Combined GSTM1-Null, GSTT1-Active, GSTA1 Low-Activity and GSTP1-Variant Genotype Is Associated with Increased Risk of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate specific glutathione S-transferase (GST) gene variants as determinants of risk in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (cRCC), independently or simultaneously with established RCC risk factors, as well as to discern whether phenotype changes reflect genotype-associated risk. GSTA1, GSTM1, GSTP1 and GSTT1 genotypes were determined in 199 cRCC patients and 274 matched controls. Benzo(a)pyrene diolepoxide (BPDE)-DNA adducts were determined in DNA samples obtained from cRCC patients by ELISA method. Significant association between GST genotype and risk of cRCC development was found for the GSTM1-null and GSTP1-variant genotype (p = 0.02 and p<0.001, respectively). Furthermore, 22% of all recruited cRCC patients were carriers of combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1-low activity and GSTP1-variant genotype, exhibiting 9.32-fold elevated cRCC risk compared to the reference genotype combination (p = 0.04). Significant association between GST genotype and cRCC risk in smokers was found only for the GSTP1 genotype, while GSTM1-null/GSTP1-variant/GSTA1 low-activity genotype combination was present in 94% of smokers with cRCC, increasing the risk of cRCC up to 7.57 (p = 0.02). Furthermore, cRCC smokers with GSTM1-null genotype had significantly higher concentration of BPDE-DNA adducts in comparison with GSTM1-active cRCC smokers (p = 0.05). GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms might be associated with the risk of cRCC, with special emphasis on GSTM1-null and GSTP1-variant genotypes. Combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low activity and GSTP1-variant genotypes might be considered as “risk-carrying genotype combination” in cRCC.

About the Authors:

Vesna M. Coric

Affiliations Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Tatjana P. Simic

Affiliations Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Tatjana D. Pekmezovic

Affiliations Institute of Epidemiology, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Gordana M. Basta-Jovanovic

Affiliations Institute of Pathology, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Ana R. Savic Radojevic

Affiliations Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Sanja M. Radojevic-Skodric

Affiliations Institute of Pathology, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Marija G. Matic

Affiliations Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Dejan P. Dragicevic

Affiliations Clinic of Urology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Tanja M. Radic

Affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Ljiljana M. Bogdanovic

Affiliations Institute of Pathology, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Zoran M. Dzamic

Affiliations Clinic of Urology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Marija S. Pljesa-Ercegovac

* E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Affiliations Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, Belgrade, Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University in Belgrade, Serbia

Introduction

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common adult renal neoplasm, accounts for 2–3% of all cancers and 2% of all cancer-related deaths [1–3]. Clear cell RCC (cRCC) is the most common (70–85% of all renal cancers) and, probably, the most aggressive RCC subtype, characterized by the highest rate of local invasion, metastasis and mortality [2,3]. Although substantial efforts have been made, so far, only few etiological factors, including obesity, hypertension, smoking and occupational exposure to certain toxic substances, have been identified as risk factors for RCC [2,4].

The fact that recognized risk factors for RCC development are rather common in general population, but only a small group of exposed people will eventually develop RCC, suggests that the development of RCC can be partially explained by inter-individual genetic variations. Some observations suggest that cytosolic glutathione S-transferases (GST, EC 2.5.1.18) may be implicated not only in the development, but also in the progression of RCC [5–7]. GSTs represent a large enzyme family which members catalyze the conjugation of xenobiotics, including many anticancer drugs, with GSH [8,9]. The main site for the initial glutathione conjugation of toxic compounds is generally assumed to be the liver, followed by a mandatory transfer of conjugates to the kidney [10]. Therefore, this pathway results mainly in detoxification and elimination of glutathione conjugates by the kidney [11]. However, not all reactions catalyzed by GSTs will result in detoxification. Namely, some GSTs are associated with bio-activation of occupational hazards, such as trichloroethylene, chlorophenols and pesticides [12], where the glutathione conjugate is more reactive than the parent compound. Moreover, it has been shown that the initial bio-activation step of some nephrocarcinogens can take place in the kidney itself [10,11].

