MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2886595616 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-244

Abstract 244: Pathway analysis of OncoArray data identifies biological pathways involved in lung cancer development

2018· article· en· W2886595616 on OpenAlexaff
Zhihui Wang, Ruyang Zhang, Li Su, Christopher I. Amos, David C. Christiani

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKEGGLung cancerGenome-wide association studyCancerMissing heritability problemBiologyComputational biologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismCandidate geneGeneticsGeneBioinformaticsOncologyMedicineGenotypeTranscriptomeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background:Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified susceptible loci associated with lung cancer development. However, these variants only account for a small proportion of lung cancer heritability. With the aim to identify the missing heritability, we propose to conduct pathway analysis to test the joint effects of rare and common variants using the OncoArray data. By grouping SNPs into genes and pathways, we may shed light into the underlying mechanisms for lung cancer development and identify novel candidate genes and pathways.Methods:We applied sequence kernel association test (SKAT) to the OncoArray data of the Transdisciplinary Research of Cancer in lung of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (TRICL-ILCCO) that includes 34,432 individuals (19,028 cases and 15,404 controls) across over twenty lung cancer studies. A total of 403 KEGG and Biocarta pathways containing 5,555 genes and 58,717 SNPs were included in the study. As a score-based variance-component test, SKAT calculated p values for each pathway set by fitting the null model containing only age, gender, smoking, and first three PCAs. Results:KEGG neuroactive ligand receptor interaction (p=1.18×10-4, FDR=0.0285) and KEGG pancreatic cancer pathways (p=1.41×10-4, FDR=0.0285) were significantly associated with lung cancer. Gene-based analyses found that the most significant genes on the KEGG neuroactive ligand receptor interaction pathway to be CHRNA5 (p=2.33×10-8, FDR=0.0003), CHRNA3 (p=2.85×10-7, FDR=0.0019), and CHRNB4 (p=7.49×10-7, FDR=0.0034), while the most significant genes for KEGG pancreatic cancer pathway to be BRCA2 (p=2.23×10-5, FDR=0.0505). Stratified analyses highlighted five pathways (KEGG intestinal immune network for IGA production, KEGG leishmania infection, KEGG bladder cancer, KEGG pancreatic cancer, and KEGG axon guidance) for squamous cell carcinoma and one pathway (Biocarta ACH pathway) for adenocarcinoma with FWER<0.05. Noteworthy, the most significant gene on ACH pathway for adenocarcinoma was TERT gene, whereas the top two significant pathways for squamous carcinoma shared the most significant HLA-DQA1 gene, along with 11 other HLA genes at 6p21.Conclusion:The results suggest that the underlying pathways differ by cancer cell types and further research should be conducted to investigate the effects of immune pathways and HLA genes on squamous cell carcinoma etiology. Citation Format: Zhihui Wang, Ruyang Zhang, Li Su, Rayjean Hung, Christopher Amos, David C. Christiani. Pathway analysis of OncoArray data identifies biological pathways involved in lung cancer development [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 244.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks→French-language works237,207→