Reactive oxygen species may be generated from estrogen metabolism through catechol estrogen redox cycling (1, 2). If not quenched, these reactive oxygen species may cause oxidative DNA damage and increase breast cancer risk. It has been suggested that 8-hydroxyguanine, a major product of oxidative DNA damage, plays an important role in carcinogenesis given its abundant and highly mutagenic properties (3). 8-Hydroxyguanine is subjected to base excision repair, especially via the 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (hOGG1) catalyzing the release of 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine and the cleavage of DNA at the AP site (3, 4). A common functional polymorphism (Ser326Cys) in exon 7 of the hOGG1 gene has been identified (5, 6). The Cys allele exhibits reduced DNA repair activity (5) and has been reported to be associated with the risk of cancers of the lung, prostate, esophagus, stomach, and orolarynx (6). Epidemiologic studies evaluating the hOGG1 polymorphism in relation to breast cancer risk are few and the sample sizes were small (7, 8). To evaluate the role of the Ser326Cys polymorphism and its joint effect with endogenous estrogen exposure and dietary antioxidant intake in relation to breast cancer risk, we analyzed data from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study, a large population-based case-control study.

Cases and controls in this study were participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. Detailed study methods have been published elsewhere (9). Briefly, this study included 1,459 women between the ages of 25 and 64, who were diagnosed with breast cancer between August 1996 and March 1998, and 1,556 age frequency-matched controls. Cases were identified through a rapid case-ascertainment system supplemented by the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry. Controls were selected using the Shanghai Resident Registry and were frequency matched on age (5 year intervals) to the expected age distribution of the cases. A structured questionnaire was used to elicit detailed information on demographic factors, menstrual and reproductive histories, hormone use, dietary habits, prior disease history, physical activity, tobacco and alcohol use, weight, and family history of cancer. Blood samples were obtained from 1,193 (82%) cases and 1,310 (84%) controls who completed the in-person interviews. Usual dietary habits over the past 5 years were assessed using an in-person interview with a validated quantitative food frequency questionnaire (10).

The allelic discrimination of the hOGG1 gene Ser326Cys (rs1052133) polymorphism was assessed with the ABI PRISM 7900 Sequence Detection Systems (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) using the fluorogenic 5′nuclease assay with primers and probes obtained from ABI (assay ID: C_3095552_1). The final volume for each reaction was 5 μL, consisting of 2.5 μL TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix, 0.25 μL primers/TaqMan probes mix, and 2.5 ng genomic DNA. The PCR profile consisted of an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 10 minutes and 40 cycles of 92°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. The fluorescence level was measured with the ABI PRISM 7900HT sequence detector (Applied Biosystems). Allele frequencies were determined by ABI SDS software. Genotyping data were obtained from 1,102 cases and 1,167 controls. The concordance rate for the quality control samples was 96%.

Logistic regression models conditional on age were applied to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Analyses stratified by menopausal status were conducted to examine the homogeneity of the association. Additional analyses stratified by years of menstruation, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and intake of fruits, vegetables, or antioxidant vitamins were conducted to evaluate the potential modifying effects. A composite dietary antioxidant index was derived to incorporate information of intake of four antioxidant nutrients (i.e., selenium and vitamins A, C, and E; refs. 11, 12). All statistical tests were two sided.

Genotype distribution of the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism followed Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for both cases and controls. No apparent difference in genotype frequencies between cases and controls was observed. Overall, the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism was not associated with breast cancer risk (Table 1).

Table 1.

Association of the hOGG1 polymorphism with breast cancer risk, the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study

Case (n = 1,102)Control (n = 1,167)Odds ratio* (95% confidence interval)
All subjects    
    Ser/Ser 186 214 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 534 537 1.17 (0.93-1.47) 
    Cys/Cys 382 416 1.06 (0.83-1.35) 
Premenopausal women    
    Ser/Ser 130 138 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 347 344 1.08 (0.81-1.43) 
    Cys/Cys 255 268 0.99 (0.74-1.34) 
Postmenopausal women    
    Ser/Ser 54 74 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 186 191 1.37 (0.91-2.07) 
    Cys/Cys 126 148 1.18 (0.77-1.81) 
Case (n = 1,102)Control (n = 1,167)Odds ratio* (95% confidence interval)
All subjects    
    Ser/Ser 186 214 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 534 537 1.17 (0.93-1.47) 
    Cys/Cys 382 416 1.06 (0.83-1.35) 
Premenopausal women    
    Ser/Ser 130 138 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 347 344 1.08 (0.81-1.43) 
    Cys/Cys 255 268 0.99 (0.74-1.34) 
Postmenopausal women    
    Ser/Ser 54 74 1.00 (reference) 
    Ser/Cys 186 191 1.37 (0.91-2.07) 
    Cys/Cys 126 148 1.18 (0.77-1.81) 
*

Adjusted for age, education level, menopausal status, and age at first live birth.