Furthermore, almost all members of eight classes of the mammalian cytosolic GSTs exhibit genetic polymorphism, resulting in complete lack or lowering of enzyme activity [9,13]. As a result of polymorphic GST expression, great inter-individual differences in GST isoenzyme profiles exist in renal parenchyma [14], affecting both the biotransformation capacity of renal tissue and the potential genotoxicity of carcinogens. Since GSTs are involved in the biotransformation of several compounds recognized as risk factors for RCC [13], it is not surprising that cytosolic GST classes M1, T1 and P1 gained most attention in RCC as potential risk (GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1) and chemoresistance determinants (GSTT1 and GSTP1) [6,7,11,12]. Interestingly, alpha class of GSTs, which also posses peroxidase activity towards organic hydroperoxides and might be involved in regulation of cellular redox homeostasis in kidneys [15], has not been analyzed in such context in RCC as yet.

Furthermore, DNA adducts associated with tobacco smoking have been suggested as a marker of biologically effective dose of tobacco carcinogens that might improve individual cancer risk prediction [16]. Namely, cigarette smoke is a rich source of both free radicals, thought to be responsible for initiation of many tumors by inducing DNA damage that accumulates in cells, but also more than 60 carcinogens, among which sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity was found for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as benzo(a)pyrene [17]. Both free radicals and reactive PAH metabolites, such as [+]-anti-7,8-dihidroxy-9,10-oxy-7,8,9,10-tetrahydrobenzo(a)pyrene ([+]-anti-BPDE), a carcinogen produced from benzo(a)pyrene, are detoxified by GSTs [18,19]. So far, the relationship between GST genotype and BPDE-DNA adduct formation in determining the risk for RCC has not been evaluated in patients with cRCC.

Due to the potential functional significance of common polymorphisms in genes encoding cytosolic glutathione transferase A1, M1, T1 and P1 in the onset of cRCC, it was of high importance to carry out a comprehensive study which would simultaneously determine the presence of established risk factors and specific gene variants in these patients, as well as, discern whether phenotype changes reflect genotype-associated risk.

Materials and Methods

Study population

Newly diagnosed cases of clear cell RCC, treated at the Urology Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, between the years of 2011–2013, were enrolled into this study. The cases comprised a total of 199 subjects (133 men, 66 women; average age 58.09±11.51 years) with histologically confirmed cRCC diagnosis, according to the 2004 WHO classification of Tumors [20] and 2009 TNM classification system [21]. Acceptance rate was 93% and the most common reason for no participation was personal. The control group initially comprised 454 healthy individuals (233 men, 221 women, average age 60.40±12.31years) who had undergone surgery for benign conditions at the same clinical center. The initial control group was further matched to cRCC patients according to gender and age, and finally included 274 individuals (184 men, 90 women; average age 59.77±10.96 years) with no previous personal history of cancer. The basic demographic data and assumed risk factors for RCC (including smoking history, obesity and hypertension) were obtained from the study subjects using the structured questionnaire [22] composed at the Institute of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine University in Belgrade, during the time of blood collection. In our study, obese patients were defined as individuals with BMI above 25 and smokers as individuals who reported every day smoking during a minimum of 60-day period prior to their enrollment in the study. Further on, participants were asked about the number of cigarettes smoked per day and duration of smoking. All collected data referred to a time period prior to the diagnosis of cRCC for the cases, and a corresponding period for the controls. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical board (October 13^th, 2011, approval number 29/X-3, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia) and was performed in accordance with principles of Helsinki declaration. Informed written consent was obtained from all recruited subjects.

DNA isolation and genotyping

Genomic DNA was isolated from whole peripheral blood and non-tumour tissue samples, using DNA kit (Qiagen, USA). DNA concentration was measured on GeneQuantpro (Biochrom, England).

The DNA sequences of GSTM1 and GSTT1 were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in Mastercycler gradient thermal cycler (Eppendorf, Germany) according to the method by Abdel-Rahman et al. [23]. The multiplex PCR technique used to detect homozygous deletions of GSTM1 and GSTT1 included primers for the CYP1A1 housekeeping gene as an internal control for amplifiable DNA (Table 1).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. PCR: primer sequences, PCR conditions, restriction enzymes and fragment lengths.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t001

The analysis of the SNP GSTA1 C69T (rs3957357) was performed using PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) with Eam1104I (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) restriction enzyme according to the method by Ping et al [24] (Table 1).

For analyses of SNP GSTP1 Ile105Val (rs1695), the real-time PCR (qPCR) allelic discrimination was performed on Mastercyclerep realplex (Eppendorf, Germany) using Applied BiosystemsTaqMan^® Drug Metabolism Genotyping assay according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Life Technologies, Applied Biosystems, USA, assay ID: C__3237198_20).

