Association Analysis of Driver Gene–Related Genetic Variants Identified Novel Lung Cancer Susceptibility Loci with 20,871 Lung Cancer Cases and 15,971 Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: A substantial proportion of cancer driver genes (CDG) are also cancer predisposition genes. However, the associations between genetic variants in lung CDGs and the susceptibility to lung cancer have rarely been investigated. Methods: We selected expression-related single-nucleotide polymorphisms (eSNP) and nonsynonymous variants of lung CDGs, and tested their associations with lung cancer risk in two large-scale genome-wide association studies (20,871 cases and 15,971 controls of European descent). Conditional and joint association analysis was performed to identify independent risk variants. The associations of independent risk variants with somatic alterations in lung CDGs or recurrently altered pathways were investigated using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project. Results: We identified seven independent SNPs in five lung CDGs that were consistently associated with lung cancer risk in discovery (P < 0.001) and validation (P < 0.05) stages. Among these loci, rs78062588 in TPM3 (1q21.3) was a new lung cancer susceptibility locus (OR = 0.86, P = 1.65 × 10−6). Subgroup analysis by histologic types further identified nine lung CDGs. Analysis of somatic alterations found that in lung adenocarcinomas, rs78062588[C] allele (TPM3 in 1q21.3) was associated with elevated somatic copy number of TPM3 (OR = 1.16, P = 0.02). In lung adenocarcinomas, rs1611182 (HLA-A in 6p22.1) was associated with truncation mutations of the transcriptional misregulation in cancer pathway (OR = 0.66, P = 1.76 × 10−3). Conclusions: Genetic variants can regulate functions of lung CDGs and influence lung cancer susceptibility. Impact: Our findings might help unravel biological mechanisms underlying lung cancer susceptibility.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".