Abstract. Peptidyl-prolylcis-trans isomerase NIMAinteracting 1 (PIN1) is a critical catalyst involved in multiple oncogenic signaling pathways. The PIN1 promoter -667T>C (rs2233679) polymorphism plays a role in cancer risk. The association between PIN1 (-667T>C) polymorphism and cancer risk has been previously investigated. However, the available results are inconclusive. To derive a more precise estimation, a meta-analysis of seven published case-control studies including 4,524 cases with different tumor types and 4,561 controls was performed. Published literature from PubMed and EMBASE was retrieved. Crude odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of the association. Overall, the results did not suggest any associations between the PIN1 promoter (-667T>C) polymorphism and cancer susceptibility (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.91-1.18 for CC vs. TT; OR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.09 for TC vs. TT; OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10 for TC/CC vs. TT; OR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.18 for CC vs. TC/TT). Further stratified analysis by cancer type, ethnicity and sample size did not reveal any significant associations in the genetic models. The results of the present study demonstrate that the PIN1 promoter (-667T>C; rs2233679) polymorphism is not associated with cancer susceptibility.

No abstract

Landslide-induced tsunamis are common natural hazards that potentially affect the safety and stability of waterfront structures. A numerical tank was constructed using FLOW-3D to investigate the hydrodynamic response of the sea-wall subjected to artificial submarine landslide-induced tsunamis, including the hydrodynamic load and wave run-up height. Initially, the landslideinduced tsunami model was calibrated using experiments to ensure high accuracy for capturing the free surface and obtaining the flow field information. Then, the sea-wall was added into the numerical tank to study the hydrodynamic response of the sea-wall. The results show that the artificial landslide successively generated two wave crests and that the hydrodynamic response of the seawall under the second crest was stronger than that under the first crest. Additionally, the effects of different influencing factors on the hydrodynamic response were discussed, respectively, and prediction equations for the hydrodynamic response considering these factors were proposed.