Researches that performed genotyping were unaware of the case-control status, and blinded quality control samples were inserted to validate genotyping identification procedures. Concordance for blinded samples was 100%.

Determination of BPDE-DNA adducts level

BPDE-DNA adducts levels (ng/ml) were measured in all DNA samples according to the standard method provided by OxiSelect BPDE-DNA Adduct ELISA Kit (Cell Biolabs, Inc., USA).

Statistical analysis

In this study, the data of continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (minimum-maximum) whereas categorical variables were presented using frequency (n, %) counts. Distribution was tested by using graphical methods, as well as Kolmogorov—Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Differences in investigated parameters were assessed by using Student’s T test for continuous data with normal distribution and Mann—Whitney rank-sum test for continuous data with non-normal distribution. Finally, χ2 test was used for categorical variables. The genetic variants and their risk for disease were computed by odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by logistic regression analysis. With the smoking, obesity and hypertension being well established risk factors for RCC, OR was adjusted by these variables as potential confounders, as well as by age and gender. Calculations were performed using the SPSS software version 17.0 (Chicago, IL, USA). P value of ≤0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics of patients with cRCC and respective controls are shown in Table 2. As shown, cRCC patients and controls did not differ in terms of age, gender, obesity and smoking (p>0.05). However, more than half of the cases (52%) suffered from hypertension compared to controls (26%).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Baseline characteristic of patients with cRCC and respective controls.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t002

GST genotypes and cRCC risk

The frequency of GSTM1-null genotype was higher (56%) in cRCC patients than in controls (50%) and individuals with GSTM1-null genotype were at 2.07-fold higher risk of cRCC development (95%CI:1.11–3.84, p = 0.02) (Table 3). On the other hand, no significant association with cRCC risk was found for GSTT1-active genotype (OR = 1.08, 95%CI:0.52–2.27, p = 0.82). Regarding SNP polymorphisms, the obtained results showed the lack of the GSTA1 C69T polymorphism effect on cRCC risk, since the carriers of GSTA1 CT+TT (low-activity) genotype were not at increased risk of cRCC in comparison with individuals with GSTA1-active genotype (OR = 1.19, 95%CI:0.63–2.25, p = 0.58). Interestingly, carriers of GSTP1 IleVal+ValVal (variant) genotype (77% of cRCC patients compared to 58% of controls) were at 3.14-fold increased risk of cRCC (95%CI:1.54–6.43, p<0.001) (Table 3).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. GST genotypes in relation to the risk of cRCC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t003

Combined effect of GST genotypes on risk of cRCC.

Combined effect on cRCC risk was tested for all genotypes (Table 4). No significant association, in terms of cRCC risk, was established when the combined effect of any two of GSTM1, GSTA1 and GSTT1 genotypes were assessed (p>0.05). On the other hand, a statistically significant association between GST polymorphism and susceptibility to cRCC was found when the effect of GSTP1-variant genotype was analyzed in combination with the other three genotypes (GSTP1-variant and GSTM1-null OR = 11.23, 95%CI:2.62–48.08, p<0.001; GSTP1-variant and GSTA1low-activity OR = 4.93, 95%CI:1.48–16.43, p = 0.009; GSTP1-variant and GSTT1-active OR = 4.10, 95%CI:0.95–17.35, p = 0.05).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Combined effect of GST genotypes on risk of cRCC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t004

Finally, when the combined effect of all four GST genotypes was analyzed, we found striking evidence in favor of increased susceptibility to cRCC in patients with, what it seems to be, “risk carrying genotype combination”: GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low-activity and GSTP1-variant. It is important to note that such individuals comprised 22% of all recruited cRCC patients, in comparison with 12% of control subjects, and exhibited 9.32-fold elevated risk compared to carriers of combined GSTM1-active, GSTT1-null, GSTA1-active and GSTP1 wild-type genotypes (95%CI:1.08–80.18, p = 0.04, Table 5).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 5. GST genotypes in relation to the risk of cRCC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t005

Combined effect of GST polymorphism and recognized risk factors for cRCC

Results on the combined effect of GST polymorphism and exposure to recognized risk factors for cRCC development are shown in S1 Table. As presented, significant modifying effect on risk of cRCC conferred by hypertension had individuals with either GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low-activity or GSTP1-variant genotype. Namely, they were at increased risk of cRCC when compared to the normotensive GSTM1-active, GSTT1-null, GSTA1-active or GSTP1 wild-type individuals (OR = 6.01, 95%CI:2.48–14.52, p<0.001; OR = 3.27, 95%CI:1.20–8.91, p = 0.02; OR = 3.85, 95%CI:1.54–9.58, p = 0.004 and OR = 8.29, 95%CI:3.12–22.04, p<0.001 respectively, S1A Table). Another factor that contributed significantly to risk of cRCC, only in carriers of GSTP1-variant genotype, was smoking (OR = 3.70, 95%CI:1.75–7.83, p = 0.001, S1C Table).

