Identification of novel protein biomarkers and drug targets for colorectal cancer by integrating human plasma proteome with genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The proteome is a major source of therapeutic targets. We conducted a proteome-wide Mendelian randomization (MR) study to identify candidate protein markers and therapeutic targets for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) were derived from seven published genome-wide association studies (GWASs) on plasma proteome, and summary-level data were extracted for 4853 circulating protein markers. Genetic associations with CRC were obtained from a large-scale GWAS meta-analysis (16,871 cases and 26,328 controls), the FinnGen cohort (4957 cases and 304,197 controls), and the UK Biobank (9276 cases and 477,069 controls). Colocalization and summary-data-based MR (SMR) analyses were performed sequentially to verify the causal role of candidate proteins. Single cell-type expression analysis, protein-protein interaction (PPI), and druggability evaluation were further conducted to detect the specific cell type with enrichment expression and prioritize potential therapeutic targets. RESULTS: Collectively, genetically predicted levels of 13 proteins were associated with CRC risk. Elevated levels of two proteins (GREM1, CHRDL2) and decreased levels of 11 proteins were associated with an increased risk of CRC, among which four (GREM1, CLSTN3, CSF2RA, CD86) were prioritized with the most convincing evidence. These protein-coding genes are mainly expressed in tissue stem cells, epithelial cells, and monocytes in colon tumor tissue. Two interactive pairs of proteins (GREM1 and CHRDL2; MMP2 and TIMP2) were identified to be involved in osteoclast differentiation and tumorigenesis pathways; four proteins (POLR2F, CSF2RA, CD86, MMP2) have been targeted for drug development on autoimmune diseases and other cancers, with the potentials of being repurposed as therapeutic targets for CRC. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several protein biomarkers to be associated with CRC risk and provided new insights into the etiology and promising targets for the development of screening biomarkers and therapeutic drugs for CRC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".