Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Han-Lu Gao1, Xuan Wang1, Hong-Ru Sun1, Jun-De Zhou2, Shang-Qun Lin1, Yu-Hang Xing1, Lin Zhu1, Hai-Bo Zhou1, Ya-Shuang Zhao1, Qiang Chi2, Yu-Peng Liu1
Correspondence to: Ya-Shuang Zhaoa, Qiang Chib, and Yu-Peng Liuc. aDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-451-87502823, Fax: +86-451-87502885, E-mail: zhao_yashuang@263.net. bDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 246 Xuefu Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-0451-86605045, Fax: +86-0451-86605045, E-mail: qiangchi61@126.com. cDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-451-87502823, Fax: +86-451-87502885, E-mail: liuyupenf@126.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gut Liver 2018;12(2):173-182. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17163
Published online January 3, 2018, Published date March 15, 2018
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Methylation status plays a causal role in carcinogenesis in targeted tissues. However, the relationship between the DNA methylation status of multiple genes in blood leukocytes and colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility as well as interactions between dietary factors and CRC risks are unclear. We performed a case-control study with 466 CRC patients and 507 cancer-free controls to investigate the association among the methylation status of individual genes, multiple CpG site methylation (MCSM), multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation and CRC susceptibility. Peripheral blood DNA methylation levels were detected by performing methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting. Total heterogeneous methylation of The gene methylation status of blood leukocytes may be associated with CRC risk. MCSM-H of blood leukocytes was associated with CRC, especially in younger people. Some dietary factors may affect hypermethylation status and influence susceptibility to CRC.Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords: Heterogeneous methylation, Colorectal neoplasms, Peripheral blood, Interaction effect
It was estimated that colorectal cancer (CRC) ranked as the third most diagnosed cancer in males and the second most diagnosed cancer in females with an estimated 693,900 deaths occurring in 2012.1 CRC happens as a result of the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that induce transformation of the normal colonic epithelium into colon adenocarcinoma.2 CpG island hypermethylation in the promoter3 and first exon4 regions of tumour suppressor genes is a common epigenetic event in human cancers and results in transcriptional repression.5 It has been reported that gene-specific hypermethylation changes are associated with transcriptional modulation, which may affect tumour progression. There are several transcriptional modulation genes, such as Wilms’ tumour gene (
Epidemiological studies have disclosed that some diet factors were associated with disease prevention and CRC risk. For example, high intake of dietary fibre, fish can decrease CRC incidence, while high consumption of red meat, alcohol intake may increase CRC risk.20 Additionally,
Heterogeneous DNA methylation is defined as the existence of multiple epialleles in a sample, each with a different profile of methylated and unmethylated CpG sites for a certain region.16 Recently, researchers have mainly focused on tumour tissues to explore the relationship between heterogeneous DNA methylation status and tumourigenesis16,23–26 and have suggested that heterogeneous DNA methylation may be an onset of epigenetic processes in tumour tissue.23 Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that environmental exposure27,28 and age29 may impact heterogeneous DNA methylation. Moreover, tumourigenesis is not an isolated phenomenon in its target tissue,30 and research has increasingly demonstrated that peripheral blood leukocyte DNA methylation might be measured as a substitution.31,32 Additionally, multiple epigenetic alterations in peripheral blood leukocytes were associated with CRC risk.33 However, no study has evaluated the association between heterogeneous DNA methylation, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation (MCSHM) and CRC in peripheral blood leukocytes.
Therefore, we proposed that DNA methylation status, multiple CpG site methylation (MCSM), MCSHM of blood leukocytes may be associated with risk of CRC. Based on this hypothesis, we carried out a case-control study to explore the association between DNA methylation status of individual genes, MCSM, MCSHM and the risk of CRC and assessed the effects of interactions between gene methylation and environmental factors on CRC susceptibility.
Between June 2004 and June 2012, 466 sporadic CRC pathologically confirmed patients in the Cancer Hospital and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University were selected as cases, and 507 non-digestive system disease patients were chosen as controls from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University. Samples (5 mL) of peripheral blood were obtained from the 973 participants. Cases with a family history of CRC, metastatic colorectal carcinoma, preoperative radiation or chemotherapy were excluded. Severe organic disease and tumor patients were also excluded from the controls. All the study subjects provided informed consent and approved by the Human Research and Ethics Committee of Harbin Medical University. All experiments including interrelated details were consistent with the Helsinki Declaration in 2000.
All participants were interviewed face-to-face by well-trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire. Information about demographic characteristics, dietary status during the past 12 months (such as the intake of different kinds of meat, fried food and fruit), living habits (including cigarette smoking and duration of leisure physical activity) were collected.
Genomic DNA was extracted using a Qiagen DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and was stored at −80°C. The absorption of ultraviolet light at wavelengths of 260 and 280 nm was measured by a Nanodrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for determining the purity and concentration of DNA.
Genomic DNA was bisulfite-modified using the EpiTect Fast DNA Bisulfite kit (Qiagen). All operation steps were performed according to the manufacturer’s protocols. The eluted DNA (32 mL volume) in triplicate was used for methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) analysis. Backup bisulfite DNA was stored at −80°C. Bisulfite DNA at a concentration of 20 ng/mL was reserved at −20°C for the subsequent experiment, as it is crucial to avoid repeated freezing and thawing.
MS-HRM was performed on LightCycler 480 (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) equipment, and the data were analyzed using gene scanning and melting temperature (Tm) calling modules. Each reaction mixture contained 0.5 mL of bisulfite-treated DNA, 0.1 mL of each forward and reverse primer (10 mM), 2.5 mL of LightCycler 480 High Resolution Melting Master (Roche), 0.6 mL MgCl2 (25 mM) and 1.2 mL polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-grade water to a total volume of 5 mL. Universal unmethylated (0% methylated) and methylated (100% methylated) human whole genomic DNA samples (Zymo Research Corp., Irvine, CA, USA) were used as the control and calibrator samples, respectively. A series of standards, including 100%, 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0% methylated DNA, in a background of universal unmethylated DNA, were constructed by serially diluting the methylated control DNA into the unmethylated control according to mass concentration (Fig. 1). DNA-free distilled water was used as a negative control. Each amplified fragment was performed in duplicate for the unsure results. Five primer pairs were designed by Wojdacz
The definition of different methylation status was according to the various melting peaks. Each type was as follows (Figs 2
For the MCSM definition, we ruled out
Analogously, we excluded
To verify the accuracy of the HRM approach, we randomly selected two of the five different levels of methylation (>50%, 25%–50%, 10%–25%, 5%–10%, 0%) in colorectal tissue samples for pyrosequencing. The assay was operated on a PyroMark Q24 Advanced instrument (Qiagen), and the results of pyrosequencing were analyzed by PyroMark Q24 Advanced 3.0.0 software. The pyrosequencing primer sequences and analyzed sequences of
The distribution of basic demographic characteristics, environmental factors, methylation status and clinical data between cases and controls were detected by chi-square test or t-test as appropriate. The associations between methylation status of candidate genes, MCSM, MCSHM and CRC susceptibility were analyzed by logistic regression. The difference between cases and controls, such as basic demographic characteristics and environmental factors were considered as confounding factors when multiple logistic regression was analyzed. The combined effects between environment factors and methylation of candidate genes on the risk of CRC were analyzed by the crossover method. Interactions between gene methylation and environmental factors were checked by multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) and multiple logistic regression methods. Spearman rank correlation coefficient and chi-square trend test (κ-value) were used for analysing the gene methylation results between HRM and pyrosequencing. All p-values were two-sided, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was conducted with SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and MDR software version 2.0 (Unix).
