Review Article

Relationships between Global DNA Methylation in Circulating White Blood Cells and Breast Cancer Risk Factors

Table 2

Study Findings for demographic factors.

AuthorsMethylation TypeMeasurement methodStudy participantsFindingsComments

⁢Age

Agodi et al., 2015 [21]LINE-1Pyrosequencing177 women aged 13–50, HelsinkiNo differences

Bollati et al., 2009 [22]LINE-1Pyrosequencing718 individuals aged 55–92 from the Boston Area Normative Aging StudyNo differences

Chalitchagorn et al., 2004 [23]LINE-1COBRA PCR32 individuals ranging in age, ThailandNo differences

Duggan et al., 2014 [24]LINE-1Pyrosequencing300 overweight women aged 50–75 in the USNo differences

El-Maarri et al., 2011 [25]LINE-1Pyrosequencing, SIRPH500 individuals aged 18–64, Bonn, GermanyNo differences

Gomes et al., 2012 [26]LINE-1ELISA126 individuals aged 60–88, BrazilNo differences

Hou et al., 2010 [27]LINE-1Pyrosequencing421 individuals aged 21–79 in Warsaw, PolandNo differencesData was stratified by gender. Before stratification, association with age was significant

Hsiung et al., 2007 [28]LINE-1COBRA PCR765 individuals aged 18–75, Greater Boston Metropolitan AreaNo differencesAdjusted for sex, race, smoking, alcohol, HPV serology, dietary folate, MTHFR

Karami et al., 2015 [29]LINE-1PyrosequencingPLCO - 436 controls from individuals aged 55–74 in the US, ATBC - 575 controls from individuals aged 55–69 in FinlandPLCO: No differences
ATBC: significant difference between age groups ()
ATBC, increased age associated with higher methylation levels. Age 53-54 has 78.34 LINE-1 methylation%, 55–59 has 78.42 LINE-1 methylation%, 60–64 has 78.68 LINE-1 methylation%, 65–69 has 79.34 LINE-1 methylation%, 70–76 has 79.60 LINE-1 methylation%

Liao et al., 2011 [30]LINE-1Pyrosequencing654 individuals aged 20–79 from the Central and Eastern European Renal Cancer Study (CEERCC)No differences

Marques-Rocha et al., 2016 [31]LINE-1MS-HRM156 individuals aged 19–27, BrazilNo differences

Mirabello et al., 2010 [32]LINE-1Pyrosequencing314 individuals aged 12–75+ from the NCI Clinical Genetics Branch Familial TGTC Study in the USNo differencesAdjusted for sex

Pearce et al., 2012 [33]LINE-1Pyrosequencing228 individuals aged 49–51 from Newcastle, EnglandNo differences

Perng et al., 2014 [34]LINE-1Pyrosequencing987 adults aged 45–84 from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), NY & LANo differences

Wilhelm et al., 2010 [35]LINE-1Pyrosequencing465 individuals aged 25–74, from NHNo differences

Xu et al., 2012 [11]LINE-1Pyrosequencing1101 women aged 20–98, from The Long Island Breast Cancer Study ProjectNo differences

Zhang et al., 2011 [36]LINE-1Pyrosequencing161 individuals aged 45–75 from the North Texas Healthy Heart StudyNo differences

Zhang et al., 2012 [37]LINE-1Pyrosequencing165 individuals aged 18–78 from the COMIR (Commuting Mode and Inflammatory Response) study, NYNo differences

Zhu et al., 2012 [38]LINE-1Pyrosequencing1465 individuals total from a combination of 5 individual studies across MA; Warsaw, Poland; Milan, Italy; Brescia, Italy; Trissino, ItalyNo differences

Bollati et al., 2009 [22]AluPyrosequencing718 individuals aged 55–92 from the Boston Area Normative Aging StudySignificant differences () between age groupsIncreased age associated with an average 0.2 5-mdC percentage decrease

Fraga et al., 2005 [39]AluTotal 5-mdC content: HPCE
Sequence specific: bisulfite sequencing
80 monozygotic twins aged 3–74, SpainSignificant differences () between age groupsYoungest pairs of MZ twins epigenetically similar, whereas oldest pairs clearly distinct

Kim et al., 2010 [40]AluPyrosequencing86 individuals aged 42–69, South KoreaSignificant differences () between age groupsStatistically significant inverse association with DNA methylation. Adjusted for age

