Genome-wide Interaction Study with Smoking for Colorectal Cancer Risk Identifies Novel Genetic Loci Related to Tumor Suppression, Inflammation, and Immune Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is an established risk factor for colorectal cancer. However, genetically defined population subgroups may have increased susceptibility to smoking-related effects on colorectal cancer. METHODS: A genome-wide interaction scan was performed including 33,756 colorectal cancer cases and 44,346 controls from three genetic consortia. RESULTS: Evidence of an interaction was observed between smoking status (ever vs. never smokers) and a locus on 3p12.1 (rs9880919, P = 4.58 × 10-8), with higher associated risk in subjects carrying the GG genotype [OR, 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.20-1.30] compared with the other genotypes (OR <1.17 for GA and AA). Among ever smokers, we observed interactions between smoking intensity (increase in 10 cigarettes smoked per day) and two loci on 6p21.33 (rs4151657, P = 1.72 × 10-8) and 8q24.23 (rs7005722, P = 2.88 × 10-8). Subjects carrying the rs4151657 TT genotype showed higher risk (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.16) compared with the other genotypes (OR <1.06 for TC and CC). Similarly, higher risk was observed among subjects carrying the rs7005722 AA genotype (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07-1.28) compared with the other genotypes (OR <1.13 for AC and CC). Functional annotation revealed that SNPs in 3p12.1 and 6p21.33 loci were located in regulatory regions, and were associated with expression levels of nearby genes. Genetic models predicting gene expression revealed that smoking parameters were associated with lower colorectal cancer risk with higher expression levels of CADM2 (3p12.1) and ATF6B (6p21.33). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified novel genetic loci that may modulate the risk for colorectal cancer of smoking status and intensity, linked to tumor suppression and immune response. IMPACT: These findings can guide potential prevention treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".