This research study included 466 cases (285 males and 181 females) with a mean±standard deviation (SD) age of 60.1±11.5 and 507 controls (282 males and 225 females) with a mean±SD age of 56.7±10.9 (p=0.000) (Table 1). The proportion of patients who were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥23.0) among controls (63.0%) was higher than that among cases (52.4%, p=0.003).
The intake of the various food groups and ORs for CRC are presented in
Pm of
Age stratification analysis indicated that hypermethylation of
Methylation levels in 90.3% patients (879/973) were successfully assessed for all five genes (Table 2). Subjects with MCSM-H had a 4.318-fold increased risk of CRC compared with non-MCSM (95% CI, 1.529 to 12.197; p=0.006). However, we did not observe statistically significant differences in MCSM and MCSM-L groups when contrasted with the non-MCSM group (ORadjusted, 2.528; 95% CI, 0.921 to 6.939; ORadjusted, 1.430; 95% CI, 0.504 to 4.054; respectively). In younger subjects, MCSM-H indicated a significantly increased susceptibility to CRC (ORadjusted, 2.759; 95% CI, 1.170 to 6.509), whereas there was no relationship predicting CRC risk in older subjects (ORadjusted, 1.158; 95% CI, 0.415 to 3.230) (Table 3). Moreover, we did not find statistically significant associations predicting CRC risk in cancer-free controls or within either age stratification for MCSHM (Tables 2 and 3).
Significant synergistic effects between
We firstly applied MDR algorithms to explore the interaction between gene methylation and environmental factors for which an interaction might be possible. Then, MDR was used to analyze the interaction between seven dietary factors that were statistically significant in multiple logistic regression and the methylation status of five candidate genes. However, there was no best interaction model (data not shown).
Pyrosequencing is the gold standard to detect methylation levels. To validate the accuracy of the HRM results, we extracted two cases for each of the five methylation levels (>50%, 25%–50%, 10%–25%, 5%–10%, and 0%) in tissue samples and found strong associations between the two techniques (Spearman correlation test, r=0.911, p<0.05). We set the cutoff value of pyrosequencing results at 80 and divided HRM results into 0%, 5% to 10% and >10% to test the consistency of the HRM and pyrosequencing results. We discovered high consistency (chi-square trend test, κ-value=0.833, p=0.000) between the two methods. The original HRM and pyrosequencing results are listed in
Changes in the DNA methylation status, including locus-specific hypermethylation and global DNA hypomethylation, are common epigenetic alterations in carcinogenesis.16 Large studies of DNA methylation have investigated different methylation levels between tumours and adjacent tissues.23,26 There is considerable evidence that methylation changes in cancer patients appear systematically and can be measured in surrogate tissues.31,32 Alterations in blood-derived DNA methylation may explain the response of the haematopoietic systems to tumourigenesis and may be partially explained by systemic differences in the methylation signatures of leukocyte subpopulations in tumourigenesis.34 Besides, peripheral blood is much easier to obtain than tissue. However, less is known about whether leukocyte DNA methylation can be applied as a biomarker for CRC, especially for MCSM assessment. Our results indicated a positive relationship between hypermethylation of multiple loci in blood-derived DNA and the risk of CRC. Compared with the non-MCSM group, subjects with MCSM-H implied a 4.318-fold higher risk of CRC. This phenomenon is similar to that observed in our previous study in which MCSM-H indicated a 1.79-fold higher risk for CRC in patients than in cancer-free controls.33 The MCSM-H of peripheral blood leukocytes, which are composed of multiple methylated genes, might demonstrate systematic variation of hypermethylation in subjects and could be more suitable for assessment of the risk of CRC in the aspect of cancer screening for high-risk population, individual prevention and individualized treatment.
Heterogeneous methylation was previously confirmed to happen in different cancer tissues.16,24–26 However, this phenomenon has never been researched extensively in a massive sample and panel loci in peripheral blood leukocytes for CRC. MS-HRM measures the melting behaviour of DNA duplexes.35 Based on normalized melting curves and Tm values of the PCR product, methylation status can be defined.24,26,36 As far as we know, this instance is the first time a study has revealed loci to have four types of methylation during CRC tumourigenesis, with some loci going through heterogeneous methylation and others undergoing homozygous methylation in a large sample size. Our data showed that all of the candidate genes had different extent heterogeneous methylation. However, we found no association between MCSHM and CRC risk or in age stratification. The mechanism of heterogeneous methylation leading to gene silencing is still obscure. Nevertheless, a hypothesis that heterogeneous methylation may be a “passenger” that interferes with transcription processes has been proposed,16 and heterogeneous methylation may play an important role in tumour development25 through perturbing the transcriptome in CRC.37
Exploring the interactions between dietary factors and genes for complex diseases has an important implication in disease prevention for public health. In this research, we found significant antagonistic interaction between increased consumption of fruit and the methylation of
There were certain limitations of this research. First, we divided dietary components into only two levels to unify the standardization that may lead to some information loss. Second, due to limited technology, HRM can only measure qualitative heterogeneous methylation and cannot quantitatively assess methylation level. Therefore, a precise method for measuring the quantitative heterogeneous methylation level is needed in future research. However, we and other previous research have demonstrated that HRM has the ability to test low methylation levels43 and testified to its sensitivity and specificity when compared with pyrosequencing.33 Third, we were unable to confirm possible mechanisms affecting methylation differences between cases and controls, including environmental factors and a sub-population of peripheral blood leukocytes. Additionally, deeper investigations should concentrate on the evaluation of whether the observed differences occur as a result of, or prior to, tumourigenesis.