GST genotypes and cRCC risk in smokers

Further on, we focused on the population of smokers (Table 6). Significant association between GST genotype and the risk of cRCC in smokers was found only for the GSTP1 genotype. Namely, smokers with GSTP1-variant genotype were at 2.87-fold higher risk of developing cRCC (OR = 2.87, 95%CI:1.45–5.69, p = 0.002) than smokers carrying GSTP1 wild-type genotype. Although GSTM1-null genotype did not, at least independently, significantly affect the risk of cRCC in smokers (OR = 1.71, 95%CI:0.95–3.06, p = 0.07), when present in combination with GSTP1-variant genotype, it contributed in a way that smokers with GSTM1-null/GSTP1-variant genotype exhibited 5.4–fold increased risk of cRCC (95%CI:1.74–16.98, p = 0.004) in comparison with carriers of GSTM1-active/GSTP1 wild-type genotype. In this manner, we confirmed the results obtained on the whole study population. The observed effect of combined GSTM1-null/GSTP1-variant genotype on cRCC risk was even more pronounced when GSTA1 low-activity genotype was included. Namely, GSTM1-null/GSTP1-variant/GSTA1 low-activity combination of genotypes, which was present in 94% of smokers with cRCC, as opposed to 70% in controls, increased the risk of cRCC up to 7.57 (95%CI:1.26–45.30,p = 0.02).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 6. The association between GST genotypes and the levels of BPDE-DNA adducts in cRCC smokers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.t006

The levels of BPDE-DNA adducts were initially compared between non-smokers (2.19 ng/ml (1.39–8.67)) and smokers (2.50 ng/ml (1.39–17.93)) with cRCC, however, no statistical significance was reached (p = 0.40). In an attempt to discern whether phenotype changes reflect genotype-associated risk of cRCC, comparative analysis of BPDE-DNA adduct levels in cRCC smokers who were carriers of active/wild-type versus null/low-activity/variant genotype, individually or in combination, was performed. These results have shown that smokers with GSTM1-null genotype had significantly higher concentration of BPDE-DNA adducts (2.74 ng/ml (1.64–17.93)) in comparison with GSTM1-active smokers (2.13ng/ml (1,39–5.22), p = 0.05) (Table 6).

Discussion

It has been suggested that differential GST expression in the kidney could affect the risk of RCC development. Among four common GST polymorphisms analyzed in this study, the GSTM1-null and GSTP1-variant genotypes showed a significant individual association with cRCC risk, which was even more pronounced in their combination. Furthermore, 22% of all recruited cRCC patients were carriers of combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low-activity and GSTP1-variant genotype, which might be considered as “risk-carrying genotype combination”, since these individuals had 9.32-fold increased susceptibility to cRCC.

Due to a complex process of RCC development and progression, so far, it has not been feasible to identify a single biomarker for clinical application. Hence, panel of candidate genes, with respect to their different cellular functions, are currently being investigated as the part of potential future marker profile for RCC, including GSTs [2]. However, available data on GST polymorphism and RCC are rather inconsistent.

The deletion of GSTM1 gene is one of the most investigated GST polymorphisms, since it has been suggested that a common variation within the GSTM1 gene can modify the predisposition to various cancers, including RCC [13,25]. The results of this study showed an impact of GSTM1-null genotype on cRCC risk, since carriers of this genotype were in 2.07-fold increased risk of developing clear cell RCC. Interestingly, although this result confirmed our preliminary findings on the association between GSTM1 deletion polymorphism and susceptibility to RCC [26], it seems to be in contrast to majority of available data [5,6,11,12,27–29]. However, this refers only to GSTM1-null genotype as individual risk factor for RCC, while it has been suggested that when present together with polymorphisms in certain genes related to activation or detoxification of renal carcinogens (CYP1A1, GSTT1, GSTP1, NAT2), GSTM1-null genotype is associated with risk of RCC [30]. A possible explanation for discrepancy in obtained results might be that some studies were conducted on different subtypes of RCC and not on cRCC only. Besides, patients with inter-ethnic differences might have been included althoughit has been shown that ethnicity strongly affects genetic variability of GSTs [31]. Still, further elucidation of the role of GSTM1 polymorphism in cRCC development is based on our results which have shown, for the first time in cRCC smokers, the association between the levels of BPDE-DNA adducts and GSTM1-null genotype.

