Back

Genotype-Dependent Dysregulation of the MDM2-p53 Axis and Breast Cancer Susceptibility in Bangladeshi Women: A Cas-Control Study

Chowdhury, M. H.; Islam, F.; Khan, A. A.; Siddique, M. A.; Hasan, N. B.; Samrat, M. I.; Tanisha, M. H.; Tasnim, J.; Mahjabin, S.; Islam, M. N.; Haque, M. A.

2026-05-21 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.05.18.726100 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe MDM2-p53 signaling pathway plays a central role in tumor suppression, and genetic variants that disrupt this pathway may influence breast cancer (BC) susceptibility. However, data from South Asian populations, particularly Bangladesh, remain limited. MethodsA case-control study was conducted in Bangladeshi women, including BC patients and healthy controls (HCs). Genotyping of MDM2 polymorphisms was performed using PCR-based methods. Circulating MDM2 and p53 protein levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Associations between genotype, protein levels, BC status, and clinicopathological features were evaluated using appropriate statistical models. ResultsA strong and genotype-specific association was observed for MDM2 rs2279744. Women carrying the heterozygous TG genotype had a markedly increased risk of BC across additive, dominant, and over-dominant models, whereas the GG genotype showed a protective effect under the recessive model. In contrast, rs937282 did not show a significant association with BC risk. Circulating MDM2 levels were significantly elevated in patients compared with controls and varied by rs2279744 genotype, while circulating p53 levels showed an opposite trend. A strong inverse correlation was observed between serum MDM2 and p53 levels, supporting dysregulation of the MDM2-p53 feedback loop. Elevated MDM2 levels were also noted in HER2-positive and triple-positive BC subtypes. ConclusionTogether, these findings indicate that the MDM2 rs2279744 polymorphism contributes to BC susceptibility in a genotype-specific manner, likely through disruption of the MDM2-p53 regulatory balance. However, the absence of functional validation limits direct causal inference.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.3%
2
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
4
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.5%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
Gene Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
10
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
11
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
12
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
15
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
16
Gene
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Bioscience Reports
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
23
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
Molecular Biology Reports
19 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%