Abstract 1194: Cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis of more than 370,000 cases and 530,000 controls identifies multiple novel cancer risk regions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of common, low-penetrance alleles associated with cancer risk. However, known rare and common risk alleles only explain between 10% and 30% of the familial relative risk for different cancers and multiple lines of evidence indicate that many more risk alleles remain to be discovered. We have demonstrated genetic correlations between cancers, reflecting a shared genetic origin for solid tumors. These results suggest that jointly analyzing multiple cancer sites will lead to the discovery of novel risk regions. We conducted a cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis by leveraging GWAS summary statistics from 12 solid cancers (breast, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, glioma, head and neck, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate and renal cancers) with a total of 373,818 cases and 532,382 controls of European ancestry. All studies had been imputed to either 1,000 Genomes or the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. We conducted four meta-analysis using (1) fixed-effect, (2) random-effect, (3) one-sided subset (ASSET) and (4) two-sided subset (ASSET) models. The subset analysis were conducted assuming either the same direction of effects across cancers (one-sided ASSET) or allowed for opposite direction of effects across cancers (two-sided ASSET). In all analyses, we used tetrachoric correlations to account for sample overlap across cancer sites. In total, we tested 10,223,013 variants for association. We considered regions with a p-value<1.25 × 10−8 in at least one of the four meta-analysis approaches and located at least 500kb away from known cancer risk SNPs as novel. We identified eight novel regions that reached genome-wide significance. Of those eight regions, two were identified from fixed-effects meta-analysis, three from random effects meta-analysis, one from the two-sided subset analysis, and two regions (15.q15.3 and 21q22.3) were identified at p<1.25 × 10−8 in three of the meta-analysis approaches. Among novel findings is a deleterious missense variant located in RREB1 previously associated with type 2 diabetes, a deleterious missense variant located in DSTYK previously associated with waist-to-hip ratio and triglycerides, and an intergenic variant in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with variants in TMEM18, previously associated with body mass index. Other potential target genes among the newly discovered regions include TP53BP1 and PCNT, both previously implicated in carcinogenesis. Citation Format: Sara Lindström, Siddhartha Kar, Lu Wang, Constance Turman, James MacDonald, Theo Bammler, BCAC, OCAC, PRACTICAL, Jeroen Huyghe, Stephanie Schmit, Tracy A. O'Mara, Deborah J. Thompson, Puya Gharahkhani, Stuart MacGregor, Paul Brennan, Richard S. Houlston, Beatrice S. Melin, Christopher I. Amos, James McKay, Mark M. Iles, Matthew H. Law, Alison Klein, Laufey Amundadottir, Bogdan Pasaniuc, Paul Pharoah, Rayjean J. Hung, Peter Kraft. Cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis of more than 370,000 cases and 530,000 controls identifies multiple novel cancer risk regions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 1194.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».