As shown in Table 2, no significant interaction was found between the hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and endogenous estrogen exposure–related factors (Pfor interaction > 0.15). Similarly, no significant interaction was found between this polymorphism and the intakes of dietary antioxidant nutrients and dietary antioxidant index (Pfor interaction > 0.13).

Table 2.

Associations of breast cancer with the hOGG1 gene polymorphism, stratified by lifestyle factors, the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study

hOGG1 polymorphism
Pfor interaction
Ser/SerSer/CysCys/Cys
Years of menstruation*     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.41 (0.85-2.33) 1.21 (0.71-2.04) 0.288 
    Q2 2.63 (1.44-4.81) 1.91 (1.14-3.19) 2.26 (1.32-3.85)  
    Q3 1.90 (1.02-3.55) 2.40 (1.40-4.10) 1.97 (1.12-3.47)  
    Q4 1.70 (0.91-3.20) 2.69 (1.54-4.70) 2.12 (1.20-3.75)  
Body mass index     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.38 (0.84-2.27) 0.98 (0.59-1.65) 0.396 
    Q2 1.36 (0.77-2.40) 1.17 (0.72-1.91) 1.48 (0.89-2.47)  
    Q3 1.18 (0.65-2.14) 1.40 (0.85-2.28) 1.31 (0.79-2.19)  
    Q4 1.22 (0.69-2.18) 1.74 (1.07-2.84) 1.39 (0.84-2.32)  
Waist-to-hip ratio     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.03 (0.62-1.70) 1.45 (0.85-2.47) 0.157 
    Q2 1.08 (0.58-1.98) 1.80 (1.10-2.98) 1.15 (0.68-1.94)  
    Q3 1.44 (0.81-2.57) 1.64 (0.99-2.72) 1.40 (0.84-2.33)  
    Q4 1.61 (0.91-2.85) 1.72 (1.05-2.82) 1.59 (0.94-2.68)  
Carotene     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.86 (0.54-1.37) 1.15 (0.70-1.88) 0.254 
    Q2 1.09 (0.62-1.91) 1.20 (0.75-1.92) 0.95 (0.59-1.53)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.55-1.63) 1.14 (0.72-1.82) 1.00 (0.61-1.62)  
    Q4 0.73 (0.41-1.30) 1.21 (0.76-1.91) 0.90 (0.55-1.46)  
Vitamin C     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.81 (0.50-1.29) 1.12 (0.69-1.81) 0.134 
    Q2 0.95 (0.54-1.68) 1.33 (0.85-2.09) 0.83 (0.51-1.35)  
    Q3 0.83 (0.48-1.44) 1.01 (0.63-1.61) 0.96 (0.60-1.56)  
    Q4 0.86 (0.49-1.49) 1.07 (0.67-1.69) 0.92 (0.57-1.49)  
Vitamin E     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (0.64-1.55) 0.84 (0.53-1.33) 0.820 
    Q2 0.66 (0.38-1.15) 0.85 (0.55-1.32) 0.91 (0.57-1.46)  
    Q3 0.62 (0.35-1.08) 0.71 (0.46-1.12) 0.68 (0.43-1.08)  
    Q4 0.70 (0.41-1.21) 0.93 (0.60-1.45) 0.74 (0.47-1.18)  
Fruits and vegetables     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.84 (0.53-1.34) 1.06 (0.66-1.72) 0.188 
    Q2 0.62 (0.35-1.11) 1.09 (0.68-1.73) 0.68 (0.41-1.11)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.54-1.62) 1.09 (0.69-1.73) 0.92 (0.57-1.48)  
    Q4 0.91 (0.52-1.59) 1.01 (0.64-1.60) 1.00 (0.62-1.62)  
Antioxidant index     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.93 (0.58-1.51) 0.99 (0.59-1.65) 0.919 
