Identification of shared and unique susceptibility pathways among cancers of the lung, breast, and prostate from genome-wide association studies and tissue-specific protein interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have indicated that strong single-gene effects are the exception, not the rule, for most diseases. We assessed the joint effects of germline genetic variations through a pathway-based approach that considers the tissue-specific contexts of GWAS findings. From GWAS meta-analyses of lung cancer (12 160 cases/16 838 controls), breast cancer (15 748 cases/18 084 controls) and prostate cancer (14 160 cases/12 724 controls) in individuals of European ancestry, we determined the tissue-specific interaction networks of proteins expressed from genes that are likely to be affected by disease-associated variants. Reactome pathways exhibiting enrichment of proteins from each network were compared across the cancers. Our results show that pathways associated with all three cancers tend to be broad cellular processes required for growth and survival. Significant examples include the nerve growth factor (P = 7.86 × 10(-33)), epidermal growth factor (P = 1.18 × 10(-31)) and fibroblast growth factor (P = 2.47 × 10(-31)) signaling pathways. However, within these shared pathways, the genes that influence risk largely differ by cancer. Pathways found to be unique for a single cancer focus on more specific cellular functions, such as interleukin signaling in lung cancer (P = 1.69 × 10(-15)), apoptosis initiation by Bad in breast cancer (P = 3.14 × 10(-9)) and cellular responses to hypoxia in prostate cancer (P = 2.14 × 10(-9)). We present the largest comparative cross-cancer pathway analysis of GWAS to date. Our approach can also be applied to the study of inherited mechanisms underlying risk across multiple diseases in general.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".