Large-scale Integrated Analysis of Genetics and Metabolomic Data Reveals Potential Links Between Lipids and Colorectal Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of colorectal cancer is not fully understood. METHODS: Using genetic variants and metabolomics data including 217 metabolites from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1,357), we built genetic prediction models for circulating metabolites. Models with prediction R2 > 0.01 (Nmetabolite = 58) were applied to predict levels of metabolites in two large consortia with a combined sample size of approximately 46,300 cases and 59,200 controls of European and approximately 21,700 cases and 47,400 controls of East Asian (EA) descent. Genetically predicted levels of metabolites were evaluated for their associations with colorectal cancer risk in logistic regressions within each racial group, after which the results were combined by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 58 metabolites tested, 24 metabolites were significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk [Benjamini-Hochberg FDR (BH-FDR) < 0.05] in the European population (ORs ranged from 0.91 to 1.06; P values ranged from 0.02 to 6.4 × 10-8). Twenty one of the 24 associations were replicated in the EA population (ORs ranged from 0.26 to 1.69, BH-FDR < 0.05). In addition, the genetically predicted levels of C16:0 cholesteryl ester was significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk in the EA population only (OREA: 1.94, 95% CI, 1.60-2.36, P = 2.6 × 10-11; OREUR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.99-1.04, P = 0.3). Nineteen of the 25 metabolites were glycerophospholipids and triacylglycerols (TAG). Eighteen associations exhibited significant heterogeneity between the two racial groups (PEUR-EA-Het < 0.005), which were more strongly associated in the EA population. This integrative study suggested a potential role of lipids, especially certain glycerophospholipids and TAGs, in the etiology of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified potential novel risk biomarkers for colorectal cancer by integrating genetics and circulating metabolomics data. IMPACT: The identified metabolites could be developed into new tools for risk assessment of colorectal cancer in both European and EA populations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".