence. The Journal of nutrition. 2001;131:3109S–3120S. doi: 10.1093/jn/131.11.3109S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Keku TO, Lund PK, Galanko J, Simmons JG, Woosley JT, Sandler RS. Insulin resistance, apoptosis, and colorectal adenoma risk. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention. 2005;14:2076–2081. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Withers DJ. Insulin receptor substrate proteins and neuroendocrine function. Biochemical Society transactions. 2001;29:525–529. doi: 10.1042/bst0290525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Reuveni H, Flashner-Abramson E, Steiner L, Makedonski K, Song R, Shir A, Herlyn M, Bar-Eli M, Levitzki A. Therapeutic destruction of insulin receptor substrates for cancer treatment. Cancer research. 2013;73:4383–4394. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Slattery ML, Samowitz W, Curtin K, Ma KN, Hoffman M, Caan B, Neuhausen S. Associations among IRS1, IRS2, IGF1, and IGFBP3 genetic polymorphisms and colorectal cancer. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention. 2004;13:1206–1214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mahmoudi T, Majidzadeh AK, Karimi K, Karimi N, Farahani H, Dabiri R, Nobakht H, Dolatmoradi H, Arkani M, Zali MR. An exon variant in insulin receptor gene is associated with susceptibility to colorectal cancer in women. Tumour biology. 2015;36:3709–3715. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-3010-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pechlivanis S, Pardini B, Bermejo JL, Wagner K, Naccarati A, Vodickova L, Novotny J, Hemminki K, Vodicka P, Forsti A. Insulin pathway related genes and risk of colorectal cancer: INSR promoter polymorphism shows a protective effect. Endocrine-related cancer. 2007;14:733–740. doi: 10.1677/ERC-07-0107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yukseloglu EH, Celik SK, Kucuk MU, Yalin E, Ozkal SS, Ates C, Berkoz M, Yalin S, Ates NA. IRS-2 G1057D polymorphism in Turkish patients with colorectal cancer. Przeglad gastroenterologiczny. 2014;9:88–92. doi: 10.5114/pg.2014.42503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Samowitz WS, Wolff RK, Ma KN, Andersen K, Caan B, Slattery ML. Polymorphisms in insulin-related genes predispose to specific KRAS2 and TP53 mutations in colon cancer. Mutation research. 2006;595:117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Diabetes mellitus and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005;97:1679–1687. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Limburg PJ, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Vierkant RA, Roberts K, Sellers TA, Taylor PR, Virtamo J, Cerhan JR, Albanes D. Insulin, glucose, insulin resistance, and incident colorectal cancer in male smokers. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. 2006;4:1514–1521. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Furstenberger G, Senn HJ. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. The Lancet Oncology. 2002;3:298–302. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00731-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jackson JG, Zhang X, Yoneda T, Yee D. Regulation of breast cancer cell motility by insulin receptor substrate-2 (IRS-2) in metastatic variants of human breast cancer cell lines. Oncogene. 2001;20:7318–7325. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schubert M, Brazil DP, Burks DJ, Kushner JA, Ye J, Flint CL, Farhang-Fallah J, Dikkes P, Warot XM, Rio C, Corfas G, White MF. Insulin receptor substrate-2 deficiency impairs brain growth and promotes tau phosphorylation. The Journal of neuroscience. 2003;23:7084–7092. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-18-07084.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dearth RK, Cui X, Kim HJ, Hadsell DL, Lee AV. Oncogenic transformation by the signaling adaptor proteins insulin receptor substrate (IRS)-1 and IRS-2. Cell cycle. 2007;6:705–713. doi: 10.4161/cc.6.6.4035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Esposito DL, Verginelli F, Toracchio S, Mammarella S, De Lellis L, Vanni C, Russo A, Mariani-Costantini R, Cama A. Novel insulin receptor substrate 1 and 2 variants in breast and colorectal cancer. Oncology reports. 2013;30:1553–1560. doi: 10.3892/or.2013.2626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hu Y, Zhou M, Zhang K, Kong X, Hu X, Li K, Liu L. Lack of association between insulin receptor substrate2 rs1805097 polymorphism and the risk of colorectal and breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PloS one. 2014;9:e86911. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25:603–605. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Jama. 2006;295:676–680. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.6.676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological methods. 2001;6:203–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Oncotarget are provided here courtesy of Impact Journals, LLC

RESOURCES