In conclusion, our study suggested that the DNA methylation status of blood leukocytes may be associated with susceptibility to CRC. The MCSM-H of blood leukocytes may be associated with CRC risk, especially in younger people. Environmental factors may interact with gene methylation, which may trigger CRC.
This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: 30972539, 30671801, and 81473055).
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer Patients and Controls
Characteristic | Case (%) | Control (%) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | 0.080 | ||
Male | 285 (61.2) | 282 (55.6) | |
Female | 181 (38.8) | 225 (44.4) | |
Age, yr | 0.000 | ||
Mean±SD | 60.1±11.5 | 56.7±10.9 | |
<60 | 223 (47.9) | 308 (60.7) | |
≥60 | 243 (52.1) | 199 (39.3) | |
Education level | 0.181 | ||
Primary school or below | 125 (28.5) | 117 (23.9) | |
Middle school | 132 (30.1) | 150 (30.6) | |
Senior school | 94 (21.4) | 99 (20.2) | |
College or above | 88 (20.0) | 124 (25.3) | |
Occupation | 0.232 | ||
White collar | 122 (26.2) | 116 (22.9) | |
Blue collar | 344 (73.8) | 391 (77.1) | |
Body mass index, kg/m2 | 0.003 | ||
≤18.5 | 38 (8.3) | 28 (5.6) | |
18.5–23.9 | 181 (39.3) | 157 (31.4) | |
≥24.0 | 241 (52.4) | 315 (63.0) | |
Nation | |||
Han people | 449 (97.2) | 426 (96.8) | 0.746 |
Other | 13 (2.8) | 14 (3.2) | |
Tumor location | |||
Colon | 141 (35.1) | - | - |
Rectum | 261 (64.9) | - | - |
Pathogenic type | |||
Protrude type | 239 (60.8) | - | - |
Ulcerative type | 75 (19.1) | - | - |
Other types | 79 (20.1) | - | - |
Degree of differentiation | |||
Low | 65 (16.1) | - | - |
Medium | 312 (77.4) | - | - |
High | 11 (2.7) | - | - |
Unknown | 15 (3.7) | - | - |
Histological type | |||
Adenocarcinoma | 325 (80.6) | - | - |
Other types | 78 (19.4) | - | - |
Dukes stage | |||
A | 42 (10.4) | - | - |
B | 197 (48.9) | - | - |
C | 132 (32.8) | - | - |
D | 32 (7.9) | - | - |
Associations among the Methylation Status of Candidate Genes, MCSM, MCSHM, and CRC Susceptibility
Methylation status | Case (%) | Control (%) | Crude OR (95% CI) | p-value | ORadjusted (95% CI)* | p-value | ORadjusted (95% CI)† | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Um | 47 (10.1) | 146 (29.7) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 185 (39.9) | 180 (36.7) | 3.193 (2.167–4.704) | 0.000 | 3.136 (2.117–4.645) | 0.000 | 4.202 (2.348–7.519) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 111 (23.9) | 81 (16.5) | 4.257 (2.753–6.583) | 0.000 | 4.197 (2.694–6.540) | 0.000 | 4.913 (2.534–9.527) | 0.000 |
Hm2 | 53 (11.4) | 61 (12.4) | 2.699 (1.648–4.421) | 0.000 | 2.632 (1.598–4.335) | 0.000 | 2.504 (1.209–5.186) | 0.014 |
Hm3 | 68 (14.7) | 23 (4.7) | 9.184 (5.164–16.335) | 0.000 | 8.514 (4.743–15.282) | 0.000 | 15.668 (7.341–33.441) | 0.000 |
Thm | 232 (50.0) | 165 (33.6) | 4.368 (2.973–6.416) | 0.000 | 4.209 (2.848–6.221) | 0.000 | 5.445 (3.075–9.643) | 0.000 |
Tpm | 417 (89.9) | 345 (70.3) | 3.755 (2.624–5.373) | 0.000 | 3.647 (2.537–5.244) | 0.000 | 4.831 (2.819–8.278) | 0.000 |
Um | 26 (5.6) | 20 (4.1) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 165 (35.7) | 143 (29.0) | 0.888 (0.475–1.657) | 0.708 | 0.839 (0.444–1.585) | 0.589 | 0.808 (0.356–1.833) | 0.610 |
Hm1 | 213 (46.1) | 192 (38.9) | 0.853 (0.461–1.578) | 0.613 | 0.915 (0.489–1.712) | 0.782 | 0.605 (0.264–1.384) | 0.234 |
Hm2 | 41 (8.9) | 65 (13.2) | 0.485 (0.240–0.979) | 0.043 | 0.504 (0.247–1.029) | 0.060 | 0.188 (0.069–0.513) | 0.001 |
Hm3 | 17 (3.7) | 73 (14.8) | 0.179 (0.082–0.393) | 0.000 | 0.182 (0.082–0.404) | 0.000 | 0.132 (0.044–0.394) | 0.000 |
Thm | 271 (58.7) | 330 (66.9) | 0.632 (0.345–1.156) | 0.137 | 0.666 (0.360–1.230) | 0.194 | 0.400 (0.178–0.899) | 0.027 |
Tpm | 436 (94.4) | 473 (95.9) | 0.709 (0.390–1.288) | 0.259 | 0.721 (0.393–1.324) | 0.291 | 0.542 (0.246–1.194) | 0.128 |
Um | 120 (26.0) | 127 (25.8) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 74 (16.0) | 70 (14.2) | 1.119 (0.742–1.688) | 0.593 | 1.024 (0.670–1.563) | 0.914 | 1.428 (0.767–2.659) | 0.261 |
Hm1 | 151 (32.7) | 148 (30.1) | 1.080 (0.771–1.513) | 0.655 | 1.072 (0.760–1.513) | 0.691 | 1.708 (1.037–2.815) | 0.036 |
Hm2 | 41 (8.9) | 80 (16.3) | 0.542 (0.345–0.852) | 0.008 | 0.467 (0.293–0.743) | 0.001 | 0.566 (0.288–1.113) | 0.099 |
Hm3 | 76 (16.5) | 67 (13.6) | 1.200 (0.795–1.813) | 0.385 | 1.087 (0.713–1.658) | 0.698 | 2.696 (1.498–4.852) | 0.001 |
Thm | 268 (58.0) | 295 (60.0) | 0.961 (0.713–1.297) | 0.797 | 0.908 (0.669–1.234) | 0.539 | 1.542 (0.991–2.400) | 0.055 |
Tpm | 342 (74.0) | 365 (74.2) | 0.992 (0.742–1.325) | 0.955 | 0.932 (0.693–1.253) | 0.640 | 1.520 (0.988–2.340) | 0.057 |
