Prostate Cancer: Is It a Battle Lost to Age?

Age is often considered an important non-modifiable risk factor for a number of diseases, including prostate cancer. Some prominent risk factors of prostate cancer include familial history, ethnicity and age. In this review, various genetic and physiological characteristics affected due to advancing age will be analysed and correlated with their direct effect on prostate cancer

Effect of ageing and single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the risk of aggressive prostate cancer in a New Zealand population

Prostate cancer is one of the most significant male health concerns worldwide, and various researchers carrying out molecular diagnostics have indicated that genetic interactions with biological and behavioral factors play an important role in the overall risk and prognosis of this disease. Single nucleotide polymorphisms are increasingly becoming strong biomarker candidates to identify the susceptibility of individuals to prostate cancer. We carried out risk association of different stages of prostate cancer to a number of single nucleotide polymorphisms to identify the susceptible alleles in a New Zealand population and checked the interaction with environmental factors as well. We identified a number of single nucleotide polymorphisms to have associations specifically to the risk of prostate cancer and aggressiveness of the disease, and also certain single nucleotide polymorphisms to be vulnerable to the reported behavioral factors. We have addressed “special” environmental conditions prevalent in New Zealand, which can be used as a model for a bigger worldwide study

Environmental factors and risk of aggressive prostate cancer among a population of New Zealand men - a genotypic approach

Prostate cancer is one of the most significant health concerns for men worldwide. Numerous researchers carrying out molecular diagnostics have indicated that genetic interactions with biological and behavioral factors play an important role in the overall risk and prognosis of this disease. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are increasingly becoming strong biomarker candidates to identify susceptibility to prostate cancer. We carried out a gene × environment interaction analysis linked to aggressive and non-aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) with a number of SNPs. By using this method, we identified the susceptible alleles in a New Zealand population, and examined the interaction with environmental factors. We have identified a number of SNPs that have risk associations both with and without environmental interaction. The results indicate that certain SNPs are associated with disease vulnerability based on behavioral factors. The list of genes with SNPs identified as being associated with the risk of PCa in a New Zealand population is provided in the graphical abstrac

SNP-SNP interactions as risk factors for aggressive prostate cancer [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most significant male health concerns worldwide. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are becoming increasingly strong candidate biomarkers for identifying susceptibility to PCa. We identified a number of SNPs reported in genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) as risk factors for aggressive PCa in various European populations, and then defined SNP-SNP interactions, using PLINK software, with nucleic acid samples from a New Zealand cohort. We used this approach to find a gene x environment marker for aggressive PCa, as although statistically gene x environment interactions can be adjusted for, it is highly impossible in practicality, and thus must be incorporated in the search for a reliable biomarker for PCa. We found two intronic SNPs statistically significantly interacting with each other as a risk for aggressive prostate cancer on being compared to healthy controls in a New Zealand population

Correction: Vaidyanathan et al. Are We Eating Our Way to Prostate Cancer—A Hypothesis Based on the Evolution, Bioaccumulation, and Interspecific Transfer of miR-150. Non-Coding RNA 2016, 2, 2.

The authors wish to make the following correction to this paper [1].[...