Combination of 247 Genome-Wide Association Studies Reveals High Cancer Risk as a Result of Evolutionary Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of GLOBOCAN-2012 data shows clearly here that cancer incidence worldwide is highly related with low average annual temperatures and extreme low temperatures. This applies for all cancers together or separately for many frequent or rare cancer types (all cancers P = 9.49×10-18). Supporting fact is that Inuit people, living at extreme low temperatures, have the highest cancer rates today. Hypothesizing an evolutionary explanation, 240 cancer genome-wide association studies, and seven genome-wide association studies for cold and high-altitude adaptation were combined. A list of 1,377 cancer-associated genes was created to initially investigate whether cold selected genes are enriched with cancer-associated genes. Among Native Americans, Inuit and Eskimos, the highest association was observed for Native Americans (P = 6.7×10-5). An overall or a meta-analysis approach confirmed further this result. Similar approach for three populations living at extreme high altitude, revealed high association for Andeans-Tibetans (P = 1.3×10-11). Overall analysis or a meta-analysis was also significant. A separate analysis showed special selection for tumor suppressor genes. These results can be viewed along with those of previous functional studies that showed that reduced apoptosis potential due to specific p53 variants (the most important tumor suppressor gene) is beneficial in high-altitude and cold environments. In conclusion, this study shows that genetic variants selected for adaptation at extreme environmental conditions can increase cancer risk later on age. This is in accordance with antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".