Um | 387 (84.7) | 398 (88.2) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 56 (12.3) | 19 (4.2) | 3.031 (1.7680–5.195) | 0.000 | 2.772 (1.604–4.790) | 0.000 | 6.041 (2.785–13.102) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 4 (0.9) | 30 (6.7) | 0.137 (0.048–0.393) | 0.000 | 0.134 (0.047–0.386) | 0.000 | 0.423 (0.125–1.438) | 0.168 |
Hm2 | 8 (1.8) | 4 (0.9) | 2.057 (0.614–6.886) | 0.242 | 2.023 (0.593–6.895) | 0.260 | 2.698 (0.567–12.850) | 0.213 |
Hm3 | 2 (0.4) | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Thm | 14 (3.1) | 34 (7.5) | 0.423 (0.224–0.801) | 0.008 | 0.416 (0.218–0.793) | 0.008 | 1.087 (0.457–2.586) | 0.851 |
Tpm | 70 (15.3) | 53 (11.8) | 1.358 (0.926–1.993) | 0.117 | 1.270 (0.859–1.877) | 0.231 | 2.962 (1.675–5.239) | 0.000 |
Um | 145 (31.5) | 195 (40.2) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 235 (51.0) | 169 (34.8) | 1.870 (1.396–2.504) | 0.000 | 1.741 (1.291–2.347) | 0.000 | 3.140 (2.024–4.872) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 14 (3.0) | 45 (9.3) | 0.418 (0.221–0.791) | 0.007 | 0.391 (0.205–0.748) | 0.005 | 1.507 (0.649–3.496) | 0.340 |
Hm2 | 62 (13.4) | 69 (14.2) | 1.208 (0.806–1.811) | 0.359 | 1.150 (0.761–1.738) | 0.508 | 1.980 (1.113–3.523) | 0.020 |
Hm3 | 5 (1.1) | 7 (1.4) | 0.961 (0.299–3.088) | 0.946 | 0.883 (0.269–2.900) | 0.838 | 1.755 (0.416–7.404) | 0.444 |
Thm | 81 (17.6) | 121 (24.9) | 0.900 (0.632–1.283) | 0.561 | 0.852 (0.593–1.223) | 0.385 | 1.831 (1.100–3.047) | 0.020 |
Tpm | 316 (68.5) | 290 (59.8) | 1.465 (1.121–1.915) | 0.005 | 1.374 (1.044–1.807) | 0.023 | 2.590 (1.730–3.878) | 0.000 |
MCSM | ||||||||
Non-MCSM | 17 (3.8) | 29 (6.7) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
MCSM-L | 182 (40.7) | 208 (48.1) | 1.493 (0.794–2.805) | 0.213 | 1.403 (0.741–2.658) | 0.299 | 1.430 (0.504–4.054) | 0.501 |
MCSM-H | 248 (55.5) | 195 (45.1) | 2.170 (1.158–4.063) | 0.016 | 1.936 (1.024–3.657) | 0.042 | 4.318 (1.529–12.197) | 0.006 |
MCSM | 430 (96.2) | 403 (93.3) | 1.820 (0.985–3.363) | 0.056 | 1.659 (0.890–3.092) | 0.111 | 2.528 (0.921–6.939) | 0.072 |
MCSHM | ||||||||
Non-MCSHM | 17 (15.0) | 29 (18.0) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
MCSHM-L | 32 (28.3) | 45 (28.0) | 1.213 (0.573–2.570) | 0.614 | 1.180 (0.545–2.557) | 0.675 | 1.153 (0.335–3.969) | 0.821 |
MCSHM-H | 64 (56.6) | 87 (54.0) | 1.255 (0.636–2.477) | 0.513 | 1.110 (0.551–2.234) | 0.771 | 1.396 (0.438–4.449) | 0.573 |
MCSHM | 96 (85.0) | 132 (82.0) | 1.241 (0.645–2.386) | 0.518 | 1.133 (0.579–2.217) | 0.716 | 1.297 (0.427–3.942) | 0.647 |
MCSM, multiple CpG site methylation; MCSHM, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation; CRC, colorectal cancer; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Um, unmethylation; Pm, positive methylation; Hm1, heterogeneous methylation 1; Hm2, heterogeneous methylation 2; Hm3, heterogeneous methylation 3; Thm, total heterogeneous methylation; Tpm, total positive methylation; MCSM-L, low-level MCSM; MCSM-H, high-level MCSM; MCSHM-L, low-level MCSHM; MCSHM-H, high-level MCSHM.
†ORadjusted, ORs adjusted for BMI, age, fruit, coarse grains, fruit can, pork intestines, fried food, garlic, and braised fish in brown sauce.
Association between Methylation, MCSM, MCSHM of Genes and Risk of CRC by Age
Gene | <60 yr | ≥60 yr | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR* | 95% CI | p-value | OR* | 95% CI | p-value | |
Genes methylation† | ||||||
| 4.021 | 2.463–6.566 | 0.000 | 3.207 | 1.859–5.530 | 0.000 |
| 0.830 | 0.363–1.898 | 0.658 | 0.600 | 0.239–1.508 | 0.277 |
| 0.998 | 0.677–1.471 | 0.992 | 0.844 | 0.531–1.342 | 0.474 |
| 1.209 | 0.684–2.135 | 0.514 | 1.327 | 0.773–2.277 | 0.305 |
| 1.516 | 1.055–2.177 | 0.024 | 1.201 | 0.788–1.832 | 0.395 |
MCSM | ||||||
MCSM-L | 1.826 | 0.777–4.287 | 0.167 | 0.927 | 0.327–2.632 | 0.887 |
MCSM-H | 2.759 | 1.170–6.509 | 0.020 | 1.158 | 0.415–3.230 | 0.780 |
MCSM | 2.216 | 0.962–5.103 | 0.062 | 1.060 | 0.385–2.919 | 0.909 |
MCSHM | ||||||
MCSHM-L | 1.495 | 0.551–4.053 | 0.430 | 0.814 | 0.228–2.905 | 0.751 |
MCSHM-H | 1.347 | 0.526–3.449 | 0.535 | 0.837 | 0.280–2.505 | 0.751 |
MCSHM | 1.404 | 0.576–3.421 | 0.455 | 0.831 | 0.285–2.429 | 0.736 |
MCSM, multiple CpG site methylation; MCSHM, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation; CRC, colorectal cancer; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MCSM-L, low-level MCSM; MCSM-H, high-level MCSM; MCSHM-L, low-level MCSHM; MCSHM-H, high-level MCSHM.
†All the ORs were calculated by selecting unmethylation as a reference group and total positive methylation as a positive group.
