Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2018 Mar 13;13(3):e0191560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191560

Association between TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk: A meta-analysis of 9,157 cases and 11,073 controls

Zhengsheng Liu 1,2,#, Tao Wang 1,#, Zhun Wu 1, Kaiyan Zhang 1, Wei Li 1, Jianbin Yang 1,2, Chenxi Chen 1,2, Lei Chen 3, Jinchun Xing 1,*
Editor: Xuefeng Liu4
PMCID: PMC5849304  PMID: 29534075

Abstract

Background

It has been reported that the functional telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) rs2853669 polymorphism might contribute to different types of human cancer. However, the association of this mutation with cancer remains controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to characterize this relationship.

Materials and methods/Main results

A systematic search of studies on the association of TERT rs2853669 polymorphism with all types of cancer was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. The summary odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to pool the effect size in a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model where appropriate. A total of 13 articles and 15 case-control studies, including 9,157 cases and 11,073 controls, were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled results indicated that the rs2853669 polymorphism was significantly associated with increased cancer risk in a homozygote comparison model (CT vs. TT: OR = 1.085, 95% CI: 1.015–1.159, P = 0.016). In the stratified analyses, a significant increased cancer risk was observed in Asian, but not Caucasian patients. A subgroup analysis by cancer type also revealed a significant increase in the risk of lung cancer, but not breast cancer.

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism is associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer, particularly lung cancer, in Asian populations.

Introduction

Telomeres are stretches of conserved, tandemly repeated DNA sequences that form the physical ends of eukaryotic chromosomes [1]. Telomeres comprise long TTAGGG nucleotide repeats with a single-stranded overhang and protein complex [2], which plays an essential role in preserving genomic stability [3] and protecting linear chromosome ends [4]. Telomeres gradually decrease in length during cell division and eventually shorten below a critical threshold, thereby triggering senescence, apoptotic cell death, or genome instability [5, 6]. Telomerase, which adds a repeat DNA sequence to the end of telomeres, is a reverse transcriptase comprising an RNA molecule and a TERT protein [1, 5]. TERT, a catalytic subunit of the enzyme telomerase, is critical for telomerase activity and has great importance in cancer progression. The activation of telomerase, which has been detected in nearly all human cancers, is a vital step in the progression of a majority of cancer types [7, 8].

Recently, many genome-wide association (GWA) studies focusing on cancer risk have been performed. TERT-locus single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), located on chromosome 5p15.33, have reportedly been associated with the risk of several types of human cancers [9, 10]. A TERT promoter mutation (TERT-mut) creates a putative binding site for Ets/TCF transcription factors, increasing telomerase activity, whereas the TERT rs2853669 variant disrupts Ets/TCF binding [11]. The TERT rs2853669 T>C polymorphism (SNP), located upstream of the TERT promoter region, has been shown to affect telomerase activity and telomere length [12].

The association between TERT rs2853669 and cancer risk has since been studied in multiple ethnicities and populations with inclusive results. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis screening of all relevant published data to clarify the association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk.

Materials and methods

2.1 Search strategy

Two independent investigators conducted a systematic published literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies evaluating the association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk conducted prior to October 14, 2016. The following keywords were used: “telomerase reverse transcriptase or TERT” and “cancer or tumor or carcinoma” and “polymorphism or polymorphisms or SNP or variants”. A search of all citations from the original studies was manually conducted to located further relevant studies.

2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for studies in the current meta-analysis were as follows: (1) designed as a case-control study evaluating the association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk; (2) studied human tissues rather than animal tissues; (3) established definitive cancer diagnosis; and (4) contained available genotype frequency information to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) duplication of same publications; (2) reviews, letters, posters and editorials; and (3) studies lacking detailed genotype frequencies.

2.3 Data extraction

Two investigators independently extracted the usable data from the eligible studies, and a consensus was reached. In the case of a controversy, a consensus was reached through discussion. If the controversy remained, a third author would adjudicate the disagreements.

The following data were sought from each article: first author’s name, year of publication, country of origin, ethnicity (Caucasian, Asian and others), cancer type, source of control (hospital-based or population-based), number of cases and controls with CC, CT and CC genotypes, and Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. When Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in the control genotype was not calculated, an online program (http://ihg.gsf.de/cgi-bin/hw/hwa1.p) was used.