    Q2 1.15 (0.65-2.04) 1.29 (0.80-2.08) 1.15 (0.71-1.88)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.54-1.64) 1.28 (0.80-2.06) 1.12 (0.68-1.86)  
    Q4 1.09 (0.62-1.94) 1.36 (0.85-2.19) 1.11 (0.68-1.80)  
hOGG1 polymorphism
Pfor interaction
Ser/SerSer/CysCys/Cys
Years of menstruation*     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.41 (0.85-2.33) 1.21 (0.71-2.04) 0.288 
    Q2 2.63 (1.44-4.81) 1.91 (1.14-3.19) 2.26 (1.32-3.85)  
    Q3 1.90 (1.02-3.55) 2.40 (1.40-4.10) 1.97 (1.12-3.47)  
    Q4 1.70 (0.91-3.20) 2.69 (1.54-4.70) 2.12 (1.20-3.75)  
Body mass index     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.38 (0.84-2.27) 0.98 (0.59-1.65) 0.396 
    Q2 1.36 (0.77-2.40) 1.17 (0.72-1.91) 1.48 (0.89-2.47)  
    Q3 1.18 (0.65-2.14) 1.40 (0.85-2.28) 1.31 (0.79-2.19)  
    Q4 1.22 (0.69-2.18) 1.74 (1.07-2.84) 1.39 (0.84-2.32)  
Waist-to-hip ratio     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.03 (0.62-1.70) 1.45 (0.85-2.47) 0.157 
    Q2 1.08 (0.58-1.98) 1.80 (1.10-2.98) 1.15 (0.68-1.94)  
    Q3 1.44 (0.81-2.57) 1.64 (0.99-2.72) 1.40 (0.84-2.33)  
    Q4 1.61 (0.91-2.85) 1.72 (1.05-2.82) 1.59 (0.94-2.68)  
Carotene     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.86 (0.54-1.37) 1.15 (0.70-1.88) 0.254 
    Q2 1.09 (0.62-1.91) 1.20 (0.75-1.92) 0.95 (0.59-1.53)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.55-1.63) 1.14 (0.72-1.82) 1.00 (0.61-1.62)  
    Q4 0.73 (0.41-1.30) 1.21 (0.76-1.91) 0.90 (0.55-1.46)  
Vitamin C     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.81 (0.50-1.29) 1.12 (0.69-1.81) 0.134 
    Q2 0.95 (0.54-1.68) 1.33 (0.85-2.09) 0.83 (0.51-1.35)  
    Q3 0.83 (0.48-1.44) 1.01 (0.63-1.61) 0.96 (0.60-1.56)  
    Q4 0.86 (0.49-1.49) 1.07 (0.67-1.69) 0.92 (0.57-1.49)  
Vitamin E     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (0.64-1.55) 0.84 (0.53-1.33) 0.820 
    Q2 0.66 (0.38-1.15) 0.85 (0.55-1.32) 0.91 (0.57-1.46)  
    Q3 0.62 (0.35-1.08) 0.71 (0.46-1.12) 0.68 (0.43-1.08)  
    Q4 0.70 (0.41-1.21) 0.93 (0.60-1.45) 0.74 (0.47-1.18)  
Fruits and vegetables     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.84 (0.53-1.34) 1.06 (0.66-1.72) 0.188 
    Q2 0.62 (0.35-1.11) 1.09 (0.68-1.73) 0.68 (0.41-1.11)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.54-1.62) 1.09 (0.69-1.73) 0.92 (0.57-1.48)  
    Q4 0.91 (0.52-1.59) 1.01 (0.64-1.60) 1.00 (0.62-1.62)  
Antioxidant index     
    Q1 1.00 (reference) 0.93 (0.58-1.51) 0.99 (0.59-1.65) 0.919 
    Q2 1.15 (0.65-2.04) 1.29 (0.80-2.08) 1.15 (0.71-1.88)  
    Q3 0.94 (0.54-1.64) 1.28 (0.80-2.06) 1.12 (0.68-1.86)  
    Q4 1.09 (0.62-1.94) 1.36 (0.85-2.19) 1.11 (0.68-1.80)  

NOTE: The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) and P values for interaction test were derived from logistic models, adjusting for age, education level, menopausal status, and age at first live birth. The cut points for categorical variables were based on quartile distributions among controls.