Gut and Liver 2018; 12(2): 173-182
Published online March 15, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17163
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Han-Lu Gao1, Xuan Wang1, Hong-Ru Sun1, Jun-De Zhou2, Shang-Qun Lin1, Yu-Hang Xing1, Lin Zhu1, Hai-Bo Zhou1, Ya-Shuang Zhao1, Qiang Chi2, Yu-Peng Liu1
1Department of Epidemiology, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China, 2Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
Correspondence to: Ya-Shuang Zhaoa, Qiang Chib, and Yu-Peng Liuc. aDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-451-87502823, Fax: +86-451-87502885, E-mail: zhao_yashuang@263.net. bDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 246 Xuefu Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-0451-86605045, Fax: +86-0451-86605045, E-mail: qiangchi61@126.com. cDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Street, Nangang District, Harbin 150081, China, Tel: +86-451-87502823, Fax: +86-451-87502885, E-mail: liuyupenf@126.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Methylation status plays a causal role in carcinogenesis in targeted tissues. However, the relationship between the DNA methylation status of multiple genes in blood leukocytes and colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility as well as interactions between dietary factors and CRC risks are unclear. We performed a case-control study with 466 CRC patients and 507 cancer-free controls to investigate the association among the methylation status of individual genes, multiple CpG site methylation (MCSM), multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation and CRC susceptibility. Peripheral blood DNA methylation levels were detected by performing methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting. Total heterogeneous methylation of The gene methylation status of blood leukocytes may be associated with CRC risk. MCSM-H of blood leukocytes was associated with CRC, especially in younger people. Some dietary factors may affect hypermethylation status and influence susceptibility to CRC.Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords: Heterogeneous methylation, Colorectal neoplasms, Peripheral blood, Interaction effect
It was estimated that colorectal cancer (CRC) ranked as the third most diagnosed cancer in males and the second most diagnosed cancer in females with an estimated 693,900 deaths occurring in 2012.1 CRC happens as a result of the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that induce transformation of the normal colonic epithelium into colon adenocarcinoma.2 CpG island hypermethylation in the promoter3 and first exon4 regions of tumour suppressor genes is a common epigenetic event in human cancers and results in transcriptional repression.5 It has been reported that gene-specific hypermethylation changes are associated with transcriptional modulation, which may affect tumour progression. There are several transcriptional modulation genes, such as Wilms’ tumour gene (
Epidemiological studies have disclosed that some diet factors were associated with disease prevention and CRC risk. For example, high intake of dietary fibre, fish can decrease CRC incidence, while high consumption of red meat, alcohol intake may increase CRC risk.20 Additionally,
Heterogeneous DNA methylation is defined as the existence of multiple epialleles in a sample, each with a different profile of methylated and unmethylated CpG sites for a certain region.16 Recently, researchers have mainly focused on tumour tissues to explore the relationship between heterogeneous DNA methylation status and tumourigenesis16,23–26 and have suggested that heterogeneous DNA methylation may be an onset of epigenetic processes in tumour tissue.23 Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that environmental exposure27,28 and age29 may impact heterogeneous DNA methylation. Moreover, tumourigenesis is not an isolated phenomenon in its target tissue,30 and research has increasingly demonstrated that peripheral blood leukocyte DNA methylation might be measured as a substitution.31,32 Additionally, multiple epigenetic alterations in peripheral blood leukocytes were associated with CRC risk.33 However, no study has evaluated the association between heterogeneous DNA methylation, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation (MCSHM) and CRC in peripheral blood leukocytes.
Therefore, we proposed that DNA methylation status, multiple CpG site methylation (MCSM), MCSHM of blood leukocytes may be associated with risk of CRC. Based on this hypothesis, we carried out a case-control study to explore the association between DNA methylation status of individual genes, MCSM, MCSHM and the risk of CRC and assessed the effects of interactions between gene methylation and environmental factors on CRC susceptibility.
Between June 2004 and June 2012, 466 sporadic CRC pathologically confirmed patients in the Cancer Hospital and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University were selected as cases, and 507 non-digestive system disease patients were chosen as controls from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University. Samples (5 mL) of peripheral blood were obtained from the 973 participants. Cases with a family history of CRC, metastatic colorectal carcinoma, preoperative radiation or chemotherapy were excluded. Severe organic disease and tumor patients were also excluded from the controls. All the study subjects provided informed consent and approved by the Human Research and Ethics Committee of Harbin Medical University. All experiments including interrelated details were consistent with the Helsinki Declaration in 2000.
All participants were interviewed face-to-face by well-trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire. Information about demographic characteristics, dietary status during the past 12 months (such as the intake of different kinds of meat, fried food and fruit), living habits (including cigarette smoking and duration of leisure physical activity) were collected.
Genomic DNA was extracted using a Qiagen DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and was stored at −80°C. The absorption of ultraviolet light at wavelengths of 260 and 280 nm was measured by a Nanodrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for determining the purity and concentration of DNA.
Genomic DNA was bisulfite-modified using the EpiTect Fast DNA Bisulfite kit (Qiagen). All operation steps were performed according to the manufacturer’s protocols. The eluted DNA (32 mL volume) in triplicate was used for methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) analysis. Backup bisulfite DNA was stored at −80°C. Bisulfite DNA at a concentration of 20 ng/mL was reserved at −20°C for the subsequent experiment, as it is crucial to avoid repeated freezing and thawing.
MS-HRM was performed on LightCycler 480 (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) equipment, and the data were analyzed using gene scanning and melting temperature (Tm) calling modules. Each reaction mixture contained 0.5 mL of bisulfite-treated DNA, 0.1 mL of each forward and reverse primer (10 mM), 2.5 mL of LightCycler 480 High Resolution Melting Master (Roche), 0.6 mL MgCl2 (25 mM) and 1.2 mL polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-grade water to a total volume of 5 mL. Universal unmethylated (0% methylated) and methylated (100% methylated) human whole genomic DNA samples (Zymo Research Corp., Irvine, CA, USA) were used as the control and calibrator samples, respectively. A series of standards, including 100%, 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0% methylated DNA, in a background of universal unmethylated DNA, were constructed by serially diluting the methylated control DNA into the unmethylated control according to mass concentration (Fig. 1). DNA-free distilled water was used as a negative control. Each amplified fragment was performed in duplicate for the unsure results. Five primer pairs were designed by Wojdacz
The definition of different methylation status was according to the various melting peaks. Each type was as follows (Figs 2
For the MCSM definition, we ruled out
Analogously, we excluded
To verify the accuracy of the HRM approach, we randomly selected two of the five different levels of methylation (>50%, 25%–50%, 10%–25%, 5%–10%, 0%) in colorectal tissue samples for pyrosequencing. The assay was operated on a PyroMark Q24 Advanced instrument (Qiagen), and the results of pyrosequencing were analyzed by PyroMark Q24 Advanced 3.0.0 software. The pyrosequencing primer sequences and analyzed sequences of
The distribution of basic demographic characteristics, environmental factors, methylation status and clinical data between cases and controls were detected by chi-square test or t-test as appropriate. The associations between methylation status of candidate genes, MCSM, MCSHM and CRC susceptibility were analyzed by logistic regression. The difference between cases and controls, such as basic demographic characteristics and environmental factors were considered as confounding factors when multiple logistic regression was analyzed. The combined effects between environment factors and methylation of candidate genes on the risk of CRC were analyzed by the crossover method. Interactions between gene methylation and environmental factors were checked by multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) and multiple logistic regression methods. Spearman rank correlation coefficient and chi-square trend test (κ-value) were used for analysing the gene methylation results between HRM and pyrosequencing. All p-values were two-sided, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was conducted with SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and MDR software version 2.0 (Unix).
