Skip Navigation


Carcinogenesis Advance Access originally published online on June 19, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/9/1429    most recent
bgg104v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ahsan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Rundle, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ahsan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Rundle, A. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 24, No. 9, 1429-1434, September 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

COMMENTARY

Measures of genotype versus gene products: promise and pitfalls in cancer prevention

Habibul Ahsan1,3 and Andrew G. Rundle1,2

1 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA
2 Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, USA

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed Email: habibul.ahsan{at}columbia.edu

We present a critical assessment of the promise and pitfalls of genotype versus gene function measures in cancer epidemiology studies. While both measures have pros and cons and are complementary, in terms of potential for contributing knowledge that directly leads to prevention, we argue that attention should be given to research relating functional parameters (single protein expression, functional or phenotypic assays or patterns of gene/protein expression) to disease risk. We present the theoretical and conceptual basis of why studies focusing on polymorphisms in the low-penetrance genes may be logically less fruitful for making inroads to cancer prevention than appropriately designed studies using validated functional parameters. We then substantiate these arguments with some concrete examples based on the current literature. We also discuss the limitations of including functional parameters in epidemiological studies and technical improvements required before such studies can truly fulfil their promise. Finally, we offer some specific recommendations for future research directions in this area.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. Rundle
Molecular Epidemiology of Physical Activity and Cancer
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2005; 14(1): 227 - 236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.