Another widely investigated GST polymorphism, GSTT1, seems to be even more controversial [5,6,29]. Namely, it seems that GSTT1-active genotype is a risk factor for cRCC, since sometimes GSTT1-dependent conjugation of xenobiotics produces even more toxic compounds [13,32]. Such a mechanism would explain the greater sensitivity of GSTT1-active individuals to RCC, especially after high and long-term exposure to occupational hazards [32]. However, our results on the lack of association between the GSTT1 polymorphism and susceptibility to clear cell RCC are in agreement with the most recent meta-analysis of Yang et al. [6], although few studies have reported the association between GSTT1-active genotype independently [27] or in association with exposure to environmental or occupational hazards [11,33,34] and risk of RCC. Similar to GSTM1 polymorphism, the same variation factors might be responsible for the conflicting results.

Although it has been shown that expression of alpha class of GSTs might be used as a highly specific diagnostic marker of clear cell RCC [1], polymorphic expression of GSTA1 has not been evaluated, as yet, in these patients. This is even more surprising, considering the fact that GST alpha is predominantly expressed in the proximal convoluted tubule, the main site of nephrotoxins and renal carcinogens toxicity [35], and from which clear cell RCC originates [36,37]. However, our results have shown that GSTA1 polymorphism does not, at least independently, affect susceptibility to cRCC.

The inconsistence in the results regarding the role of GSTP1 polymorphism in risk of RCC is present, just like in other GST polymorphisms. Therefore, some of the available data suggest that GSTP1 may play a key role in the metabolism of environmental carcinogens, hence affecting the risk of RCC [27]. This is in agreement with the results obtained in our study. Namely, we have shown that carriers of GSTP1-variant genotype were in 3.14-fold increased risk of developing cRCC in comparison with carriers of GSTP1 wild-type genotype. On the contrary, some studies have shown that polymorphic expression of GSTP1 is not associated to susceptibility to RCC [6,7,12]. Once again, genetic background or environmental differences may contribute to the discrepancy in the results. However, since it is already established that, compared to normal kidney, RCC contains significantly lower GSTP1 activity [27], it is possible that GSTP1 might act as local modifier of renal cancer tumorigenesis. Despite the fact that BPDE detoxification is partially mediated by GSTP1, with the different variants showing different substrate specificity [9], we failed to find any significant correlation between GSTP1 polymorphism and BPDE-DNA adducts, suggesting that some other GSTP1 substrates might also be important in cRCC development. On the other hand, it has been shown that GSTP1 may have other functions besides detoxification [38]. Namely, GSTP1 was shown to be an endogenous inhibitor of c-Jun N-terminal kinase 1 (JNK1), a kinase involved in stress response, apoptosis and cellular proliferation [38]. Furthermore, Thevenin et al. [39] have shown that GSTP1 variant Val allele is a better JNK1 inhibitor, hence with the greater anti-apoptotic effect than the wild-type Ile allele [39].

Apart from investigating the association of specific GST polymorphisms with cRCC independently, the next step in our analysis was to evaluate the presence of any joint or linear cumulative effect of GST gene variants with respect to cRCC risk. Interestingly, we found that 22% of all recruited cRCC patients in our study were carriers of combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low-activity and GSTP1-variant genotype, suggesting that this combination of GST genotypes might be considered as „risk-carrying genotype combination” in clear cell RCC. So far, Ahmad et al. [40] have found that three-way combination of GSTM1-null, GSTT1-null and GSTP1-variant genotypes resulted in 4.5-fold increase in RCC risk, which is partially in agreement with our results, while Sweeny et al. [12] have shown an elevated risk of RCC in carriers of GSTT1-null genotype in all combinations of GSTM1 and GSTP1 genotypes. Our results on the increased risk of cRCC in carriers of GSTM1-null/GSTA1-low activity/GSTP1-variant genotype, obtained in the population of smokers, further support the results obtained on the whole study population. Unfortunately, none of the cRCC patients that were smokers had the four-way „risk-carrying genotype combination”.