This research study included 466 cases (285 males and 181 females) with a mean±standard deviation (SD) age of 60.1±11.5 and 507 controls (282 males and 225 females) with a mean±SD age of 56.7±10.9 (p=0.000) (Table 1). The proportion of patients who were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥23.0) among controls (63.0%) was higher than that among cases (52.4%, p=0.003).
The intake of the various food groups and ORs for CRC are presented in
Pm of
Age stratification analysis indicated that hypermethylation of
Methylation levels in 90.3% patients (879/973) were successfully assessed for all five genes (Table 2). Subjects with MCSM-H had a 4.318-fold increased risk of CRC compared with non-MCSM (95% CI, 1.529 to 12.197; p=0.006). However, we did not observe statistically significant differences in MCSM and MCSM-L groups when contrasted with the non-MCSM group (ORadjusted, 2.528; 95% CI, 0.921 to 6.939; ORadjusted, 1.430; 95% CI, 0.504 to 4.054; respectively). In younger subjects, MCSM-H indicated a significantly increased susceptibility to CRC (ORadjusted, 2.759; 95% CI, 1.170 to 6.509), whereas there was no relationship predicting CRC risk in older subjects (ORadjusted, 1.158; 95% CI, 0.415 to 3.230) (Table 3). Moreover, we did not find statistically significant associations predicting CRC risk in cancer-free controls or within either age stratification for MCSHM (Tables 2 and 3).
Significant synergistic effects between
We firstly applied MDR algorithms to explore the interaction between gene methylation and environmental factors for which an interaction might be possible. Then, MDR was used to analyze the interaction between seven dietary factors that were statistically significant in multiple logistic regression and the methylation status of five candidate genes. However, there was no best interaction model (data not shown).
Pyrosequencing is the gold standard to detect methylation levels. To validate the accuracy of the HRM results, we extracted two cases for each of the five methylation levels (>50%, 25%–50%, 10%–25%, 5%–10%, and 0%) in tissue samples and found strong associations between the two techniques (Spearman correlation test, r=0.911, p<0.05). We set the cutoff value of pyrosequencing results at 80 and divided HRM results into 0%, 5% to 10% and >10% to test the consistency of the HRM and pyrosequencing results. We discovered high consistency (chi-square trend test, κ-value=0.833, p=0.000) between the two methods. The original HRM and pyrosequencing results are listed in
Changes in the DNA methylation status, including locus-specific hypermethylation and global DNA hypomethylation, are common epigenetic alterations in carcinogenesis.16 Large studies of DNA methylation have investigated different methylation levels between tumours and adjacent tissues.23,26 There is considerable evidence that methylation changes in cancer patients appear systematically and can be measured in surrogate tissues.31,32 Alterations in blood-derived DNA methylation may explain the response of the haematopoietic systems to tumourigenesis and may be partially explained by systemic differences in the methylation signatures of leukocyte subpopulations in tumourigenesis.34 Besides, peripheral blood is much easier to obtain than tissue. However, less is known about whether leukocyte DNA methylation can be applied as a biomarker for CRC, especially for MCSM assessment. Our results indicated a positive relationship between hypermethylation of multiple loci in blood-derived DNA and the risk of CRC. Compared with the non-MCSM group, subjects with MCSM-H implied a 4.318-fold higher risk of CRC. This phenomenon is similar to that observed in our previous study in which MCSM-H indicated a 1.79-fold higher risk for CRC in patients than in cancer-free controls.33 The MCSM-H of peripheral blood leukocytes, which are composed of multiple methylated genes, might demonstrate systematic variation of hypermethylation in subjects and could be more suitable for assessment of the risk of CRC in the aspect of cancer screening for high-risk population, individual prevention and individualized treatment.
Heterogeneous methylation was previously confirmed to happen in different cancer tissues.16,24–26 However, this phenomenon has never been researched extensively in a massive sample and panel loci in peripheral blood leukocytes for CRC. MS-HRM measures the melting behaviour of DNA duplexes.35 Based on normalized melting curves and Tm values of the PCR product, methylation status can be defined.24,26,36 As far as we know, this instance is the first time a study has revealed loci to have four types of methylation during CRC tumourigenesis, with some loci going through heterogeneous methylation and others undergoing homozygous methylation in a large sample size. Our data showed that all of the candidate genes had different extent heterogeneous methylation. However, we found no association between MCSHM and CRC risk or in age stratification. The mechanism of heterogeneous methylation leading to gene silencing is still obscure. Nevertheless, a hypothesis that heterogeneous methylation may be a “passenger” that interferes with transcription processes has been proposed,16 and heterogeneous methylation may play an important role in tumour development25 through perturbing the transcriptome in CRC.37
Exploring the interactions between dietary factors and genes for complex diseases has an important implication in disease prevention for public health. In this research, we found significant antagonistic interaction between increased consumption of fruit and the methylation of
There were certain limitations of this research. First, we divided dietary components into only two levels to unify the standardization that may lead to some information loss. Second, due to limited technology, HRM can only measure qualitative heterogeneous methylation and cannot quantitatively assess methylation level. Therefore, a precise method for measuring the quantitative heterogeneous methylation level is needed in future research. However, we and other previous research have demonstrated that HRM has the ability to test low methylation levels43 and testified to its sensitivity and specificity when compared with pyrosequencing.33 Third, we were unable to confirm possible mechanisms affecting methylation differences between cases and controls, including environmental factors and a sub-population of peripheral blood leukocytes. Additionally, deeper investigations should concentrate on the evaluation of whether the observed differences occur as a result of, or prior to, tumourigenesis.