2.4 Methodological quality assessment

Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, of which the most significant factor was “age and gender”. The quality scores ranged from 0 to 9, and higher scores indicated better quality. The reviewers settled disagreements through discussion.

2.5 Statistical analysis

This meta-analysis was performed according to the checklists and guidelines by PRISMA [13]. HWE was obtained for each study using the Chi-square test in the control groups, and P<0.05 was considered a significant deviation from HWE. OR and 95% CIs were calculated to evaluate the strength of the association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and susceptibility to cancer. Pooled ORs were computed from studies by allelic comparisons (C vs. T), dominant model (CC + CT vs. TT), recessive model (CC vs. CT + TT), homozygote comparisons (CC vs. TT) and heterozygote comparisons (CT vs. TT), respectively. The statistical significance level was based on a Z-test with P< 0.05.

The heterogeneity in each study was evaluated based on Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2 index. The random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was applied when P<0.10 and/or I2 index>50%. Otherwise, if the heterogeneity test value was P>0.10 and/or I2 index<50%, the fixed-effects model (Mantel and Haenszel method) was used. To evaluate the effect of each study on the combined ORs, a sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the leave-one-out method of each study in total and subgroups. In addition, subgroup analyses were stratified by cancer type (lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, gastric cancer, glioblastoma, colorectal cancer, acute myeloid leukemia [AML], and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [SCCHN]), control type (population based and hospital based), and ethnicity (Caucasian, Asian, and others). Eventually, Begg's [14] funnel plot and Egger's [15] tests were used to statistically evaluate the publication bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12.0 software (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). A two-tailed P<0.05 was considered significant except for specified conditions, where a certain P value was declared.

Results

3.1 Characteristics of the studies

A total of 925 articles were acquired from the databases (PubMed = 415, Embase = 502, Cochrane Library = 8), and thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria [16–28]. The detailed evaluation process is shown in Fig 1. Among the thirteen articles, two studies were conducted by Shadrina et al. [23] and Varadi et al. [25]. In total, fifteen case-control studies were enrolled, including 9,157 cases and 11,073 controls, to explore the relationship between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk. The characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1. Different genotyping methods were utilized, including Taqman, LightCycler (a method of real-time polymerase chain reaction), and sequencing. Blood samples were used for genotyping in all studies. Among all fifteen studies, 5 studies focused on breast cancer [21–25], three studies focused on lung cancer [26–28], and one study each focused on gastric cancer [16], prostate cancer [23], AML [20], glioblastoma [19], colorectal cancer [17] and SCCHN [18]. The cancer types were also definitively confirmed through histological or pathological analyses among all studies. Among the 15 included studies, 11 studies included Caucasian descents, three studies included Asian descents and one study included 94% Caucasian, 4% African-American and 2% other descents. The control sources were population based in 7 studies and hospital based in 8 studies.

Fig 1. Flow chart of study selection.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

NO. Study ID Year Country Ethnicity Cancer Type Control Type Cases Controls Case Controls HWE# Quality#
CC CT TT CC CT TT
1 Xing et al. 2016 China Asian Lung Cancer HB* 418 410 41 162 215 30 145 235 0.249 7
2 Oztas et al. 2016 Turkey Caucasian Breast Cancer HB 107 110 24 47 36 25 52 31 0.723 7
3 Bayram et al. 2016 Turkey Caucasian Gastric Cancer HB 104 209 13 47 44 35 99 75 0.810 8
4 Yoo et al. 2015 Korea Asian Lung Cancer HB 1100 1096 137 477 478 105 490 485 0.242 8
5 Shadrina et al.1 2014 Russian Caucasian Breast Cancer HB 659 522 63 225 371 42 195 285 0.291 6
6 Shadrina et al.2 2014 Russian Caucasian Prostate Cancer HB 372 363 36 169 167 30 127 206 0.104 6
7 Mosrati et al. 2015 Sweden Caucasian AML# PB* 226 779 38 99 89 65 341 373 0.293 5
8 Mosrati et al. 2015 Sweden Caucasian Glioblastoma PB 128 779 11 48 69 65 341 373 0.293 5
9 Jannuzzi et al. 2015 Turkey Caucasian Colorectal Cancer HB 104 135 15 50 31 17 58 40 0.586 8
10 Zhong et al. 2013 China Asian Lung Cancer PB 498 502 108 242 148 72 224 206 0.381 8
11 Liu et al. 2011 USA Caucasian SCCHN# HB 888 885 79 381 428 85 375 425 0.863 7
12 Jing Shen al. ** 2010 USA Other*** Breast Cancer PB 1034 1082 86 445 503 128 432 522 0.009 8
13 Varadi et al.1 2008 Poland Caucasian Breast Cancer PB 768 400 58 299 411 38 154 244 0.059 7
14 Varadi et al.2** 2008 Sweden Caucasian Breast Cancer PB 766 1519 47 310 409 143 558 818 0.001 7
15 Savage et al. 2007 Poland Caucasian Breast Cancer PB 1985 2282 1095 766 124 1224 900 158 0.669 8
Open in a new tab

