A Cross-Cancer Genetic Association Analysis of the DNA Repair and DNA Damage Signaling Pathways for Lung, Ovary, Prostate, Breast, and Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA damage is an established mediator of carcinogenesis, although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified few significant loci. This cross-cancer site, pooled analysis was performed to increase the power to detect common variants of DNA repair genes associated with cancer susceptibility. METHODS: We conducted a cross-cancer analysis of 60,297 single nucleotide polymorphisms, at 229 DNA repair gene regions, using data from the NCI Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network. Our analysis included data from 32 GWAS and 48,734 controls and 51,537 cases across five cancer sites (breast, colon, lung, ovary, and prostate). Because of the unavailability of individual data, data were analyzed at the aggregate level. Meta-analysis was performed using the Association analysis for SubSETs (ASSET) software. To test for genetic associations that might escape individual variant testing due to small effect sizes, pathway analysis of eight DNA repair pathways was performed using hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: We identified three susceptibility DNA repair genes, RAD51B (P < 5.09 × 10(-6)), MSH5 (P < 5.09 × 10(-6)), and BRCA2 (P = 5.70 × 10(-6)). Hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic associations with cancer risk in the base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, mismatch repair, and homologous recombination pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Only three susceptibility loci were identified, which had all been previously reported. In contrast, hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic cancer risk associations in key DNA repair pathways. IMPACT: Results suggest that many common variants in DNA repair genes are likely associated with cancer susceptibility through small effect sizes that do not meet stringent significance testing criteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".