A microRNA Transcriptome-wide Association Study of Prostate Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with increased risk of prostate cancer (PrCa), and many of these risk loci is presumed to confer regulatory effects on gene expression. While eQTL studies of long RNAs has yielded many potential risk genes, the relationship between PrCa risk genetics and microRNA expression dysregulation is understudied. We performed an microRNA transcriptome-wide association study of PrCa risk using small RNA sequencing and genome-wide genotyping data from N = 441 normal prostate epithelium tissue samples along with N = 411 prostate adenocarcinoma tumor samples from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Genetically regulated expression prediction models were trained for all expressed microRNAs using the FUSION TWAS software. TWAS for PrCa risk was performed with both sets of models using single-SNP summary statistics from the recent PRACTICAL consortium PrCa case-control OncoArray GWAS meta-analysis. A total of 613 and 571 distinct expressed microRNAs were identified in the normal and tumor tissue datasets, respectively (overlap: 480). Among these, 79 (13%) normal tissue microRNAs demonstrated significant cis-heritability (median cis-h2 = 0.15, range: 0.03–0.79) for model training. Similar results were obtained from TCGA tumor samples, with 48 (9%) microRNA expression models successfully trained (median cis-h2 = 0.14, range: 0.06–0.60). Using normal tissue models, we identified two significant TWAS microRNA associations with PrCa risk: over-expression of mir-941 family microRNAs (P TWAS = 2.9E-04) and reduced expression of miR-3617-5p (P TWAS = 1.0E-03). The TCGA tumor TWAS also identified a significant association with miR-941 overexpression (P TWAS = 9.7E-04). Subsequent finemapping of the TWAS results using a multi-tissue database indicated limited evidence of causal status for each microRNA with PrCa risk (posterior inclusion probabilities <0.05). Future work will examine downstream regulatory effects of microRNA dysregulation as well as microRNA-mediated risk mechanisms via competing endogenous RNA relationships.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".