#: Quality was evaluated according to NOS, and the most important factor was “age and gender”.

AML: acute myeloid leukemia

SCCHN: squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

HWE: Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, P< 0.05 was considered as a significant departure from HWE;

*PB: population-based; HB: hospital-based.

**P for HWE< 0.05 in controls who are all women.

***Other: 94% Caucasian, 4% African American and 2% other descent

3.2 Main meta-analysis results

According to all eligible studies, the results indicated a statistically significant association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility in the homozygote comparison (CT vs. TT: OR = 1.085, 95% CI = 1.015–1.159; P = 0.016, Fig 2.) (fixed-effects model). Therefore, an association of homozygote CT with increased risk of cancer was confirmed. However, no significance was observed in the other four genetic models, including in the allele model (C vs. T: OR = 1.071, 95% CI = 0.984–1.165, P = 0.113), the homozygote comparison model (CC vs. TT: OR = 1.114, 95% CI: 0.906–1.369; P = 0.307), recessive model (CC vs. CT+TT: OR = 1.070, 95% CI = 0.903–1.268; P = 0.436) and dominant model (CT+CC vs. TT: OR = 1.098, 95% CI = 0.992–1.214; P = 0.070), whereas a trend of increased risk was observed. The results of each genetic model are shown in Table 2.

Fig 2. Forest plot of homozygote comparison (CT versus TT) for overall comparison, using a fixed-effects model.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Table 2. Summary of pooled ORs in the stratified analysis association between TERT rs2853669 and cancer risk.

Variables Case/control C versus T CT versus TT CC versus TT CT+CC versus TT CC versus CT+TT
OR*(95% CI*) I 2 (%) OR (95% CI) I 2 (%) OR (95% CI) I 2 (%) OR (95% CI) I 2 (%) OR (95% CI) I 2 (%)
Total 9157/11073 1.071(0.984–1.165) 68.1 1.085(1.015–1.159) 39.9 1.114(0.906–1.369) 71.9 1.098(0.992–1.214) 55.6 1.070(0.903–1.268) 68.4
Cancer type
Breast cancer 5319/5915 0.989(0.932–1.050) 0 1.056(0.961–1.161) 0 0.880(0.703–1.102) 53.4 1.014(0.927–1.109) 0 0.872(0.691–1.100) 68.4
Lung cancer 2016/2008 1.248(1.035–1.505) 71.9 1.198(0.927–1.548) 69.2 1.558(1.270–1.912) 46.8 1.280(0.975–1.681) 75.7 1.442(1.190–1.747) 0
Others 1822/3150 1.083(0.891–1.317) 73.2 1.080(0.862–1.354) 59.4 1.180(0.789–1.764) 68.1 1.096(0.861–1.396) 68.2 1.146(0.811–1.617) 61.2
Source of control
Population based 5405/7343 1.080(0.940–1.242) 80.9 1.124(1.026–1.230) 30.0 1.116(0.770–1.618) 85.5 1.125(0.966–1.310) 65.2 1.046(0.777–1.407) 84.0
Hospital based 3752/3730 1.066(0.994–1.143) 43.7 1.042(0.945–1.148) 48.1 1.149(0.981–1.346) 10.3 1.065(0.971–1.167) 50.0 1.134(0.976–1.318) 0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 6107/7983 1.040(0.948–1.140) 56.7 1.068(0.981–1.162) 38.2 1.048(0.838–1.312) 60.7 1.060(0.978–1.148) 46.8 1.024(0.848–1.237) 57.9
Asian 2016/2008 1.248(1.035–1.505) 71.9 1.198(0.927–1.548) 69.2 1.558(1.270–1.912) 46.8 1.280(0.975–1.681) 75.7 1.442(1.190–1.747) 0
Open in a new tab

*PB = Population-based, HB = Hospital-based. OR = Odds ratio, CI = Confidence interval. Results with a positive significant difference are indicated in bold.