In conclusion, our study suggested that the DNA methylation status of blood leukocytes may be associated with susceptibility to CRC. The MCSM-H of blood leukocytes may be associated with CRC risk, especially in younger people. Environmental factors may interact with gene methylation, which may trigger CRC.
This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: 30972539, 30671801, and 81473055).
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Table 1 Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer Patients and Controls
Characteristic | Case (%) | Control (%) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | 0.080 | ||
Male | 285 (61.2) | 282 (55.6) | |
Female | 181 (38.8) | 225 (44.4) | |
Age, yr | 0.000 | ||
Mean±SD | 60.1±11.5 | 56.7±10.9 | |
<60 | 223 (47.9) | 308 (60.7) | |
≥60 | 243 (52.1) | 199 (39.3) | |
Education level | 0.181 | ||
Primary school or below | 125 (28.5) | 117 (23.9) | |
Middle school | 132 (30.1) | 150 (30.6) | |
Senior school | 94 (21.4) | 99 (20.2) | |
College or above | 88 (20.0) | 124 (25.3) | |
Occupation | 0.232 | ||
White collar | 122 (26.2) | 116 (22.9) | |
Blue collar | 344 (73.8) | 391 (77.1) | |
Body mass index, kg/m2 | 0.003 | ||
≤18.5 | 38 (8.3) | 28 (5.6) | |
18.5–23.9 | 181 (39.3) | 157 (31.4) | |
≥24.0 | 241 (52.4) | 315 (63.0) | |
Nation | |||
Han people | 449 (97.2) | 426 (96.8) | 0.746 |
Other | 13 (2.8) | 14 (3.2) | |
Tumor location | |||
Colon | 141 (35.1) | - | - |
Rectum | 261 (64.9) | - | - |
Pathogenic type | |||
Protrude type | 239 (60.8) | - | - |
Ulcerative type | 75 (19.1) | - | - |
Other types | 79 (20.1) | - | - |
Degree of differentiation | |||
Low | 65 (16.1) | - | - |
Medium | 312 (77.4) | - | - |
High | 11 (2.7) | - | - |
Unknown | 15 (3.7) | - | - |
Histological type | |||
Adenocarcinoma | 325 (80.6) | - | - |
Other types | 78 (19.4) | - | - |
Dukes stage | |||
A | 42 (10.4) | - | - |
B | 197 (48.9) | - | - |
C | 132 (32.8) | - | - |
D | 32 (7.9) | - | - |
Table 2 Associations among the Methylation Status of Candidate Genes, MCSM, MCSHM, and CRC Susceptibility
Methylation status | Case (%) | Control (%) | Crude OR (95% CI) | p-value | ORadjusted (95% CI)* | p-value | ORadjusted (95% CI)† | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Um | 47 (10.1) | 146 (29.7) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 185 (39.9) | 180 (36.7) | 3.193 (2.167–4.704) | 0.000 | 3.136 (2.117–4.645) | 0.000 | 4.202 (2.348–7.519) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 111 (23.9) | 81 (16.5) | 4.257 (2.753–6.583) | 0.000 | 4.197 (2.694–6.540) | 0.000 | 4.913 (2.534–9.527) | 0.000 |
Hm2 | 53 (11.4) | 61 (12.4) | 2.699 (1.648–4.421) | 0.000 | 2.632 (1.598–4.335) | 0.000 | 2.504 (1.209–5.186) | 0.014 |
Hm3 | 68 (14.7) | 23 (4.7) | 9.184 (5.164–16.335) | 0.000 | 8.514 (4.743–15.282) | 0.000 | 15.668 (7.341–33.441) | 0.000 |
Thm | 232 (50.0) | 165 (33.6) | 4.368 (2.973–6.416) | 0.000 | 4.209 (2.848–6.221) | 0.000 | 5.445 (3.075–9.643) | 0.000 |
Tpm | 417 (89.9) | 345 (70.3) | 3.755 (2.624–5.373) | 0.000 | 3.647 (2.537–5.244) | 0.000 | 4.831 (2.819–8.278) | 0.000 |
Um | 26 (5.6) | 20 (4.1) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 165 (35.7) | 143 (29.0) | 0.888 (0.475–1.657) | 0.708 | 0.839 (0.444–1.585) | 0.589 | 0.808 (0.356–1.833) | 0.610 |
Hm1 | 213 (46.1) | 192 (38.9) | 0.853 (0.461–1.578) | 0.613 | 0.915 (0.489–1.712) | 0.782 | 0.605 (0.264–1.384) | 0.234 |
Hm2 | 41 (8.9) | 65 (13.2) | 0.485 (0.240–0.979) | 0.043 | 0.504 (0.247–1.029) | 0.060 | 0.188 (0.069–0.513) | 0.001 |
Hm3 | 17 (3.7) | 73 (14.8) | 0.179 (0.082–0.393) | 0.000 | 0.182 (0.082–0.404) | 0.000 | 0.132 (0.044–0.394) | 0.000 |
Thm | 271 (58.7) | 330 (66.9) | 0.632 (0.345–1.156) | 0.137 | 0.666 (0.360–1.230) | 0.194 | 0.400 (0.178–0.899) | 0.027 |
Tpm | 436 (94.4) | 473 (95.9) | 0.709 (0.390–1.288) | 0.259 | 0.721 (0.393–1.324) | 0.291 | 0.542 (0.246–1.194) | 0.128 |
Um | 120 (26.0) | 127 (25.8) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 74 (16.0) | 70 (14.2) | 1.119 (0.742–1.688) | 0.593 | 1.024 (0.670–1.563) | 0.914 | 1.428 (0.767–2.659) | 0.261 |
Hm1 | 151 (32.7) | 148 (30.1) | 1.080 (0.771–1.513) | 0.655 | 1.072 (0.760–1.513) | 0.691 | 1.708 (1.037–2.815) | 0.036 |
Hm2 | 41 (8.9) | 80 (16.3) | 0.542 (0.345–0.852) | 0.008 | 0.467 (0.293–0.743) | 0.001 | 0.566 (0.288–1.113) | 0.099 |
Hm3 | 76 (16.5) | 67 (13.6) | 1.200 (0.795–1.813) | 0.385 | 1.087 (0.713–1.658) | 0.698 | 2.696 (1.498–4.852) | 0.001 |
Thm | 268 (58.0) | 295 (60.0) | 0.961 (0.713–1.297) | 0.797 | 0.908 (0.669–1.234) | 0.539 | 1.542 (0.991–2.400) | 0.055 |