Regarding combined effect of GST polymorphisms and hypertension on clear cell RCC risk, it seems that hypertension contributes to genotype-associated cRCC risk in all examined polymorphisms, once again with special emphasis on GSTM1-null and GSTP1-variant genotypes. This is probably due to significant antioxidant role of GSTs, since oxidative stress is recognized as an important pathogenetic factor in the development of hypertension [31]. In this line, it has been suggested that determination of GST genotypes may help in identifying individuals at high-risk for hypertension [41]. Recently, Manevich et al. [42] have shown that GSTP1 genetic variants differentially mediate activation of peroxiredoxin VI (PRDX6), the dual-functioning antioxidant enzyme which detoxifies lipid peroxides. Furthermore, GSTP1-variant genotype seems to be less effective in forming a heterodimer with PRDX6, implying that GSTP1-variant individuals will have significantly lower capacity for mounting an antioxidant response, particularly affecting protection of cell membranes against lipid peroxidation [42].

This study has several limitations that need to be addressed. The case-control design was used for estimating of associations between GST genotypes and risk of cRCC and therefore the selection bias might influence the results. Additionally, recall bias regarding the recognized risk factors for RCC development might have influenced the results as well. Furthermore, the data on environmental or occupational exposure were not validated, hence not used in the analysis of the obtained results. Our control group was hospital-based and relatively small. Therefore, the use of population controls may have been more appropriate. In this line, the study subjects were white only, therefore the possible effect of ethnicity could not be evaluated. Moreover, the BPDE-DNA adduct levels were not determined in control population.

In summary, despite the above-mentioned limitations, the present study supports the hypothesis that GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms might be associated to the risk of cRCC, with special emphasis on GSTM1-null and GSTP1-variant genotypes. Furthermore, combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low activity and GSTP1-variant genotypes might be considered as “risk-carrying genotype combination” in clear cell RCC. More case-control studies which would analyze the association between GST gene variants, independently or in combination, and RCC risk, conducted on larger sample sizes, which would include patients from different geographic areas, exposed to various environmental factors and occupational hazards, known to be associated to RCC development. Only in that way accurate analysis of interactions between RCC contributing factors would be possible, including gene-environmental and gene-gene interactions.

Supporting Information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 Table. (A) Combined effects of GST polymorphisms and hypertension on cRCC risk; (B) Combined effects of GST polymorphisms and obesity on cRCC risk; (C) Combined effects of GST polymorphisms and smoking on cRCC risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570.s001

(DOCX)

Author Contributions

1. Conceived and designed the experiments: MPE TS ZD TP.

2. Performed the experiments: VC TR ASR MM.

3. Analyzed the data: MPE VC TP ASR MM TR.

4. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DD GBJ SRS LB.

5. Wrote the paper: MPE VC TS ZD.

Citation: Coric VM, Simic TP, Pekmezovic TD, Basta-Jovanovic GM, Savic Radojevic AR, Radojevic-Skodric SM, et al. (2016) Combined GSTM1-Null, GSTT1-Active, GSTA1 Low-Activity and GSTP1-Variant Genotype Is Associated with Increased Risk of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160570

References

1. Searchfield L, Price SA, Betton G, Jasani B, Riccardi D, Griffiths DF. Glutathione S-transferases as molecular markers of tumour progression and prognosis in renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology. 2011;58: 180–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2559.2010.03733.x pmid:21255063

2. Protzel C, Maruschke M, Hakenberg O. Epidemiology, aetiology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol Suppl. 2012;11: 52–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.eursup.2012.05.002

3. Escudier B, Michaelson MD, Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Clark JI, Lim HY, et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial. Br J Cancer. 2014;110: 2821–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fbjc.2014.244 pmid:24823696

4. Chow WH, Dong LM, Devesa SS. Epidemiology and risk factors for kidney cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7: 245–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrurol.2010.46 pmid:20448658

5. Cheng HY, You HY and Zhou TB. Relationship between GSTM1/GSTT1 null genotypes and renal cell carcinoma risk: A meta-analysis. Ren Fail. 2012; 34: 1052–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109%2F0886022X.2012.708380 pmid:22880812

6. Yang X, Long S, Deng J, Deng T, Gong Z, Hao P. Glutathione S-Transferase Polymorphisms (GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1) and Their Susceptibility to Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e63827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063827 pmid:23717494

