MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2473400884 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157521

Fine-Mapping of Common Genetic Variants Associated with Colorectal Tumor Risk Identified Potential Functional Variants

2016· article· en· W2473400884 on OpenAlexafffund
Mengmeng Du, Shuo Jiao, Stephanie A. Bien, Manish Gala, Gonçalo R. Abecasis, Stéphane Bezieau, Hermann Brenner, Katja Butterbach, Bette J. Caan, Christopher S. Carlson, Graham Casey, Jenny Chang‐Claude, David V. Conti, Keith R. Curtis, David Duggan, Steven Gallinger, Robert W. Haile, Tabitha A. Harrison, Richard B. Hayes, Michael Hoffmeister, John L. Hopper, Thomas J. Hudson, Mark A. Jenkins, Sébastien Küry, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Suzanne M. Leal, Polly A. Newcomb, Deborah A. Nickerson, John D. Potter, Robert E. Schoen, Fredrick R. Schumacher, Daniela Seminara, Martha L. Slattery, Li Hsu, Andrew T. Chan, Emily White, Sonja I. Berndt, Ulrike Peters

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingGroupement des Entreprises Françaises dans la lutte contre le CancerAssociation Anne de Bretagne GenetiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Human Genome Research InstituteConseil Régional des Pays de la LoireDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftState of Connecticut Department of Public HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDamon Runyon Cancer Research FoundationDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsGenome-wide association studySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsBiologyGenetic associationColorectal cancerComputational biologyBioinformaticsCancerGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with colorectal cancer risk. These SNPs may tag correlated variants with biological importance. Fine-mapping around GWAS loci can facilitate detection of functional candidates and additional independent risk variants. We analyzed 11,900 cases and 14,311 controls in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium and the Colon Cancer Family Registry. To fine-map genomic regions containing all known common risk variants, we imputed high-density genetic data from the 1000 Genomes Project. We tested single-variant associations with colorectal tumor risk for all variants spanning genomic regions 250-kb upstream or downstream of 31 GWAS-identified SNPs (index SNPs). We queried the University of California, Santa Cruz Genome Browser to examine evidence for biological function. Index SNPs did not show the strongest association signals with colorectal tumor risk in their respective genomic regions. Bioinformatics analysis of SNPs showing smaller P-values in each region revealed 21 functional candidates in 12 loci (5q31.1, 8q24, 11q13.4, 11q23, 12p13.32, 12q24.21, 14q22.2, 15q13, 18q21, 19q13.1, 20p12.3, and 20q13.33). We did not observe evidence of additional independent association signals in GWAS-identified regions. Our results support the utility of integrating data from comprehensive fine-mapping with expanding publicly available genomic databases to help clarify GWAS associations and identify functional candidates that warrant more onerous laboratory follow-up. Such efforts may aid the eventual discovery of disease-causing variant(s).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→