Na et al., 2014 [41]AluPyrosequencing244 women aged 20–51, KoreaNo differences

Rusiecki et al., 2008 [42]AluPyrosequencing70 individuals aged 19–67 from Greenlandic Inuit, GreenlandNo differences

Zhu et al., 2012 [38]AluPyrosequencing1465 individuals total from a combination of 5 individual studies across MA; Warsaw, Poland; Milan, Italy; Brescia, Italy; Trissino, ItalyNo differences

Choi et al., 2009 [1]5-mdCLC/ESI-MS/MS180 women aged 35–75No differences

Fraga et al., 2005 [39]5-mdCTotal 5-mdC content: HPCE
Sequence specific: bisulfite sequencing
80 monozygotic twins aged 3–74, SpainSignificant differences () between age groupsYoungest pairs of MZ twins epigenetically similar, whereas oldest pairs clearly distinct

Fuke et al., 2004 [43]5-mdCHPLC76 individuals aged 4–94Significant differences () between age groupsIncreased age associated with decreased methylation levels. Age 4–14 has 4.018% metC/dC + metC, age 16–22 has 4.03%, age 25–41 has 3.977%, and age 51–94 has 3.948%

Moore et al., 2008 [44]5-mdCHPCE, HpaII digest, densitometry397 individuals aged 20–81 from the Spanish Bladder Cancer Study, SpainNo differences

⁢Sex

Andreotti et al., 2014 [45]LINE-1Pyrosequencing676 individuals aged 55–74 from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) in the USSignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 84.2% average LINE-1 methylation%, Females had 83.5% average LINE-1 methylation%

Cash et al., 2012 [46]LINE-1Pyrosequencing528 individuals aged 25–74 from the Residents Registry of the Shanghai Municipal Government, ChinaSignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 82.09 average LINE-1 methylation%, Females had 81.53% average LINE-1 methylation%

Chalitchagorn et al., 2004 [23]LINE-1COBRA PCR32 individuals ranging in age, ThailandNo differences

El-Maarri et al., 2011 [25]LINE-1Pyrosequencing, SIRPH500 individuals aged 18–64, Bonn, GermanySignificant differences () between male and femaleAverage gender difference 0.94%

Hou et al., 2010 [27]LINE-1Pyrosequencing421 individuals aged 21–79 in Warsaw, PolandNo differences

Hsiung et al., 2007 [28]LINE-1Cobra PCR765 individuals aged 18–75, Greater Boston Metropolitan AreaSignificant differences () between “male” and “female”Not given; adjusted for age, race, smoking, alcohol, HPV serology, dietary folate, MTHFR

Karami et al., 2015 [29]LINE-1PyrosequencingPLCO, 436 controls from individuals aged 55–74 in the USPLCO, Significant differences () between male and femaleMales had 77.15% average LINE-1 methylation%, females had 76.58% average LINE-1 methylation%

Liao et al., 2011 [30]LINE-1Pyrosequencing654 individuals aged 20–79 from the Central and Eastern European Renal Cancer Study (CEERCC)Significant differences () between male and femaleMales had 81.97% average LINE-1 methylation%, females had 81.4% average LINE-1 methylation%

Mirabello et al., 2010 [32]LINE-1Pyrosequencing314 individuals aged 12–75+ from the NCI Clinical Genetics Branch Familial TGTC Study in the USSignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 79.6% average LINE-1 methylation%, females had 78.87% average LINE-1 methylation%. Adjusted for age

Pearce et al., 2012 [33]LINE-1Pyrosequencing228 individuals aged 49–51 from Newcastle, EnglandNo differences

Perng et al., 2014 [34]LINE-1Pyrosequencing987 adults aged 45–84 from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), NY & LASignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 80.94% average LINE-1 methylation%, Females had 80.54% average LINE-1 methylation%

Rusiecki et al., 2008 [42]LINE-1Pyrosequencing70 individuals aged 19–67 from Greenlandic Inuit, GreenlandSignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 79.05% average LINE-1 methylation%, Females had 77.73% average LINE-1 methylation%

Tajuddin et al., 2013 [47]LINE-1Pyrosequencing892 individuals aged 20–81 from the Spanish Bladder Cancer/EPICURO study, SpainNo differencesSignificant differences () between male and female before Bonferroni correction