Sub-group analyses were performed to investigate the effect of cancer types, source of control and ethnicity. For cancer types, increased cancer risk was demonstrated in lung cancer in the allelic comparison (C vs. T:OR = 1.248, 95% CI = 1.035–1.505; P = 0.020), homozygote comparison (CC vs. TT: OR = 1.558, 95% CI = 1.270–1.912; P = 0.000) and recessive model (CC vs. CT+TT: OR = 1.442, 95% CI = 1.190–1.747; P = 0.000). However, no significant difference was observed in breast cancer in any genetic model (detailed in Table 2).

When stratifying according to ethnicity, greatly affected cancer susceptibility associations between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility were observed in Asians in the allelic comparison (C vs. T: OR = 1.248, 95% CI = 1.035–1.505; P = 0.020), homozygote comparison (CC vs. TT: OR = 1.590, 95% CI = 1.183–2.135; P = 0.000) and recessive model (CC vs. CT + TT: OR = 1.442, 95% CI = 1.190–1.746; P = 0.000), but not for Caucasians in any of the genetic models. For source of control, however, only one homozygote comparison (CT vs. TT: OR = 1.124, 95% CI = 1.026–1.230; P = 0.012) in the population-based control source showed a significant association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk.

3.3 Heterogeneity

As shown in Table 2, heterogeneity was observed between studies in the four genetic comparisons. Significant heterogeneity existed in the allele model (C vs. T:OR = 1.071, 95% CI = 0.984–1.165, P = 0.113), homozygote comparison model (CC vs. TT: OR = 1.114, 95% CI: 0.906–1.369; P = 0.307), recessive model (CC vs. CT+TT: OR = 1.070, 95% CI = 0.903–1.268; Pheterogeneity = 0.007) and dominant model (CT+CC versus TT: OR = 1.098, 95% CI = 0.992–1.214; Pheterogeneity = 0.005). However, when stratified based on subgroup analysis, heterogeneity disappeared in breast cancer, which was stratified into cancer type and hospital-based control source subgroups.

Meta-regression was also used to examine the source of heterogeneity based on cancer types, source of control and ethnicity in the variant heterozygote comparison (CC vs. TT). The results indicated that ethnicity (Pheterogeneity = 0.02) contributed to the source of heterogeneity, but not cancer types (Pheterogeneity = 0.15) or source of control (Pheterogeneity = 0.23). Consequently, ethnicity explained 44.67% of the between studies variance.

3.4 Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the single studies on the pooled ORs based on the sequential removal of individual included studies each time. Subsequently, the results further demonstrated that no individual study significantly affected the pooled OR, thus, the overall results indicated the stability and reliability (not shown in figure).

3.5 Publication bias

Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test were used to estimate the publication bias of eligible studies. No publication bias for the association between TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility was manifested based on Begg’s funnel plot (PBegg = 0.921, CC versus TT, Fig 3) or Egger’s regression test (PEgger = 0.652, CC versus TT). Similarly, these results still did not show publication bias under the other genetic models (C vs. T PBegg = 0.692, CT+CC vs. TT PBegg = 0.843, CT vs. TT PBegg = 0.767 and CC vs. CT + TT; PBegg = 0.843). Consequently, there was no the evidence of publication bias in our meta-analysis.

Fig 3. Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias analysis association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer risk (CT vs. TT).

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Discussion

Telomeres are structural elements that protect the ends of chromosomes from degradation, end-to-end fusion, recognition as damaged DNA and maintenance of chromosomal stability [29, 30]. TERT, encoded by the TERT gene, is an essential component of telomerase that plays a crucial role in enzymatic activity in human telomerase [31, 32]. The reactivation of telomerase drives human cell immortality, which is critical in human cancer, reflecting the fact that most cancers involve high levels of telomerase activity [33–35].