Tpm | 342 (74.0) | 365 (74.2) | 0.992 (0.742–1.325) | 0.955 | 0.932 (0.693–1.253) | 0.640 | 1.520 (0.988–2.340) | 0.057 |
Um | 387 (84.7) | 398 (88.2) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 56 (12.3) | 19 (4.2) | 3.031 (1.7680–5.195) | 0.000 | 2.772 (1.604–4.790) | 0.000 | 6.041 (2.785–13.102) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 4 (0.9) | 30 (6.7) | 0.137 (0.048–0.393) | 0.000 | 0.134 (0.047–0.386) | 0.000 | 0.423 (0.125–1.438) | 0.168 |
Hm2 | 8 (1.8) | 4 (0.9) | 2.057 (0.614–6.886) | 0.242 | 2.023 (0.593–6.895) | 0.260 | 2.698 (0.567–12.850) | 0.213 |
Hm3 | 2 (0.4) | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Thm | 14 (3.1) | 34 (7.5) | 0.423 (0.224–0.801) | 0.008 | 0.416 (0.218–0.793) | 0.008 | 1.087 (0.457–2.586) | 0.851 |
Tpm | 70 (15.3) | 53 (11.8) | 1.358 (0.926–1.993) | 0.117 | 1.270 (0.859–1.877) | 0.231 | 2.962 (1.675–5.239) | 0.000 |
Um | 145 (31.5) | 195 (40.2) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Pm | 235 (51.0) | 169 (34.8) | 1.870 (1.396–2.504) | 0.000 | 1.741 (1.291–2.347) | 0.000 | 3.140 (2.024–4.872) | 0.000 |
Hm1 | 14 (3.0) | 45 (9.3) | 0.418 (0.221–0.791) | 0.007 | 0.391 (0.205–0.748) | 0.005 | 1.507 (0.649–3.496) | 0.340 |
Hm2 | 62 (13.4) | 69 (14.2) | 1.208 (0.806–1.811) | 0.359 | 1.150 (0.761–1.738) | 0.508 | 1.980 (1.113–3.523) | 0.020 |
Hm3 | 5 (1.1) | 7 (1.4) | 0.961 (0.299–3.088) | 0.946 | 0.883 (0.269–2.900) | 0.838 | 1.755 (0.416–7.404) | 0.444 |
Thm | 81 (17.6) | 121 (24.9) | 0.900 (0.632–1.283) | 0.561 | 0.852 (0.593–1.223) | 0.385 | 1.831 (1.100–3.047) | 0.020 |
Tpm | 316 (68.5) | 290 (59.8) | 1.465 (1.121–1.915) | 0.005 | 1.374 (1.044–1.807) | 0.023 | 2.590 (1.730–3.878) | 0.000 |
MCSM | ||||||||
Non-MCSM | 17 (3.8) | 29 (6.7) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
MCSM-L | 182 (40.7) | 208 (48.1) | 1.493 (0.794–2.805) | 0.213 | 1.403 (0.741–2.658) | 0.299 | 1.430 (0.504–4.054) | 0.501 |
MCSM-H | 248 (55.5) | 195 (45.1) | 2.170 (1.158–4.063) | 0.016 | 1.936 (1.024–3.657) | 0.042 | 4.318 (1.529–12.197) | 0.006 |
MCSM | 430 (96.2) | 403 (93.3) | 1.820 (0.985–3.363) | 0.056 | 1.659 (0.890–3.092) | 0.111 | 2.528 (0.921–6.939) | 0.072 |
MCSHM | ||||||||
Non-MCSHM | 17 (15.0) | 29 (18.0) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
MCSHM-L | 32 (28.3) | 45 (28.0) | 1.213 (0.573–2.570) | 0.614 | 1.180 (0.545–2.557) | 0.675 | 1.153 (0.335–3.969) | 0.821 |
MCSHM-H | 64 (56.6) | 87 (54.0) | 1.255 (0.636–2.477) | 0.513 | 1.110 (0.551–2.234) | 0.771 | 1.396 (0.438–4.449) | 0.573 |
MCSHM | 96 (85.0) | 132 (82.0) | 1.241 (0.645–2.386) | 0.518 | 1.133 (0.579–2.217) | 0.716 | 1.297 (0.427–3.942) | 0.647 |
MCSM, multiple CpG site methylation; MCSHM, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation; CRC, colorectal cancer; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Um, unmethylation; Pm, positive methylation; Hm1, heterogeneous methylation 1; Hm2, heterogeneous methylation 2; Hm3, heterogeneous methylation 3; Thm, total heterogeneous methylation; Tpm, total positive methylation; MCSM-L, low-level MCSM; MCSM-H, high-level MCSM; MCSHM-L, low-level MCSHM; MCSHM-H, high-level MCSHM.
†ORadjusted, ORs adjusted for BMI, age, fruit, coarse grains, fruit can, pork intestines, fried food, garlic, and braised fish in brown sauce.
Table 3 Association between Methylation, MCSM, MCSHM of Genes and Risk of CRC by Age
Gene | <60 yr | ≥60 yr | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR* | 95% CI | p-value | OR* | 95% CI | p-value | |
Genes methylation† | ||||||
| 4.021 | 2.463–6.566 | 0.000 | 3.207 | 1.859–5.530 | 0.000 |
| 0.830 | 0.363–1.898 | 0.658 | 0.600 | 0.239–1.508 | 0.277 |
| 0.998 | 0.677–1.471 | 0.992 | 0.844 | 0.531–1.342 | 0.474 |
| 1.209 | 0.684–2.135 | 0.514 | 1.327 | 0.773–2.277 | 0.305 |
| 1.516 | 1.055–2.177 | 0.024 | 1.201 | 0.788–1.832 | 0.395 |
MCSM | ||||||
MCSM-L | 1.826 | 0.777–4.287 | 0.167 | 0.927 | 0.327–2.632 | 0.887 |
MCSM-H | 2.759 | 1.170–6.509 | 0.020 | 1.158 | 0.415–3.230 | 0.780 |
MCSM | 2.216 | 0.962–5.103 | 0.062 | 1.060 | 0.385–2.919 | 0.909 |
MCSHM | ||||||
MCSHM-L | 1.495 | 0.551–4.053 | 0.430 | 0.814 | 0.228–2.905 | 0.751 |
MCSHM-H | 1.347 | 0.526–3.449 | 0.535 | 0.837 | 0.280–2.505 | 0.751 |
MCSHM | 1.404 | 0.576–3.421 | 0.455 | 0.831 | 0.285–2.429 | 0.736 |
MCSM, multiple CpG site methylation; MCSHM, multiple CpG site heterogeneous methylation; CRC, colorectal cancer; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MCSM-L, low-level MCSM; MCSM-H, high-level MCSM; MCSHM-L, low-level MCSHM; MCSHM-H, high-level MCSHM.
†All the ORs were calculated by selecting unmethylation as a reference group and total positive methylation as a positive group.