Wilhelm et al., 2010 [35]LINE-1Pyrosequencing465 individuals aged 25–74, from NHSignificant differences () between male and femaleNot given

Zhang et al., 2011 [36]LINE-1Pyrosequencing161 individuals aged 45–75 from the North Texas Healthy Heart StudySignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 75% average LINE-1 methylation%, females had 73.2% average LINE-1 methylation%

Zhang et al., 2012 [37]LINE-1Pyrosequencing165 individuals aged 18–78 from the COMIR (Commuting Mode and Inflammatory Response) study, NYNo differences

Zhu et al., 2012 [38]LINE-1Pyrosequencing1465 individuals total from a combination of 5 individual studies across MA; Warsaw, Poland; Milan, Italy; Brescia, Italy; Trissino, ItalyNo differences

El-Maarri et al., 2007 [48]AluSIRPH192 individuals aged 18–43, Bonn, GermanySignificant differences () between male and femaleSlightly higher methylation in males

Kim et al., 2010 [40]AluPyrosequencing86 individuals aged 42–69, South KoreaNo differencesAdjusted for age

Rusiecki et al., 2008 [42]AluPyrosequencing70 individuals aged 19–67 from Greenlandic Inuit, GreenlandSignificant differences () between male and femaleMales had 25.35% average Alu methylation%, Females had 24.69% average Alu methylation%

Zhu et al., 2012 [38]AluPyrosequencing1465 individuals total from a combination of 5 individual studies across MA; Warsaw, Poland; Milan, Italy; Brescia, Italy; Trissino, ItalyNo differences

Fuke et al., 2004 [43]5-mdCHPLC76 individuals aged 4–94Significant differences () between male and femaleMales had metC/(dC + metC) = 4.01 ± 0.069, females had metC/(dC + metC) = 3.975 ± 0.067

⁢Race/Ethnicity

Hsiung et al., 2007 [28]LINE-1Cobra PCR765 individuals aged 18–75, Greater Boston Metropolitan AreaSignificant differences () between “non-Caucasian” and “Caucasian”Not provided; Adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol, HPV serology, dietary folate, MTHFR

Perng et al., 2014 [34]LINE-1Pyrosequencing987 adults aged 45–84 from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), NY & LASignificant differences () found between “Caucasian Whites”, “African-American Blacks”, and HispanicsCaucasian Whites had 80.5% average LINE-1 methylation%, African-American Blacks had 80.84% average LINE-1 methylation%, Hispanics had 80.75% average LINE-1 methylation%

Xu et al., 2012 [11]LINE-1Pyrosequencing1101 women aged 20–98, from The Long Island Breast Cancer Study ProjectNo differences

Zhang et al., 2011 [36]LINE-1Pyrosequencing161 individuals aged 45–75 from the North Texas Healthy Heart StudySignificant differences () found between “non-Hispanic Whites”, “non-Hispanic Blacks”, and HispanicsNon-Hispanic Whites had 75.3% average LINE-1 methylation%, non-Hispanic Blacks had 73.1% average LINE-1 methylation%, Hispanics had 74% average LINE-1 methylation%

Zhang et al., 2012 [37]LINE-1Pyrosequencing165 individuals aged 18–78 from the COMIR (Commuting Mode and Inflammatory Response) study, NYNo differences

Choi et al., 2009 [1]5-mdCLC/ESI-MS/MS180 women aged 35–75No differences

⁢Education

Agodi et al., 2015 [21]LINE-1Pyrosequencing177 women aged 13–50, HelsinkiNo differences

Hou et al., 2010 [27]LINE-1Pyrosequencing421 individuals aged 21–79 in Warsaw, PolandNo differences

Karami et al., 2015 [29]LINE-1PyrosequencingPLCO - 436 controls from individuals aged 55–74 in the US, ATBC - 575 controls from individuals aged 55–69 in FinlandPLCO -No differences
ATBC -No differences

Perng et al., 2014 [34]LINE-1Pyrosequencing987 adults aged 45–84 from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), NY & LANo differences

Zhang et al., 2011 [36]LINE-1Pyrosequencing161 adults aged 45–75 from the North Texas Healthy Heart StudyNo differences

Choi et al., 2009 [1]5-mdCLC/ESI-MS/MS180 women aged 35–75No differences