ArticleGenes & nutrition2009
Folate intake and bowel cancer risk.
Article in Genes & nutrition, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Systemic folate status, rectal mucosal folate concentration and dietary intake in patients at differential risk of bowel cancer (The FAB2 Study).European journal of nutrition · 2013Article
- Nutritional factors and gender influence age-related DNA methylation in the human rectal mucosa.Aging cell · 2013Article
- Prospective study of genomic hypomethylation of leukocyte DNA and colorectal cancer risk.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2012Article
- Validity of food frequency questionnaire estimated intakes of folate and other B vitamins in a region without folic acid fortification.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Folate is a B vitamin required for one-carbon transfer reactions including methylation of cell macromolecules including DNA and synthesis of the purines adenosine and guanosine and the pyrimidine thymidine. Epidemiological evidence suggests that diets providing higher amounts of folates lower the risk of colo-rectal cancer (CRC) and these observations are supported by plausible biological mechanisms. Inadequate folate supply results in DNA damage through (a) the incorporation of uracil (in place of thymidine) into DNA and subsequent unsuccessful attempts at DNA repair and (b) aberrant patterns of DNA methylation. However, human intervention studies using relatively large doses (500-5,000 mug/day) of folic acid (a synthetic form of folate) have provided no evidence of benefit in terms of adenoma recurrence. Indeed, there is some evidence of potential harm in increased risk of prostate cancer. Possible reasons for the apparent divergence in findings from the observational and intervention studies include the use of (unphysiologically) large doses of folic acid in the intervention studies whereas smaller intakes of food folates appeared to offer "protection" against CRC in case-control and prospective cohort studies. With intakes of folic acid greater than 400 mug/day, unmetabolised folic acid appears in peripheral blood and there are suggestions that this folic acid may have adverse effects e.g. reduced cytotoxicity of Natural Killer cells. Until the benefit-risk relationship associated with mandatory fortification with folic acid has been clarified (and, in particular, the possible risk of inducing extra cases of bowel or other cancer), it would seem wise to delay further mandatory folic acid fortification.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.