MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200349209 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1097039/v1

Interactions Between Folate Intake and Genetic Predictors of Gene Expression Levels Associated with Colorectal Cancer Risk

2021· preprint· en· W4200349209 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron B. Haas, Yu‐Ru Su, Paneen S. Petersen, Xiaoliang Wang, Stephanie A. Bien, Yi Lin, Demetrius Albanes, Stephanie J. Weinstein, Mark A. Jenkins, Jane C. Figueiredo, Polly A. Newcomb, Graham Casey, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Peter T. Campbell, Ulrike Peters, Li Hsu, Vı́ctor Moreno, John D. Potter, Lori C. Sakoda, Martha L. Slattery, Andrew T. Chan, Li Li, Graham G. Giles, Roger L. Milne, Stephen B. Gruber, Gad Rennert, Michael O. Woods, Steven Gallinger, Sonja I. Berndt, Richard B. Hayes, Wen‐Yi Huang, Alicja Wolk, Emily White, Hongmei Nan, Rami Nassir, Noralane M. Lindor, Juan Pablo Lewinger, Andrew E Kim, David V. Conti, W. James Gauderman, Daniel D. Buchanan

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Cancer InstituteOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCancer Council VictoriaGénome QuébecCenters for Disease Control and PreventionDamon Runyon Cancer Research FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAmerican Cancer SocietyJohns Hopkins UniversityMcGill UniversityDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer InstituteCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsColorectal cancerGeneGene expressionOncologyGeneticsBiologyCancerMedicineBioinformaticsInternal medicinePhysiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Observational studies have shown higher folate consumption to be associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Understanding whether and how genetic risk factors interact with folate could further elucidate the underlying mechanism. Aggregating functionally relevant genetic variants in set-based variant testing has higher power to detect gene-environment (GxE) interactions and may provide information on the underlying biological pathway. Objective We investigated interactions between folate consumption and predicted gene expression on colorectal cancer risk across the genome. Methods We used variant weights from the PrediXcan models of colon tissue-specific gene expression as a priori variant information for a set-based GxE approach. We harmonized total folate intake (mcg/day) based on dietary intake and supplemental use across cohort and case-control studies and calculated sex and study specific quantiles. Analyses were performed using a mixed effects score tests for interactions between folate and genetically predicted expression of 4,839 genes with available genetically predicted expression. We meta-analyzed results across 23 studies for a total of 13,498 cases with colorectal tumors and 13,918 controls of European ancestry. Results We found suggestive evidence of interaction with folate intake for genes including glutathione S-Transferase Alpha 1 (GSTA1; p=4.3E-4), Tonsuko Like, DNA Repair Protein (TONSL; p=4.3E-4), and Aspartylglucosaminidase (AGA: p=4.5E-4). Glutathione is an antioxidant, preventing cellular damage and is a downstream metabolite of homocysteine and metabolized by GSTA1. TONSL is part of a complex that functions in the recovery of double strand breaks and AGA plays a role in lysosomal breakdown of glycoprotein. Conclusion We identified three genes involved in preventing or repairing DNA damage that may interact with folate consumption to alter CRC risk.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207