*

Years of menstruation = menopausal age or age at interview for premenopausal women − menarche age.

Dietary antioxidant index was derived using the method described in Material and Method section.

In this large-scale, population-based case-control study conducted among Chinese women, we did not find hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism to be associated with breast cancer risk. Our result was supported by the reports from a case-control study conducted in Korean and Japanese populations (7) and a nested case-control study conducted in Denmark (8). The sample sizes of these two previous studies were small. We also did not find any significant interaction between this polymorphism and endogenous estrogen exposure–related factors or dietary antioxidant intake on breast cancer risk. The Ser326Cys polymorphism has been well documented to be related to major functional changes in the hOGG1 gene (5). The hOGG1 gene has been well characterized and no other major functional single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been found in the Chinese population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/). Therefore, it is unlikely that other polymorphisms in this gene would be related to a substantial risk of breast cancer.

The current study has many strengths: (a) the large sample size—our study has 80% statistical power to detect an odds ratio of 1.27 for any genotype of this polymorphism at a significance level of 0.05; (b) high participation rate and population-based study design, which reduce potential selection bias; (c) minimal confounding from ethnicity because >98% of women living in Shanghai are classified into a single ethnic group (Han Chinese); and (d) the extensive information on lifestyle factors which allowed a comprehensive evaluation of their interaction or confounding effects on the association of genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. The risk estimates derived from age-adjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were similar, indicating that the confounding effect is unlikely to be a concern in this study.

In summary, the functional Ser326Cys polymorphism in the hOGG1 gene may not play a substantial role in the risk of breast cancer among Chinese women.

Grant support: National Cancer Institute grants RO1CA64277 and RO1CA90899 and U.S. Department of Defense grant DAMA17-02-1-0603.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

We thank Dr. Fan Jin for her valuable contribution in coordination the field operation and Allison Rosenberg for technical assistance in manuscript preparation. This study could not have been possible without the support of all the study participants and research staff of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study.

1
Roy D, Liehr JG. Estrogen, DNA damage and mutation.
Mutat Res
1999
;
424
:
107
–15.
2
Yoshie Y, Ohshima H. Synergistic induction of DNA strand breakage by catechol-estrogen and nitric oxide: implications for hormonal carcinogenesis.
Free Radic Biol Med
1998
;
24
:
341
–8.
3
Floyd RA. The role of 8-hydroxyguanine in carcinogenesis.
Carcinogenesis
1990
;
11
:
1447
–50.
4
Boiteux S, Radicella P. The human OGG1 gene: structure, functions, and its implication in the process of carcinogenesis.
Arch Biochem Biophys
2000
;
377
:
1
–8.
5
Kohno T, Shinmura K, Tosaka M, et al. Genetic polymorphisms and alternative splicing of the hOGG1 gene, that is involved in the repair of 8-hydroxyguanine in damaged DNA.
Oncogene
1998
;
16
:
3219
–25.
6
Weiss JM, Goode EL, Ladiges WC, Ulrich CM. Polymorphic variation in hOGG1 and risk of cancer: a review of the functional and epidemiologic literature.
Mol Carcinog
2005
;
42
:
127
–41.
7
Choi JY, Hamajima N, Tajima K, et al. hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk among Asian women.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2003
;
79
:
59
–62.
8
Vogel U, Nexo BA, Olsen A, et al. No association between OGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism and breast cancer risk.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2003
;
12
:
170
–1.
9
Gao YT, Shu XO, Dai Q, et al. Association of menstrual and reproductive factors with breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study.
Int J Cancer
2000
;
87
:
295
–300.
10
Shu XO, Yang G, Jin F, et al. Validity and reproducibility of the food frequency questionnaire used in the Shanghai Women's Health Study.
Eur J Clin Nutr
2004
;
58
:
17
–23.
11
Wright ME, Mayne ST, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, et al. Development of a comprehensive dietary antioxidant index and application to lung cancer risk in a cohort of male smokers.
Am J Epidemiol
2004
;
160
:
68
–76.
12
Cai Q, Shu XO, Wen W, et al. Genetic polymorphism in the manganese superoxide dismutase gene, antioxidant intake, and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study.
Breast Cancer Res
2004
;
6
:
R647
–55.