The promoter region of TERT, located at positions c.-124:C>T and c.-146:C>T, is considered a regulatory element for telomerase activity, which regulates gene transcription through several binding sites for factors [35, 36]. Moreover, the TERT promoter creates a putative binding site for Ets/TCF transcription factors to enhance telomerase expression and activity. The rs2853669 variant, a novel single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) -245 kb upstream (Ets2 binding site) of the TERT gene, prevents Ets/TCF binding [37, 38] [39]. A recent study suggested that a functional promoter polymorphism, TERT rs2853669, may influence both telomere length and telomerase activity [27, 40]. Thus, TERT rs2853669 is strongly associated with the promoter region of telomerase reverse transcriptase. A growing number of epidemiological studies have been conducted to determine the associations between this polymorphism and cancer risk, particularly for breast cancer and lung cancer; however, the results were inconclusive.

In the present meta-analysis, 9,157 cases and 11,073 controls extracted from thirteen eligible studies were analyzed and evaluated. Significant statistics were observed for the association between the TERT rs2853669 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility in the variant CT homozygote compared with the TT wild-type homozygote model. Furthermore, three genetic models, the allelic model (C vs. T), homozygote model (CC vs. TT) and recessive model (CC vs. CT + TT), also demonstrated a strong association of increasing lung cancer susceptibility in Asian populations. Notably, no significant increasing risk of breast cancer was observed in our meta-analysis.

As shown in our meta-analysis, significant statistical heterogeneity was observed. Meta-regression was also used to detect the origin of this heterogeneity, showing that the ethnicity was the source of heterogeneity. However, when the stratification was based on subgroup analysis, heterogeneity disappeared in breast cancer, which stratified in the cancer type subgroup and hospital-based source control subgroup. Therefore, there is a strong foundation to consider between the etiology of different tumors and source of control groups, which also contributed to the source of heterogeneity. The results of the sensitivity analysis were reliable and robust. Additionally, neither the shape of the funnel plots nor the publication bias results showed statistical significance in this meta-analysis.

Surprisingly, during the subgroup analysis stratified by cancer type, no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was observed in any genetic model. However, our result is contrary to that of Li et al. [41], who concluded that TERT rs2853669 polymorphisms were associated with the increased risk of developing breast cancer (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63–0.90; P = 0.002). Subsequently, two investigators carefully assessed the results of the meta-analysis, and a marked difference between the Li et al study and our meta-analysis was observed when studies NO.2 and NO.5 were included. When focused on lung cancer, a significant increase cancer risk was observed in association with this polymorphism. Increasing cancer susceptibility was observed in Asians, but not for Caucasians, when stratified by ethnicity. Consistently, three lung cancer studies [26–28] were conducted in Asians, thus an increased risk was observed in the allelic comparison (C vs. T), homozygote comparison (CC vs. TT) and recessive model (CC vs. CT+TT). This finding suggests that different populations might have different tumorigenesis mechanisms. Similarly, in the subgroup analysis stratified by source of control, significant associations were observed in the population-based studies, but not in the hospital-based studies.

In addition, the potential limitations of our meta-analysis should also be addressed. First, insufficient published studies were included in this meta-analysis, and more individual studies were required to determine a precise conclusion. Second, the results of gene-to-environment interactions were not obtained because of a lack of relevant information. Third, studies NO.12 and NO.14 did not meet the expectations of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, as both studies were focused on breast cancer. Fourth, in our meta-analysis, one cancer type (lung cancer or breast cancer) was only focused on one ethnicity (Asian or Caucasian). Therefore, additional high-level studies on different ethnicities are still needed.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that the TERT genetic polymorphism rs2853669 is associated with an increased risk of cancer, particularly for lung cancer among Asians, while there is no significant association with increased risk of breast cancer. However, more functional studies with additional subgroups should be conducted to validate our findings.