7. Jia CY, Liu YJ, Cong XL, Ma YS, Sun R, Fu D, et al. Association of glutathione S-transferase M1, T1 and P1 polymorphisms with renal cell carcinoma: evidence from 11 studies. Tumor Biol. 2014;35: 3867–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13277-013-1513-5

8. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jackoby WB. Glutathione S-transferases. The first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. J Biol Chem. 1974; 249: 7130–9. pmid:4436300

9. Wu B, Dong D. Human cytosolic glutathione transferases: structure, function, and drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2012;33: 656–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tips.2012.09.007 pmid:23121834

10. Green T, Dow J, Ellis MK, Foster JR, Odum J. The role of glutathione conjugation in the development of kidney tumours in rats exposed to trichloroethylene. J Chem Biol. Interact 1997 11;105: 99–117. pmid:9251723

11. Karami S, Boffetta P, Rothman N, Hung RJ, Stewart T, Zaridze D, et al. Renal cell carcinoma, occupational pesticide exposure and modification by glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms. Carcinogenesis. 2008; 29:1567–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fcarcin%2Fbgn153 pmid:18566013

12. Sweeney C, Farrow DC, Schwartz SM, Eaton DL, Checkoway H, Vaughan TL. Glutathione S-transferase M1, T1, and P1 polymorphisms as risk factors for renal cell carcinoma: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000; 9:449–54. pmid:10794492

13. Hayes JD, Strange RC. Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms and their biological consequences. Pharmacology. 2000;61: 154–166. pmid:10971201

14. Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Mimic-Oka J, Dragicevic D, Savic-Radojevic A, Opacic M, Pljesa S, et al. Altered antioxidant capacity in human renal cell carcinoma: Role of glutathione associated enzymes. Urol Oncol. 2008;26: 175–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.urolonc.2007.02.007 pmid:18312938

15. Simic T, Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Savic-Radojevic A, Hadziahmetovic M, Mimic-Oka J. Identification of a glutathione S-transferase without affinity for glutathione sepharose in human kidney. Amino Acids. 2006;30: 495–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00726-006-0329-7 pmid:16773246

16. Wiencke JK. DNA adduct burden and tobacco carcinogenesis. Oncogene. 2002;21: 7376–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.onc.1205799 pmid:12379880

17. International Agency for Research on Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, editors. Beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and exposures in the glass manufacturing industry:… views and expert opinions of an IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, which met in Lyon, 9–16 February 1993. Lyon; 1993. 444 p. ISPBN 978-92-832-1258-4

18. Filiadis I, Hrouda D. Genetic factors in chemically-induced transitional cell bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2000;86: 794–801. pmid:11069403

19. Jung I, Messing E. Molecular mechanisms and pathways in bladder cancer development and progression. Cancer Control. 2000;7: 325–34. pmid:10895126

20. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. 309 p. ISBN 978-1-4443-3241-4

21. Eble JN, Weltgesundheitsorganisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, editors. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs: [… editorial and consensus conference in Lyon, France, December 14–18, 2002]. Reprint. Lyon: IARC Press; 2006. 359 p. ISBN 978-92-832-2412-9 978-92-832-2415-0

22. Matic M, Pekmezovic T, Djukic T, Mimic-Oka J, Dragicevic D, Krivic B, et al. GSTA1, GSTM1, GSTP1, and GSTT1 polymorphisms and susceptibility to smoking-related bladder cancer: a case-control study. Urol Oncol. 2013;31: 1184–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.08.005 pmid:24075358

23. Abdel-Rahman SZ, el-Zein RA, Anwar WA, Au WW. A multiplex PCR procedure for polymorphic analysis of GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes in population studies. Cancer Lett. 1996;107: 229–33. pmid:8947518

24. Ping J, Wang H, Huang M, Liu ZS. Genetic analysis of glutathione S-transferase A1 polymorphism in the Chinese population and the influence of genotype on enzymatic properties. Toxicol Sci. 2006; 89: 438–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Ftoxsci%2Fkfj037 pmid:16280386

25. Di Pietro G, Magno LA, Rios-Santos F. Glutathione S-transferases: an overview in cancer research. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2010;6: 153–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1517%2F17425250903427980 pmid:20078251

26. Coric V, Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Matic M, Krivic B, Suvakov S, Tulic C, et al. The role of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphism in patients with renal cell carcinoma. JMB. 2010;29: 204–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478%2Fv10011-010-0025-8