Supporting information

S1 File. Meta-analysis on genetic association studies checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (20.8KB, docx)
S2 File. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (26.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Qin Jiaxuan and Dr. Long-cheng Li for providing guidance in this work. This work was supported by Fujian Provincial Department of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2016D009) and the Key Laboratory of Xiamen Urological Center.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Fujian Provincial Department of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2016D009) and the Key Laboratory of Xiamen Urological Center. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Giardini MA, Segatto M, da Silva MS, Nunes VS, Cano MI. Telomere and telomerase biology. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2014;125:1–40. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-397898-1.00001-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mirabello L, Yu K, Kraft P, De Vivo I, Hunter DJ, Prescott J, et al. The association of telomere length and genetic variation in telomere biology genes. Human mutation. 2010;31(9):1050–8. doi: 10.1002/humu.21314 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Karami S, Han Y, Pande M, Cheng I, Rudd J, Pierce BL, et al. Telomere structure and maintenance gene variants and risk of five cancer types. International journal of cancer. 2016;139(12):2655–70. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30288 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Opresko PL, Shay JW. Telomere-associated aging disorders. Ageing Res Rev. 2016. Epub 2016/05/25. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.05.009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bianchi A, Shore D. How telomerase reaches its end: mechanism of telomerase regulation by the telomeric complex. Molecular cell. 2008;31(2):153–65. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.06.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Counter CM, Avilion AA, LeFeuvre CE, Stewart NG, Greider CW, Harley CB, et al. Telomere shortening associated with chromosome instability is arrested in immortal cells which express telomerase activity. The EMBO journal. 1992;11(5):1921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Akincilar SC, Unal B, Tergaonkar V. Reactivation of telomerase in cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016;73(8):1659–70. doi: 10.1007/s00018-016-2146-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kumar M, Lechel A, Gunes C. Telomerase: The Devil Inside. Genes. 2016;7(8). doi: 10.3390/genes7080043 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kachuri L, Latifovic L, Liu G, Hung RJ. Systematic review of genetic variation in chromosome 5p15.33 and telomere length as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for lung cancer. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2016. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Petersen GM, Risch HA, Klein AP, Killedar A, Stutz MD, Sobinoff AP, et al. A Common Cancer Risk-Associated Allele in the hTERT Locus Encodes a Dominant Negative Inhibitor of Telomerase. Nature genetics. 2015;11(6):e1005286 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005286 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nencha U, Rahimian A, Giry M, Sechi A, Mokhtari K, Polivka M, et al. TERT promoter mutations and rs2853669 polymorphism: prognostic impact and interactions with common alterations in glioblastomas. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2016;126(3):441–6. doi: 10.1007/s11060-015-1999-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Park CK, Lee SH, Kim JY, Kim JE, Kim TM, Lee ST, et al. Expression level of hTERT is regulated by somatic mutation and common single nucleotide polymorphism at promoter region in glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2014;5(10):3399–407. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.1975 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery (London, England). 2010;8(5):336–41 doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;315(7109):629–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bayram S, Ulger Y, Sumbul AT, Kaya BY, Genc A, Rencuzogullari E, et al. Polymorphisms in human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene and susceptibility to gastric cancer in a Turkish population: Hospital-based case-control study. Gene. 2016;585(1):84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2016.03.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jannuzzi AT, Karaman E, Oztas E, Yanar HT, Ozhan G. Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase (TERT) Gene Variations and Susceptibility of Colorectal Cancer. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers. 2015;19(12):692–7. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2015.0150 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu Z, Ma H, Wei S, Li G, Sturgis EM, Wei Q. Telomere length and TERT functional polymorphisms are not associated with risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2011;20(12):2642–5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0890 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mosrati MA, Malmstrom A, Lysiak M, Krysztofiak A, Hallbeck M, Milos P, et al. TERT promoter mutations and polymorphisms as prognostic factors in primary glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6(18):16663–73. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4389 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mosrati MA, Willander K, Falk IJ, Hermanson M, Hoglund M, Stockelberg D, et al. Association between TERT promoter polymorphisms and acute myeloid leukemia risk and prognosis. Oncotarget. 2015;6(28):25109–20. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4668 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Oztas E, Kara H, Kara ZP, Aydogan MU, Uras C, Ozhan G. Association Between Human Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase Gene Variations and Risk of Developing Breast Cancer. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers. 2016;20(8):459–64. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2015.0339 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Savage SA, Chanock SJ, Lissowska J, Brinton LA, Richesson D, Peplonska B, et al. Genetic variation in five genes important in telomere biology and risk for breast cancer. British journal of cancer. 