27. Longuemaux S, Deloménie C, Gallou C, Méjean A, Vincent-Viry M, Bouvier R, et al. Candidate genetic modifiers of individual susceptibility to renal cell carcinoma: a study of polymorphic human xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes. Cancer Res. 1999;59: 2903–8. pmid:10383153

28. Liu R, Wang XH, Liu L, Zhou Q. No association between the GSTM1 null genotype and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13: 3109–12. pmid:22994718

29. Salinas-Sánchez AS, Sánchez-Sánchez F, Donate-Moreno MJ, Rubio-del-Campo A, Serrano-Oviedo L, Gimenez-Bachs JM, et al. GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to sporadic renal cell cancer. Urol Oncol. 2012;30: 864–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.urolonc.2010.10.001 pmid:21458313

30. De Martino M, Klatte T, Schatzl G, Remzi M, Waldert M, Haitel A, et al. Renal cell carcinoma Fuhrman grade and histological subtype correlate with complete polymorphic deletion of glutathione S-transferase M1 gene. J Urol. 2010;183: 878–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.juro.2009.11.032 pmid:20083259

31. Polimanti R, Carboni C, Baesso I, Piacentini S, Iorio A, De Stefano GF, et al. Genetic variability of glutathione S-transferase enzymes in human populations: functional inter-ethnic differences in detoxification systems. Gene. 2013;512: 102–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.gene.2012.09.113 pmid:23043933

32. Brüning T, Lammert M, Kempkes M, Thier R, Golka K, Bolt HM. Influence of polymorphisms of GSTM1 and GSTT1 for risk of renal cell cancer in workers with long-term high occupational exposure to trichloroethene. Arch Toxicol. 1997;71: 596–9. pmid:9285043

33. Brüning T, Mann H, Melzer H, Sundberg AG, Bolt HM. Pathological excretion patterns of urinary proteins in renal cell cancer patients exposed to trichloroethylene. Occup Med (Lond). 1999;49: 299–305. pmid:10628055

34. Buzio L, De Palma G, Mozzoni P, Tondel M, Buzio C, Franchini I, et al. Glutathione S-transferases M1-1 and T1-1 as risk modifiers for renal cell cancer associated with occupational exposure to chemicals. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60: 789–93. pmid:14504370 PMCID: PMC1740386

35. Dekant W. Bioactivation of nephrotoxins and renal carcinogens by glutathione S-conjugate formation. Toxicol Lett. 1993;67: 151–60. pmid:8451756

36. Simic T, Mimic-Oka J, Ille K, Savic-Radojevic A, Reljic Z. Isoenzyme profile of glutathione S-transferases in human kidney. Urol Res. 2001;29(1): 38–44. pmid:11310214

37. Simić T, Mimić-Oka J, Ille K, Dragicević D, Savić-Radojević A. Glutathione S-transferase isoenzyme profile in non-tumor and tumor human kidney tissue. World J Urol. 2003;20: 385–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00345-002-0302-3 pmid:12811499

38. Adler V, Yin Z, Fuchs SY, Benezra M, Rosario L, Tew KD, et al. Regulation of JNK signaling by GSTp. EMBO J. 1999;18: 1321–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Femboj%2F18.5.1321 pmid:10064598

39. Thévenin AF, Zony CL, Bahnson BJ, Colman RF. GST pi modulates JNK activity through a direct interaction with JNK substrate, ATF2. Protein Sci. 2011;20: 834–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fpro.609 pmid:21384452

40. Ahmad ST, Arjumand W, Seth A, Kumar Saini A, Sultana S. Impact of glutathione transferase M1, T1, and P1 gene polymorphisms in the genetic susceptibility of North Indian population to renal cell carcinoma. DNA Cell Biol. 2012;31: 636–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089%2Fdna.2011.1392 pmid:22054067

41. Oniki K, Hori M, Takata K, Yokoyama T, Mihara S, Marubayashi T, et al. Association between glutathione S-transferase A1, M1 and T1 polymorphisms and hypertension. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2008;1: 275–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FFPC.0b013e3282f56176

42. Manevich Y, Hutchens S, Tew KD, Townsend DM. Allelic variants of glutathione S-transferase P1-1 differentially mediate the peroxidase function of peroxiredoxin VI and alter membrane lipid peroxidation. Free Radic Biol Med. 2013;54: k62–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.freeradbiomed.2012.10.556