2007;97(6):832–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603934 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shadrina AS, Boyarskikh UA, Oskina NA, Sinkina TV, Lazarev AF, Petrova VD, et al. TERT polymorphisms rs2853669 and rs7726159 influence on prostate cancer risk in Russian population. Tumour biology: the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine. 2015;36(2):841–7. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2688-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shen J, Gammon MD, Wu HC, Terry MB, Wang Q, Bradshaw PT, et al. Multiple genetic variants in telomere pathway genes and breast cancer risk. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2010;19(1):219–28. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0771 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Varadi V, Brendle A, Grzybowska E, Johansson R, Enquist K, Butkiewicz D, et al. A functional promoter polymorphism in the TERT gene does not affect inherited susceptibility to breast cancer. Cancer genetics and cytogenetics. 2009;190(2):71–4 doi: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2008.12.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Xing YL, Liu F, Li JF, Lin JC, Zhu GD, Li M, et al. Case–Control Study on Impact of the Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase Gene Polymorphism and Additional Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP)–SNP Interaction on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers Risk in Chinese Han Population. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2016, 30(6): 1071–1077. doi: 10.1002/jcla.21982 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yoo SS, Do SK, Choi JE, Lee SY, Lee J, Cha SI, et al. TERT Polymorphism rs2853669 Influences on Lung Cancer Risk in the Korean Population. Journal of Korean medical science. 2015;30(10):1423–8. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.10.1423 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhong R, Liu L, Zou L, Zhu Y, Chen W, Zhu B, et al. Genetic variations in TERT-CLPTM1L locus are associated with risk of lung cancer in chinese population. Mol Carcinogen. 2013;52(SUPPL1):118–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yamaguchi H, Calado RT, Ly H, Kajigaya S, Baerlocher GM, Chanock SJ, et al. Mutations in TERT, the gene for telomerase reverse transcriptase, in aplastic anemia. New Engl J Med. 2005;352(14):1413–24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa042980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Blasco MA. Telomeres and human disease: ageing, cancer and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(8):611–22. doi: 10.1038/nrg1656 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wu D, Yu H, Sun J, Qi J, Liu Q, Li R, et al. Association of genetic polymorphisms in the telomerase reverse transcriptase gene with prostate cancer aggressiveness. Molecular medicine reports. 2015;12(1):489–97. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2015.3410 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Horikawa I, Barrett JC. Transcriptional regulation of the telomerase hTERT gene as a target for cellular and viral oncogenic mechanisms. Carcinogenesis. 2003;24(7):1167–76. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgg085 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Harley CB. Telomerase and cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(3):167–79. doi: 10.1038/nrc2275 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vinagre J, Pinto V, Celestino R, Reis M, Populo H, Boaventura P, et al. Telomerase promoter mutations in cancer: an emerging molecular biomarker? Virchows Archiv: an international journal of pathology. 2014;465(2):119–33. doi: 10.1007/s00428-014-1608-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Borah S, Xi L, Zaug AJ, Powell NM, Dancik GM, Cohen SB, et al. TERT promoter mutations and telomerase reactivation in urothelial cancer. Science. 2015;347(6225):1006–10. doi: 10.1126/science.1260200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cukusic A, Skrobot Vidacek N, Sopta M, Rubelj I. Telomerase regulation at the crossroads of cell fate. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;122(3–4):263–72. doi: 10.1159/000167812 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hsu CP, Hsu NY, Lee LW, Ko JL. Ets2 binding site single nucleotide polymorphism at the hTERT gene promoter—effect on telomerase expression and telomere length maintenance in non-small cell lung cancer. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2006;42(10):1466–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nencha U, Rahimian A, Giry M, Sechi A, Mokhtari K, Polivka M, et al. TERT promoter mutations and rs2853669 polymorphism: prognostic impact and interactions with common alterations in glioblastomas. J Neurooncol. 2016;126(3):441–6. doi: 10.1007/s11060-015-1999-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ko E, Seo HW, Jung ES, Kim BH, Jung G. The TERT promoter SNP rs2853669 decreases E2F1 transcription factor binding and increases mortality and recurrence risks in liver cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(1):684–99. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6331 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hosen I, Rachakonda PS, Heidenreich B, Sitaram RT, Ljungberg B, Roos G, et al. TERT promoter mutations in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. International journal of cancer. 2015;136(10):2448–52. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29279 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li ZY, Dong YL, Feng Y, Zhang Z, Cao XZ. Polymorphisms in the telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter are associated with risk of breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Journal of cancer research and therapeutics. 2016;12(2):1040–4. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.164701 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 File. Meta-analysis on genetic association studies checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (20.8KB, docx)
S2 File. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (26.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

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

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES