[Development of stomatological aid in Bulgarian Democratic Republic].

B. Bojanov

1952-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Junyi Xin,Mulong Du,Dongying Gu,Kewei Jiang,Mengyun Wang,Mingjuan Jin,Yeting Hu,Shuai Ben,Silu Chen,Wei Shao,Shuwei Li,Haiyan Chu,Linjun Zhu,Chen Li,Kun Chen,Kefeng Ding,Zhengdong Zhang,Hongbing Shen,Meilin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01156-9

IF: 15.266

2023-01-01

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Background The genetic architectures of colorectal cancer are distinct across different populations. To date, the majority of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are derived from European (EUR) populations, which limits their accurate extrapolation to other populations. Here, we aimed to generate a PRS by incorporating East Asian (EAS) and EUR ancestry groups and validate its utility for colorectal cancer risk assessment among different populations. Methods A large-scale colorectal cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS), harboring 35,145 cases and 288,934 controls from EAS and EUR populations, was used for the EAS-EUR GWAS meta-analysis and the construction of candidate EAS-EUR PRSs via different approaches. The performance of each PRS was then validated in external GWAS datasets of EAS (727 cases and 1452 controls) and EUR (1289 cases and 1284 controls) ancestries, respectively. The optimal PRS was further tested using the UK Biobank longitudinal cohort of 355,543 individuals and ultimately applied to stratify individual risk attached by healthy lifestyle. Results In the meta-analysis across EAS and EUR populations, we identified 48 independent variants beyond genome-wide significance ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) at previously reported loci. Among 26 candidate EAS-EUR PRSs, the PRS-CSx approach-derived PRS (defined as PRS CSx ) that harbored genome-wide variants achieved the optimal discriminatory ability in both validation datasets, as well as better performance in the EAS population compared to the PRS derived from known variants. Using the UK Biobank cohort, we further validated a significant dose-response effect of PRS CSx on incident colorectal cancer, in which the risk was 2.11- and 3.88-fold higher in individuals with intermediate and high PRS CSx than in the low score subgroup ( P trend = 8.15 × 10 −53 ). Notably, the detrimental effect of being at a high genetic risk could be largely attenuated by adherence to a favorable lifestyle, with a 0.53% reduction in 5-year absolute risk. Conclusions In summary, we systemically constructed an EAS-EUR PRS to effectively stratify colorectal cancer risk, which highlighted its clinical implication among diverse ancestries. Importantly, these findings also supported that a healthy lifestyle could reduce the genetic impact on incident colorectal cancer.
Evaluating the predictive value of genetic risk score in colorectal cancer among Chinese Han population

Ding Ye,Danjie Jiang,Simeng Gu,Yingying Mao,Sangni Qian,Shujuan Lin,Qilong Li,Jinhua Yang,Kunhong Zhong,Mingjuan Jin,Kun Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-019-0703-4

2019-01-01

Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract:Increasing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified to be associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to investigate whether genetic risk scores (GRS) that aggregate information from multiple genetic variants can predict the risk of CRC in a Chinese population. Fifty candidate SNPs were selected to explore the associations with CRC in a discovery sample with 1002 CRC cases and 999 healthy controls. We modeled the significant SNPs identified by the case–control study as a multilocus weighted GRS and estimated the association of GRS with CRC. Furthermore, 300 pairs of cases and controls were included as a validation sample to confirm the finding. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to evaluate the predictive power of GRS in CRC. A total of seven SNPs were found to increase the risk of CRC, and two SNPs were found to be negatively associated with CRC in the discovery sample. Relative to participants with the lowest quartile of GRS, those with the highest quartile had a 2.64-fold (95% CI: 1.99–3.51) higher risk for CRC. For every 0.1 point of GRS increase, the risk of CRC increase by 11% (95% CI: 8–14%). AUROC for GRS alone were 0.59 (95% CI: 0.57–0.62) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.46–0.58) in the discovery and validation sample, respectively. AUROC increased to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59–0.64) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65–0.76) by combining environmental risk factors. Our findings support an association between GRS and risk of CRC, which provides evidence of improved prediction model for CRC in China.
Fine-mapping analysis including over 254,000 East Asian and European descendants identifies 136 putative colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

Zhishan Chen,Xingyi Guo,Ran Tao,Jeroen R. Huyghe,Philip J. Law,Ceres Fernandez-Rozadilla,Jie Ping,Guochong Jia,Jirong Long,Chao Li,Quanhu Shen,Yuhan Xie,Maria N. Timofeeva,Minta Thomas,Stephanie L. Schmit,Virginia Díez-Obrero,Matthew Devall,Ferran Moratalla-Navarro,Juan Fernandez-Tajes,Claire Palles,Kitty Sherwood,Sarah E. W. Briggs,Victoria Svinti,Kevin Donnelly,Susan M. Farrington,James Blackmur,Peter G. Vaughan-Shaw,Xiao-Ou Shu,Yingchang Lu,Peter Broderick,James Studd,Tabitha A. Harrison,David V. Conti,Fredrick R. Schumacher,Marilena Melas,Gad Rennert,Mireia Obón-Santacana,Vicente Martín-Sánchez,Jae Hwan Oh,Jeongseon Kim,Sun Ha Jee,Keum Ji Jung,Sun-Seog Kweon,Min-Ho Shin,Aesun Shin,Yoon-Ok Ahn,Dong-Hyun Kim,Isao Oze,Wanqing Wen,Keitaro Matsuo,Koichi Matsuda,Chizu Tanikawa,Zefang Ren,Yu-Tang Gao,Wei-Hua Jia,John L. Hopper,Mark A. Jenkins,Aung Ko Win,Rish K. Pai,Jane C. Figueiredo,Robert W. Haile,Steven Gallinger,Michael O. Woods,Polly A. Newcomb,David Duggan,Jeremy P. Cheadle,Richard Kaplan,Rachel Kerr,David Kerr,Iva Kirac,Jan Böhm,Jukka-Pekka Mecklin,Pekka Jousilahti,Paul Knekt,Lauri A. Aaltonen,Harri Rissanen,Eero Pukkala,Johan G. Eriksson,Tatiana Cajuso,Ulrika Hänninen,Johanna Kondelin,Kimmo Palin,Tomas Tanskanen,Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo,Satu Männistö,Demetrius Albanes,Stephanie J. Weinstein,Edward Ruiz-Narvaez,Julie R. Palmer,Daniel D. Buchanan,Elizabeth A. Platz,Kala Visvanathan,Cornelia M. Ulrich,Erin Siegel,Stefanie Brezina,Andrea Gsur,Peter T. Campbell,Jenny Chang-Claude,Michael Hoffmeister,Hermann Brenner,Martha L. Slattery,John D. Potter,Kostas K. Tsilidis,Matthias B. Schulze,Marc J. Gunter,Neil Murphy,Antoni Castells,Sergi Castellví-Bel,Leticia Moreira,Volker Arndt,Anna Shcherbina,D. Timothy Bishop,Graham G. Giles,Melissa C. Southey,Gregory E. Idos,Kevin J. McDonnell,Zomoroda Abu-Ful,Joel K. Greenson,Katerina Shulman,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Kenneth Offit,Yu-Ru Su,Robert Steinfelder,Temitope O. Keku,Bethany van Guelpen,Thomas J. Hudson,Heather Hampel,Rachel Pearlman,Sonja I. Berndt,Richard B. Hayes,Marie Elena Martinez,Sushma S. Thomas,Paul D. P. Pharoah,Susanna C. Larsson,Yun Yen,Heinz-Josef Lenz,Emily White,Li Li,Kimberly F. Doheny,Elizabeth Pugh,Tameka Shelford,Andrew T. Chan,Marcia Cruz-Correa,Annika Lindblom,David J. Hunter,Amit D. Joshi,Clemens Schafmayer,Peter C. Scacheri,Anshul Kundaje,Robert E. Schoen,Jochen Hampe,Zsofia K. Stadler,Pavel Vodicka,Ludmila Vodickova,Veronika Vymetalkova,Christopher K. Edlund,W. James Gauderman,David Shibata,Amanda Toland,Sanford Markowitz,Andre Kim,Stephen J. Chanock,Franzel van Duijnhoven,Edith J. M. Feskens,Lori C. Sakoda,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Alicja Wolk,Barbara Pardini,Liesel M. FitzGerald,Soo Chin Lee,Shuji Ogino,Stephanie A. Bien,Charles Kooperberg,Christopher I. Li,Yi Lin,Ross Prentice,Conghui Qu,Stéphane Bézieau,Taiki Yamaji,Norie Sawada,Motoki Iwasaki,Loic Le Marchand,Anna H. Wu,Chenxu Qu,Caroline E. McNeil,Gerhard Coetzee,Caroline Hayward,Ian J. Deary,Sarah E. Harris,Evropi Theodoratou,Stuart Reid,Marion Walker,Li Yin Ooi,Ken S. Lau,Hongyu Zhao,Li Hsu,Qiuyin Cai,Malcolm G. Dunlop,Stephen B. Gruber,Richard S. Houlston,Victor Moreno,Graham Casey,Ulrike Peters,Ian Tomlinson,Wei Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47399-x

IF: 16.6

2024-04-26

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 common genetic variants independently associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, but the causal variants and target genes are mostly unknown. We sought to fine-map all known CRC risk loci using GWAS data from 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of East Asian and European ancestry. Our stepwise conditional analyses revealed 238 independent association signals of CRC risk, each with a set of credible causal variants (CCVs), of which 28 signals had a single CCV. Our cis-eQTL/mQTL and colocalization analyses using colorectal tissue-specific transcriptome and methylome data separately from 1299 and 321 individuals, along with functional genomic investigation, uncovered 136 putative CRC susceptibility genes, including 56 genes not previously reported. Analyses of single-cell RNA-seq data from colorectal tissues revealed 17 putative CRC susceptibility genes with distinct expression patterns in specific cell types. Analyses of whole exome sequencing data provided additional support for several target genes identified in this study as CRC susceptibility genes. Enrichment analyses of the 136 genes uncover pathways not previously linked to CRC risk. Our study substantially expanded association signals for CRC and provided additional insight into the biological mechanisms underlying CRC development.

multidisciplinary sciences
Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study of East Asians Identifies Loci Associated with Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

Yingchang Lu,Sun-Seog Kweon,Chizu Tanikawa,Wei-Hua Jia,Yong-Bing Xiang,Qiuyin Cai,Chenjie Zeng,Stephanie L Schmit,Aesun Shin,Keitaro Matsuo,Sun Ha Jee,Dong-Hyun Kim,Jeongseon Kim,Wanqing Wen,Jiajun Shi,Xingyi Guo,Bingshan Li,Nan Wang,Ben Zhang,Xinxiang Li,Min-Ho Shin,Hong-Lan Li,Zefang Ren,Jae Hwan Oh,Isao Oze,Yoon-Ok Ahn,Keum Ji Jung,David V Conti,Fredrick R Schumacher,Gad Rennert,Mark A Jenkins,Peter T Campbell,Michael Hoffmeister,Graham Casey,Stephen B Gruber,Jing Gao,Yu-Tang Gao,Zhi-Zhong Pan,Yoichiro Kamatani,Yi-Xin Zeng,Xiao-Ou Shu,Jirong Long,Koichi Matsuda,Wei Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.11.066

IF: 29.4

2018-01-01

Gastroenterology

Abstract:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have associated approximately 50 loci with risk of colorectal cancer (CRC)-nearly one third of these loci were initially associated with CRC in studies conducted in East Asian populations. We conducted a GWAS of East Asians to identify CRC risk loci and evaluate the generalizability of findings from GWASs of European populations to Asian populations. METHODS:We analyzed genetic data from 22,775 patients with CRC (cases) and 47,731 individuals without cancer (controls) from 14 studies in the Asia Colorectal Cancer Consortium. First, we performed a meta-analysis of 7 GWASs (10,625 cases and 34,595 controls) and identified 46,554 promising risk variants for replication by adding them to the Multi-Ethnic Global Array (MEGA) for genotype analysis in 6445 cases and 7175 controls. These data were analyzed, along with data from an additional 5705 cases and 5961 controls genotyped using the OncoArray. We also obtained data from 57,976 cases and 67,242 controls of European descent. Variants at identified risk loci were functionally annotated and evaluated in correlation with gene expression levels. RESULTS:A meta-analyses of all samples from people of Asian descent identified 13 loci and 1 new variant at a known locus (10q24.2) associated with risk of CRC at the genome-wide significance level of P < 5 × 10-8. We did not perform experiments to replicate these associations in additional individuals of Asian ancestry. However, the lead risk variant in 6 of these loci was also significantly associated with risk of CRC in European descendants. A strong association (44%-75% increase in risk per allele) was found for 2 low-frequency variants: rs201395236 at 1q44 (minor allele frequency, 1.34%) and rs77969132 at 12p11.21 (minor allele frequency, 1.53%). For 8 of the 13 associated loci, the variants with the highest levels of significant association were located inside or near the protein-coding genes L1TD1, EFCAB2, PPP1R21, SLCO2A1, HLA-G, NOTCH4, DENND5B, and GNAS. For other intergenic loci, we provided evidence for the possible involvement of the genes ALDH7A1, PRICKLE1, KLF5, WWOX, and GLP2R. We replicated findings for 41 of 52 previously reported risk loci. CONCLUSIONS:We showed that most of the risk loci previously associated with CRC risk in individuals of European descent were also associated with CRC risk in East Asians. Furthermore, we identified 13 loci significantly associated with risk for CRC in Asians. Many of these loci contained genes that regulate the immune response, Wnt signaling to β-catenin, prostaglandin E2 catabolism, and cell pluripotency and proliferation. Further analyses of these genes and their variants is warranted, particularly for the 8 loci for which the lead CRC risk variants were not replicated in persons of European descent.
Deciphering colorectal cancer genetics through multi-omic analysis of 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of European and east Asian ancestries

Ceres Fernandez-Rozadilla,Maria Timofeeva,Zhishan Chen,Philip Law,Minta Thomas,Stephanie Schmit,Virginia Díez-Obrero,Li Hsu,Juan Fernandez-Tajes,Claire Palles,Kitty Sherwood,Sarah Briggs,Victoria Svinti,Kevin Donnelly,Susan Farrington,James Blackmur,Peter Vaughan-Shaw,Xiao-ou Shu,Jirong Long,Qiuyin Cai,Xingyi Guo,Yingchang Lu,Peter Broderick,James Studd,Jeroen Huyghe,Tabitha Harrison,David Conti,Christopher Dampier,Mathew Devall,Fredrick Schumacher,Marilena Melas,Gad Rennert,Mireia Obón-Santacana,Vicente Martín-Sánchez,Ferran Moratalla-Navarro,Jae Hwan Oh,Jeongseon Kim,Sun Ha Jee,Keum Ji Jung,Sun-Seog Kweon,Min-Ho Shin,Aesun Shin,Yoon-Ok Ahn,Dong-Hyun Kim,Isao Oze,Wanqing Wen,Keitaro Matsuo,Koichi Matsuda,Chizu Tanikawa,Zefang Ren,Yu-Tang Gao,Wei-Hua Jia,John Hopper,Mark Jenkins,Aung Ko Win,Rish Pai,Jane Figueiredo,Robert Haile,Steven Gallinger,Michael Woods,Polly Newcomb,David Duggan,Jeremy Cheadle,Richard Kaplan,Timothy Maughan,Rachel Kerr,David Kerr,Iva Kirac,Jan Böhm,Lukka-Pekka Mecklin,Pekka Jousilahti,Paul Knekt,Lauri Aaltonen,Harri Rissanen,Eero Pukkala,Johan Eriksson,Tatiana Cajuso,Ulrika Hänninen,Johanna Kondelin,Kimmo Palin,Tomas Tanskanen,Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo,Brent Zanke,Satu Männistö,Demetrius Albanes,Stephanie Weinstein,Edward Ruiz-Narvaez,Julie Palmer,Daniel Buchanan,Elizabeth Platz,Kala Visvanathan,Cornelia Ulrich,Erin Siegel,Stefanie Brezina,Andrea Gsur,Peter Campbell,Jenny Chang-Claude,Michael Hoffmeister,Hermann Brenner,Martha Slattery,John Potter,Konstantinos Tsilidis,Matthias Schulze,Marc Gunter,Neil Murphy,Antoni Castells,Sergi Castellví-Bel,Leticia Moreira,Volker Arndt,Anna Shcherbina,Mariana Stern,Bens Pardamean,Timothy Bishop,Graham Giles,Melissa Southey,Gregory Idos,Kevin McDonnell,Zomoroda Abu-Ful,Joel Greenson,Katerina Shulman,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Kenneth Offit,Yu-Ru Su,Robert Steinfelder,Temitope Keku,Bethany van Guelpen,Thomas Hudson,Heather Hampel,Rachel Pearlman,Sonja Berndt,Richard Hayes,Marie Elena Martinez,Sushma Thomas,Douglas Corley,Paul Pharoah,Susanna Larsson,Yun Yen,Heinz-Josef Lenz,Emily White,Li Li,Kimberly Doheny,Elizabeth Pugh,Tameka Shelford,Andrew Chan,Marcia Cruz-Correa,Annika Lindblom,David Hunter,Amit Joshi,Clemens Schafmayer,Peter Scacheri,Anshul Kundaje,Deborah Nickerson,Robert Schoen,Jochen Hampe,Zsofia Stadler,Pavel Vodicka,Ludmila Vodickova,Veronika Vymetalkova,Nickolas Papadopoulos,Chistopher Edlund,William Gauderman,Duncan Thomas,David Shibata,Amanda Toland,Sanford Markowitz,Andre Kim,Stephen Chanock,Franzel van Duijnhoven,Edith Feskens,Lori Sakoda,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Alicja Wolk,Alessio Naccarati,Barbara Pardini,Liesel FitzGerald,Soo Chin Lee,Shuji Ogino,Stephanie Bien,Charles Kooperberg,Christopher Li,Yi Lin,Ross Prentice,Conghui Qu,Stéphane Bézieau,Catherine Tangen,Elaine Mardis,Taiki Yamaji,Norie Sawada,Motoki Iwasaki,Christopher Haiman,Loic Le Marchand,Anna Wu,Chenxu Qu,Caroline McNeil,Gerhard Coetzee,Caroline Hayward,Ian Deary,Sarah Harris,Evropi Theodoratou,Stuart Reid,Marion Walker,Li Yin Ooi,Victor Moreno,Graham Casey,Stephen Gruber,Ian Tomlinson,Wei Zheng,Malcolm Dunlop,Richard Houlston,Ulrike Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-022-01222-9

IF: 30.8

2022-12-21

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. We conducted a genome-wide association study meta-analysis of 100,204 CRC cases and 154,587 controls of European and east Asian ancestry, identifying 205 independent risk associations, of which 50 were unreported. We performed integrative genomic, transcriptomic and methylomic analyses across large bowel mucosa and other tissues. Transcriptome- and methylome-wide association studies revealed an additional 53 risk associations. We identified 155 high-confidence effector genes functionally linked to CRC risk, many of which had no previously established role in CRC. These have multiple different functions and specifically indicate that variation in normal colorectal homeostasis, proliferation, cell adhesion, migration, immunity and microbial interactions determines CRC risk. Crosstissue analyses indicated that over a third of effector genes most probably act outside the colonic mucosa. Our findings provide insights into colorectal oncogenesis and highlight potential targets across tissues for new CRC treatment and chemoprevention strategies.

genetics & heredity
Discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer

Jeroen R. Huyghe,Stephanie A. Bien,Tabitha A. Harrison,Hyun Min Kang,Sai Chen,Stephanie L. Schmit,David V. Conti,Conghui Qu,Jihyoun Jeon,Christopher K. Edlund,Peyton Greenside,Michael Wainberg,Fredrick R. Schumacher,Joshua D. Smith,David M. Levine,Sarah C. Nelson,Nasa A. Sinnott-Armstrong,Demetrius Albanes,M. Henar Alonso,Kristin Anderson,Coral Arnau-Collell,Volker Arndt,Christina Bamia,Barbara L. Banbury,John A. Baron,Sonja I. Berndt,Stéphane Bézieau,D. Timothy Bishop,Juergen Boehm,Heiner Boeing,Hermann Brenner,Stefanie Brezina,Stephan Buch,Daniel D. Buchanan,Andrea Burnett-Hartman,Katja Butterbach,Bette J. Caan,Peter T. Campbell,Christopher S. Carlson,Sergi Castellví-Bel,Andrew T. Chan,Jenny Chang-Claude,Stephen J. Chanock,Maria-Dolores Chirlaque,Sang Hee Cho,Charles M. Connolly,Amanda J. Cross,Katarina Cuk,Keith R. Curtis,Albert de la Chapelle,Kimberly F. Doheny,David Duggan,Douglas F. Easton,Sjoerd G. Elias,Faye Elliott,Dallas R. English,Edith J. M. Feskens,Jane C. Figueiredo,Rocky Fischer,Liesel M. FitzGerald,David Forman,Manish Gala,Steven Gallinger,W. James Gauderman,Graham G. Giles,Elizabeth Gillanders,Jian Gong,Phyllis J. Goodman,William M. Grady,John S. Grove,Andrea Gsur,Marc J. Gunter,Robert W. Haile,Jochen Hampe,Heather Hampel,Sophia Harlid,Richard B. Hayes,Philipp Hofer,Michael Hoffmeister,John L. Hopper,Wan-Ling Hsu,Wen-Yi Huang,Thomas J. Hudson,David J. Hunter,Gemma Ibañez-Sanz,Gregory E. Idos,Roxann Ingersoll,Rebecca D. Jackson,Eric J. Jacobs,Mark A. Jenkins,Amit D. Joshi,Corinne E. Joshu,Temitope O. Keku,Timothy J. Key,Hyeong Rok Kim,Emiko Kobayashi,Laurence N. Kolonel,Charles Kooperberg,Tilman Kühn,Sébastien Küry,Sun-Seog Kweon,Susanna C. Larsson,Cecelia A. Laurie,Loic Le Marchand,Suzanne M. Leal,Soo Chin Lee,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Mathieu Lemire,Christopher I. Li,Li Li,Wolfgang Lieb,Yi Lin,Annika Lindblom,Noralane M. Lindor,Hua Ling,Tin L. Louie,Satu Männistö,Sanford D. Markowitz,Vicente Martín,Giovanna Masala,Caroline E. McNeil,Marilena Melas,Roger L. Milne,Lorena Moreno,Neil Murphy,Robin Myte,Alessio Naccarati,Polly A. Newcomb,Kenneth Offit,Shuji Ogino,N. Charlotte Onland-Moret,Barbara Pardini,Patrick S. Parfrey,Rachel Pearlman,Vittorio Perduca,Paul D. P. Pharoah,Mila Pinchev,Elizabeth A. Platz,Ross L. Prentice,Elizabeth Pugh,Leon Raskin,Gad Rennert,Hedy S. Rennert,Elio Riboli,Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco,Jane Romm,Lori C. Sakoda,Clemens Schafmayer,Robert E. Schoen,Daniela Seminara,Mitul Shah,Tameka Shelford,Min-Ho Shin,Katerina Shulman,Sabina Sieri,Martha L. Slattery,Melissa C. Southey,Zsofia K. Stadler,Christa Stegmaier,Yu-Ru Su,Catherine M. Tangen,Stephen N. Thibodeau,Duncan C. Thomas,Sushma S. Thomas,Amanda E. Toland,Antonia Trichopoulou,Cornelia M. Ulrich,David J. Van Den Berg,Franzel J. B. van Duijnhoven,Bethany Van Guelpen,Henk van Kranen,Joseph Vijai,Kala Visvanathan,Pavel Vodicka,Ludmila Vodickova,Veronika Vymetalkova,Korbinian Weigl,Stephanie J. Weinstein,Emily White,Aung Ko Win,C. Roland Wolf,Alicja Wolk,Michael O. Woods,Anna H. Wu,Syed H. Zaidi,Brent W. Zanke,Qing Zhang,Wei Zheng,Peter C. Scacheri,John D. Potter,Michael C. Bassik,Anshul Kundaje,Graham Casey,Victor Moreno,Goncalo R. Abecasis,Deborah A. Nickerson,Stephen B. Gruber,Li Hsu,Ulrike Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0286-6

IF: 30.8

2018-12-03

Nature Genetics

Abstract:To further dissect the genetic architecture of colorectal cancer (CRC), we performed whole-genome sequencing of 1,439 cases and 720 controls, imputed discovered sequence variants and Haplotype Reference Consortium panel variants into genome-wide association study data, and tested for association in 34,869 cases and 29,051 controls. Findings were followed up in an additional 23,262 cases and 38,296 controls. We discovered a strongly protective 0.3% frequency variant signal at CHD1. In a combined meta-analysis of 125,478 individuals, we identified 40 new independent signals at P < 5 × 10−8, bringing the number of known independent signals for CRC to ~100. New signals implicate lower-frequency variants, Krüppel-like factors, Hedgehog signaling, Hippo-YAP signaling, long noncoding RNAs and somatic drivers, and support a role for immune function. Heritability analyses suggest that CRC risk is highly polygenic, and larger, more comprehensive studies enabling rare variant analysis will improve understanding of biology underlying this risk and influence personalized screening strategies and drug development.

genetics & heredity
Genetic architectures of proximal and distal colorectal cancer are partly distinct

Jeroen R Huyghe,Tabitha A Harrison,Stephanie A Bien,Heather Hampel,Jane C Figueiredo,Stephanie L Schmit,David V Conti,Sai Chen,Conghui Qu,Yi Lin,Richard Barfield,John A Baron,Amanda J Cross,Brenda Diergaarde,David Duggan,Sophia Harlid,Liher Imaz,Hyun Min Kang,David M Levine,Vittorio Perduca,Aurora Perez-Cornago,Lori C Sakoda,Fredrick R Schumacher,Martha L Slattery,Amanda E Toland,Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven,Bethany Van Guelpen,Antonio Agudo,Demetrius Albanes,M Henar Alonso,Kristin Anderson,Coral Arnau-Collell,Volker Arndt,Barbara L Banbury,Michael C Bassik,Sonja I Berndt,Stéphane Bézieau,D Timothy Bishop,Juergen Boehm,Heiner Boeing,Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault,Hermann Brenner,Stefanie Brezina,Stephan Buch,Daniel D Buchanan,Andrea Burnett-Hartman,Bette J Caan,Peter T Campbell,Prudence R Carr,Antoni Castells,Sergi Castellví-Bel,Andrew T Chan,Jenny Chang-Claude,Stephen J Chanock,Keith R Curtis,Albert de la Chapelle,Douglas F Easton,Dallas R English,Edith J M Feskens,Manish Gala,Steven J Gallinger,W James Gauderman,Graham G Giles,Phyllis J Goodman,William M Grady,John S Grove,Andrea Gsur,Marc J Gunter,Robert W Haile,Jochen Hampe,Michael Hoffmeister,John L Hopper,Wan-Ling Hsu,Wen-Yi Huang,Thomas J Hudson,Mazda Jenab,Mark A Jenkins,Amit D Joshi,Temitope O Keku,Charles Kooperberg,Tilman Kühn,Sébastien Küry,Loic Le Marchand,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Christopher I Li,Li Li,Wolfgang Lieb,Annika Lindblom,Noralane M Lindor,Satu Männistö,Sanford D Markowitz,Roger L Milne,Lorena Moreno,Neil Murphy,Rami Nassir,Kenneth Offit,Shuji Ogino,Salvatore Panico,Patrick S Parfrey,Rachel Pearlman,Paul D P Pharoah,Amanda I Phipps,Elizabeth A Platz,John D Potter,Ross L Prentice,Lihong Qi,Leon Raskin,Gad Rennert,Hedy S Rennert,Elio Riboli,Clemens Schafmayer,Robert E Schoen,Daniela Seminara,Mingyang Song,Yu-Ru Su,Catherine M Tangen,Stephen N Thibodeau,Duncan C Thomas,Antonia Trichopoulou,Cornelia M Ulrich,Kala Visvanathan,Pavel Vodicka,Ludmila Vodickova,Veronika Vymetalkova,Korbinian Weigl,Stephanie J Weinstein,Emily White,Alicja Wolk,Michael O Woods,Anna H Wu,Goncalo R Abecasis,Deborah A Nickerson,Peter C Scacheri,Anshul Kundaje,Graham Casey,Stephen B Gruber,Li Hsu,Victor Moreno,Richard B Hayes,Polly A Newcomb,Ulrike Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321534

IF: 24.5

2021-02-25

Gut

Abstract:Objective An understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical for improving precision prevention, including individualized screening recommendations and the discovery of novel drug targets and repurposable drug candidates for chemoprevention. Known differences in molecular characteristics and environmental risk factors among tumors arising in different locations of the colorectum suggest partly distinct mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The extent to which the contribution of inherited genetic risk factors for CRC differs by anatomical subsite of the primary tumor has not been examined. Design To identify new anatomical subsite-specific risk loci, we performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses including data of 48 214 CRC cases and 64 159 controls of European ancestry. We characterised effect heterogeneity at CRC risk loci using multinomial modelling. Results We identified 13 loci that reached genome-wide significance (p<5×10 −8 ) and that were not reported by previous GWASs for overall CRC risk. Multiple lines of evidence support candidate genes at several of these loci. We detected substantial heterogeneity between anatomical subsites. Just over half (61) of 109 known and new risk variants showed no evidence for heterogeneity. In contrast, 22 variants showed association with distal CRC (including rectal cancer), but no evidence for association or an attenuated association with proximal CRC. For two loci, there was strong evidence for effects confined to proximal colon cancer. Conclusion Genetic architectures of proximal and distal CRC are partly distinct. Studies of risk factors and mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and precision prevention strategies should take into consideration the anatomical subsite of the tumour.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Prostate cancer risk stratification improvement across multiple ancestries with new polygenic hazard score

Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le,Roshan Karunamuni,Chun Chieh Fan,Lui Asona,Wesley K Thompson,Maria Elena Martinez,Rosalind A Eeles,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Kenneth R Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Johanna Schleutker,Nora Pashayan,Jyotsna Batra,Henrik Grönberg,David E Neal,Børge G Nordestgaard,Catherine M Tangen,Robert J MacInnis,Alicja Wolk,Demetrius Albanes,Christopher A Haiman,Ruth C Travis,William J Blot,Janet L Stanford,Lorelei A Mucci,Catharine M L West,Sune F Nielsen,Adam S Kibel,Olivier Cussenot,Sonja I Berndt,Stella Koutros,Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen,Cezary Cybulski,Eli Marie Grindedal,Florence Menegaux,Jong Y Park,Sue A Ingles,Christiane Maier,Robert J Hamilton,Barry S Rosenstein,Yong-Jie Lu,Stephen Watya,Ana Vega,Manolis Kogevinas,Fredrik Wiklund,Kathryn L Penney,Chad D Huff,Manuel R Teixeira,Luc Multigner,Robin J Leach,Hermann Brenner,Esther M John,Radka Kaneva,Christopher J Logothetis,Susan L Neuhausen,Kim De Ruyck,Piet Ost,Azad Razack,Lisa F Newcomb,Jay H Fowke,Marija Gamulin,Aswin Abraham,Frank Claessens,Jose Esteban Castelao,Paul A Townsend,Dana C Crawford,Gyorgy Petrovics,Ron H N van Schaik,Marie-Élise Parent,Jennifer J Hu,Wei Zheng,UKGPCS collaborators,APCB (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource),NC-LA PCaP Investigators,IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators,Canary PASS Investigators,Profile Study Steering Committee,PRACTICAL Consortium,Ian G Mills,Ole A Andreassen,Anders M Dale,Tyler M Seibert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00497-7

Abstract:Background: Prostate cancer risk stratification using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) demonstrates considerable promise in men of European, Asian, and African genetic ancestries, but there is still need for increased accuracy. We evaluated whether including additional SNPs in a prostate cancer polygenic hazard score (PHS) would improve associations with clinically significant prostate cancer in multi-ancestry datasets. Methods: In total, 299 SNPs previously associated with prostate cancer were evaluated for inclusion in a new PHS, using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model in a training dataset of 72,181 men from the PRACTICAL Consortium. The PHS model was evaluated in four testing datasets: African ancestry, Asian ancestry, and two of European Ancestry-the Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) and the ProtecT study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare men with high versus low PHS for association with clinically significant, with any, and with fatal prostate cancer. The impact of genetic risk stratification on the positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was also measured. Results: The final model (PHS290) had 290 SNPs with non-zero coefficients. Comparing, for example, the highest and lowest quintiles of PHS290, the hazard ratios (HRs) for clinically significant prostate cancer were 13.73 [95% CI: 12.43-15.16] in ProtecT, 7.07 [6.58-7.60] in African ancestry, 10.31 [9.58-11.11] in Asian ancestry, and 11.18 [10.34-12.09] in COSM. Similar results were seen for association with any and fatal prostate cancer. Without PHS stratification, the PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer in ProtecT was 0.12 (0.11-0.14). For the top 20% and top 5% of PHS290, the PPV of PSA testing was 0.19 (0.15-0.22) and 0.26 (0.19-0.33), respectively. Conclusions: We demonstrate better genetic risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer than prior versions of PHS in multi-ancestry datasets. This is promising for implementing precision-medicine approaches to prostate cancer screening decisions in diverse populations.
Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations

Weang-Kee Ho,Mei-Chee Tai,Joe Dennis,Xiang Shu,Jingmei Li,Peh Joo Ho,Iona Y. Millwood,Kuang Lin,Yon-Ho Jee,Su-Hyun Lee,Nasim Mavaddat,Manjeet K. Bolla,Qin Wang,Kyriaki Michailidou,Jirong Long,Eldarina Azfar Wijaya,Tiara Hassan,Kartini Rahmat,Veronique Kiak Mien Tan,Benita Kiat Tee Tan,Su Ming Tan,Ern Yu Tan,Swee Ho Lim,Yu-Tang Gao,Ying Zheng,Daehee Kang,Ji-Yeob Choi,Wonshik Han,Han-Byoel Lee,Michiki Kubo,Yukinori Okada,Shinichi Namba,The BioBank Japan Project,Sue K. Park,Sung-Won Kim,Chen-Yang Shen,Pei-Ei Wu,Boyoung Park,Kenneth R. Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Anna H. Wu,Chiu-Chen Tseng,Keitaro Matsuo,Hidemi Ito,Ava Kwong,Tsun L. Chan,Esther M. John,Allison W. Kurian,Motoki Iwasaki,Taiki Yamaji,Sun-Seog Kweon,Kristan J. Aronson,Rachel A. Murphy,Woon-Puay Koh,Chiea-Chuen Khor,Jian-Min Yuan,Rajkumar Dorajoo,Robin G. Walters,Zhengming Chen,Liming Li,Jun Lv,Keum-Ji Jung,Peter Kraft,Paul D.B. Pharoah,Alison M. Dunning,Jacques Simard,Xiao-Ou Shu,Cheng-Har Yip,Nur Aishah Mohd Taib,Antonis C. Antoniou,Wei Zheng,Mikael Hartman,Douglas F. Easton,Soo-Hwang Teo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2021.11.008

IF: 8.864

2022-03-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:PURPOSE: Non-European populations are under-represented in genetics studies, hindering clinical implementation of breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We aimed to develop PRSs using the largest available studies of Asian ancestry and to assess the transferability of PRS across ethnic subgroups.METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases).RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk.CONCLUSION: PRSs developed in this study, from association data from multiple ancestries, can enhance risk stratification for women of Asian ancestry.

genetics & heredity
Genetic landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC) across genetic ancestries: Implications for early cancer detection (ECD).

Alexander Ioannidis,Preethi Srinivasan,Sara L. Bristow,Shifra Krinshpun,Omid Shams Solari,Samuel Rivero-Hinojosa,Vasily N. Aushev,Adham A Jurdi,Minetta C. Liu,Bree Mitchell,Alexey Aleshin,Johannes G. Reiter,Yoshiaki Nakamura,Takayuki Yoshino,Jeffrey Wall,Parvathi Myer,Carlos D. Bustamante

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e15527

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e15527 Background: Blood-based ECD has the potential to reduce mortality rates by improving strategies for adoption of and adherence to screening. As health disparities in the incidence of CRC across minority populations are known to exist, we evaluated the genomic landscape in patients with CRC across genetic ancestries. Methods: De-identified patients (N = 16,337) with stage I-IV CRC had personalized, tumor-informed commercial ctDNA testing (Signatera TM ) based on whole exome sequencing. Genetic ancestry determined via supervised local ancestry inference (pmid36042219) included African (AFR, n = 1697), Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ, n = 1192), East Asian (EAS, n = 2247), European (EUR, n = 9726), Latino (LAT, n = 1291), and South Asian (SAS, n = 184) ancestries. Somatic driver mutations and pathogenic germline variants (PVs) in CRC-associated genes were evaluated. Somatic single nucleotide variants were used for mutational signature inference. Results: Across ancestries, 47-67% of the patients were male and most were aged > 50 years. Among 35 to 50-year-olds, microsatellite instability (MSI) rates were higher in LAT (12.9%, p = 0.04) and SAS (28.3%, p 50-year-olds, MSI rates were lower in AFR (10.7%, p < 0.001), EAS (7.9%, p < 0.001), and LAT (10.4%, p < 0.001) vs EUR (16.0%). The POLE signature was more common in AFR (2%, p = 0.001) vs EUR (1.1%). There were significant differences in the frequency of driver mutations and PV rates between non-EUR vs EUR ancestry groups (Table, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001). Gene-level enrichment was observed in MLH1 for SAS (8.7%, p < 0.001) and LAT (1.8%, p = 0.03), CHEK2 for AFR (0.4%, p = 0.03) and EAS (0.1%, p < 0.001), and PMS2 (1.4%, p = 0.006) for AFR. Among patients aged ≤50 years, similar findings were observed, with differences driven by MSI rates and germline findings in Lynch syndrome (LS) genes. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate genomic differences between multiple ancestry groups in the largest cohort to date, including EAS, LAT, and SAS populations. The differences observed between ancestries could provide insight into differences in both hereditary risk and subsequent tumor initiation and growth. Findings from this study may provide information for developing risk stratification and prevention strategies for the early detection of cancer and provide the rationale for precision treatment based on ancestry. [Table: see text]

oncology
Differences in polygenic score distributions in European ancestry populations: implications for breast cancer risk prediction

Kristia Yiangou,Nasim Mavaddat,Joe Dennis,Maria Zanti,Qin Wang,Manjeet K. Bolla,Mustapha Abubakar,Thomas U. Ahearn,Irene L. Andrulis,Hoda Anton-Culver,Natalia N. Antonenkova,Volker Arndt,Kristan J. Aronson,Annelie Augustinsson,Adinda Baten,Sabine Behrens,Marina Bermisheva,Amy Berrington de Gonzalez,Katarzyna Białkowska,Nicholas Boddicker,Clara Bodelon,Natalia V. Bogdanova,Stig E. Bojesen,Kristen D. Brantley,Hiltrud Brauch,Hermann Brenner,Nicola J. Camp,Federico Canzian,Jose E. Castelao,Melissa H. Cessna,Jenny Chang-Claude,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Wendy K. Chung,NBCS Collaborators,Sarah V. Colonna,Fergus J. Couch,Angela Cox,Simon S. Cross,Kamila Czene,Mary B. Daly,Peter Devilee,Thilo Dörk,Alison M. Dunning,Diana M. Eccles,A. Heather Eliassen,Christoph Engel,Mikael Eriksson,D. Gareth Evans,Peter A. Fasching,Olivia Fletcher,Henrik Flyger,Lin Fritschi,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj,Anna González-Neira,Pascal Guénel,Eric Hahnen,Christopher A. Haiman,Ute Hamann,Jaana M. Hartikainen,Vikki Ho,James Hodge,Antoinette Hollestelle,Ellen Honisch,Maartje J. Hooning,Reiner Hoppe,John L. Hopper,Sacha Howell,Anthony Howell,ABCTB Investigators,kConFab Investigators,Simona Jakovchevska,Anna Jakubowska,Helena Jernström,Nichola Johnson,Rudolf Kaaks,Elza K. Khusnutdinova,Cari M. Kitahara,Stella Koutros,Vessela N. Kristensen,James V. Lacey,Diether Lambrechts,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Annika Lindblom,Michael Lush,Arto Mannermaa,Dimitrios Mavroudis,Usha Menon,Rachel A. Murphy,Heli Nevanlinna,Nadia Obi,Kenneth Offit,Tjoung-Won Park-Simon,Alpa V. Patel,Cheng Peng,Paolo Peterlongo,Guillermo Pita,Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska,Katri Pylkäs,Paolo Radice,Muhammad U. Rashid,Gad Rennert,Eleanor Roberts,Juan Rodriguez,Atocha Romero,Efraim H. Rosenberg,Emmanouil Saloustros,Dale P. Sandler,Elinor J. Sawyer,Rita K. Schmutzler,Christopher G. Scott,Xiao-Ou Shu,Melissa C. Southey,Jennifer Stone,Jack A. Taylor,Lauren R. Teras,Irma van de Beek,Walter Willett,Robert Winqvist,Wei Zheng,Celine M. Vachon,Marjanka K. Schmidt,Per Hall,Robert J. MacInnis,Roger L. Milne,Paul D.P. Pharoah,Jacques Simard,Antonis C. Antoniou,Douglas F. Easton,Kyriaki Michailidou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.12.24302043

2024-02-13

Abstract:The 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS ) provides a promising tool for breast cancer risk prediction. However, evaluation of the PRS across different European populations which could influence risk estimation has not been performed. Here, we explored the distribution of PRS across European populations using genotype data from 94,072 females without breast cancer, of European-ancestry from 21 countries participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and 225,105 female participants from the UK Biobank. The mean PRS differed markedly across European countries, being highest in south-eastern Europe and lowest in north-western Europe. Using the overall European PRS distribution to categorise individuals leads to overestimation and underestimation of risk in some individuals from south-eastern and north-western countries, respectively. Adjustment for principal components explained most of the observed heterogeneity in mean PRS. Country-specific PRS distributions may be used to calibrate risk categories in individuals from different countries.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

David V. Conti,Burcu F. Darst,Lilit C. Moss,Edward J. Saunders,Xin Sheng,Alisha Chou,Fredrick R. Schumacher,Ali Amin Al Olama,Sara Benlloch,Tokhir Dadaev,Mark N. Brook,Ali Sahimi,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Atushi Takahashi,Koichi Matsuda,Yukihide Momozawa,Masashi Fujita,Kenneth Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Peggy Wan,Loic Le Marchand,Lynne R. Wilkens,Victoria L. Stevens,Susan M. Gapstur,Brian D. Carter,Johanna Schleutker,Teuvo L. J. Tammela,Csilla Sipeky,Anssi Auvinen,Graham G. Giles,Melissa C. Southey,Robert J. MacInnis,Cezary Cybulski,Dominika Wokołorczyk,Jan Lubiński,David E. Neal,Jenny L. Donovan,Freddie C. Hamdy,Richard M. Martin,Børge G. Nordestgaard,Sune F. Nielsen,Maren Weischer,Stig E. Bojesen,Martin Andreas Røder,Peter Iversen,Jyotsna Batra,Suzanne Chambers,Leire Moya,Lisa Horvath,Judith A. Clements,Wayne Tilley,Gail P. Risbridger,Henrik Gronberg,Markus Aly,Robert Szulkin,Martin Eklund,Tobias Nordström,Nora Pashayan,Alison M. Dunning,Maya Ghoussaini,Ruth C. Travis,Tim J. Key,Elio Riboli,Jong Y. Park,Thomas A. Sellers,Hui-Yi Lin,Demetrius Albanes,Stephanie J. Weinstein,Lorelei A. Mucci,Edward Giovannucci,Sara Lindstrom,Peter Kraft,David J. Hunter,Kathryn L. Penney,Constance Turman,Catherine M. Tangen,Phyllis J. Goodman,Ian M. Thompson,Robert J. Hamilton,Neil E. Fleshner,Antonio Finelli,Marie-Élise Parent,Janet L. Stanford,Elaine A. Ostrander,Milan S. Geybels,Stella Koutros,Laura E. Beane Freeman,Meir Stampfer,Alicja Wolk,Niclas Håkansson,Gerald L. Andriole,Robert N. Hoover,Mitchell J. Machiela,Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen,Michael Borre,William J. Blot,Wei Zheng,Edward D. Yeboah,James E. Mensah,Yong-Jie Lu,Hong-Wei Zhang,Ninghan Feng,Xueying Mao,Yudong Wu,Shan-Chao Zhao,Zan Sun,Stephen N. Thibodeau,Shannon K. McDonnell,Daniel J. Schaid,Catharine M. L. West,Neil Burnet,Gill Barnett,Christiane Maier,Thomas Schnoeller,Manuel Luedeke,Adam S. Kibel,Bettina F. Drake,Olivier Cussenot,Géraldine Cancel-Tassin,Florence Menegaux,Thérèse Truong,Yves Akoli Koudou,Esther M. John,Eli Marie Grindedal,Lovise Maehle,Kay-Tee Khaw,Sue A. Ingles,Mariana C. Stern,Ana Vega,Antonio Gómez-Caamaño,Laura Fachal,Barry S. Rosenstein,Sarah L. Kerns,Harry Ostrer,Manuel R. Teixeira,Paula Paulo,Andreia Brandão,Stephen Watya,Alexander Lubwama,Jeannette T. Bensen,Elizabeth T. H. Fontham,James Mohler,Jack A. Taylor,Manolis Kogevinas,Javier Llorca,Gemma Castaño-Vinyals,Lisa Cannon-Albright,Craig C. Teerlink,Chad D. Huff,Sara S. Strom,Luc Multigner,Pascal Blanchet,Laurent Brureau,Radka Kaneva,Chavdar Slavov,Vanio Mitev,Robin J. Leach,Brandi Weaver,Hermann Brenner,Katarina Cuk,Bernd Holleczek,Kai-Uwe Saum,Eric A. Klein,Ann W. Hsing,Rick A. Kittles,Adam B. Murphy,Christopher J. Logothetis,Jeri Kim,Susan L. Neuhausen,Linda Steele,Yuan Chun Ding,William B. Isaacs,Barbara Nemesure,Anselm J. M. Hennis,John Carpten,Hardev Pandha,Agnieszka Michael,Kim De Ruyck,Gert De Meerleer,Piet Ost,Jianfeng Xu,Azad Razack,Jasmine Lim,Soo-Hwang Teo,Lisa F. Newcomb,Daniel W. Lin,Jay H. Fowke,Christine Neslund-Dudas,Benjamin A. Rybicki,Marija Gamulin,Davor Lessel,Tomislav Kulis,Nawaid Usmani,Sandeep Singhal,Matthew Parliament,Frank Claessens,Steven Joniau,Thomas Van den Broeck,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Jose Esteban Castelao,Maria Elena Martinez,Samantha Larkin,Paul A. Townsend,Claire Aukim-Hastie,William S. Bush,Melinda C. Aldrich,Dana C. Crawford,Shiv Srivastava,Jennifer C. Cullen,Gyorgy Petrovics,Graham Casey,Monique J. Roobol,Guido Jenster,Ron H. N. van Schaik,Jennifer J. Hu,Maureen Sanderson,Rohit Varma,Roberta McKean-Cowdin,Mina Torres,Nicholas Mancuso,Sonja I. Berndt,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Douglas F. Easton,Stephen J. Chanock,Michael B. Cook,Fredrik Wiklund,Hidewaki Nakagawa,John S. Witte,Rosalind A. Eeles,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Christopher A. Haiman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0

IF: 30.8

2021-01-01

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84–5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36–4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14–2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71–0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction.

genetics & heredity
Abstract A021: Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry

James L. Li,Haoyu Zhang,Julian C McClellan,Guimin Gao,Kevin Wang,Julie R. Palmer,Olufunmilayo I. Olopade,Christopher A. Haiman,Dezheng Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a021

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) predict breast cancer (BC) risk and have shown utility for screening in European ancestry women (EUR). However, PRSs developed for non-European ancestry, particularly African American (AA) women, have limited predictive accuracy. Methods: We analyzed data from 17,454 BC cases and 19,093 controls in the African American Breast Cancer Genetics (AABCG) consortium, split into training (70%), tuning (10%), and testing (20%) sets. Genome-wide association analyses for overall BC, ER-positive BC, ER- negative BC and triple-negative BC (TNBC) were performed in the training dataset, controlling for age, genotyping platform, and the top 10 principal components. We built single-ancestry PRS models using forward stepwise selection (FSS), PRSice-2, PLINK C+T, Lassosum2, and LDpred2-auto. These were combined with published EUR 313-SNP models (330-SNP for TNBC) in the tuning set to obtain cross-ancestry models. Genome-wide cross-ancestry PRS methods, including CT-SLEB and PRScsx, were also used. We created an ensemble model by combining different PRS models across subtypes using ensemble-based approaches. All developed PRS models were then evaluated in the independent testing set. Additional validation was performed using the All of Us (AoU) study with 834 BC cases and 29,122 controls from the AA population. Results: The observed-scale SNP-based heritability was estimated at 0.29 (SE: 0.12) for overall BC risk, 0.43 (SE: 0.18) for ER-positive BC, 0.44 (SE: 0.24) for ER-negative BC, and 1.13 (SE: 0.40) for TNBC. The best models showed good discriminating capacity: ensemble-based models for overall (AUC=0.626) and ER-positive BC (AUC=0.626), and combined cross-subtype and cross-ancestry FSS models for ER-negative (AUC=0.647) and TNBC (AUC=0.654). The odds ratio per standard deviation was 1.63 (95% CI: 1.55, 1.71) for the ensemble-based PRS of overall BC risk, with an estimated life risk of 28% for the top 1%. The cross-ancestry model using CT-SLEB combined with the EUR 313-SNP model was validated (AUC=0.61) among AA women in the AoU study. Conclusion: We developed PRSs with improved discriminating ability for BC risk in women with African ancestry. Cross- ancestry and subtype learning enhanced model performance. These findings indicate common variation has a larger role in BC in AA women than previously reported, warranting further validation in external AA populations and clinical evaluation. Citation Format: James L. Li, Haoyu Zhang, Julian C McClellan, Guimin Gao, Kevin Wang, Julie R. Palmer, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Christopher A. Haiman, Dezheng Huo. Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A021.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes

Nasim Mavaddat,Kyriaki Michailidou,Joe Dennis,Michael Lush,Laura Fachal,Andrew Lee,Jonathan P Tyrer,Ting-Huei Chen,Qin Wang,Manjeet K Bolla,Xin Yang,Muriel A Adank,Thomas Ahearn,Kristiina Aittomäki,Jamie Allen,Irene L Andrulis,Hoda Anton-Culver,Natalia N Antonenkova,Volker Arndt,Kristan J Aronson,Paul L Auer,Päivi Auvinen,Myrto Barrdahl,Laura E Beane Freeman,Matthias W Beckmann,Sabine Behrens,Javier Benitez,Marina Bermisheva,Leslie Bernstein,Carl Blomqvist,Natalia V Bogdanova,Stig E Bojesen,Bernardo Bonanni,Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale,Hiltrud Brauch,Michael Bremer,Hermann Brenner,Adam Brentnall,Ian W Brock,Angela Brooks-Wilson,Sara Y Brucker,Thomas Brüning,Barbara Burwinkel,Daniele Campa,Brian D Carter,Jose E Castelao,Stephen J Chanock,Rowan Chlebowski,Hans Christiansen,Christine L Clarke,J Margriet Collée,Emilie Cordina-Duverger,Sten Cornelissen,Fergus J Couch,Angela Cox,Simon S Cross,Kamila Czene,Mary B Daly,Peter Devilee,Thilo Dörk,Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva,Martine Dumont,Lorraine Durcan,Miriam Dwek,Diana M Eccles,Arif B Ekici,A Heather Eliassen,Carolina Ellberg,Christoph Engel,Mikael Eriksson,D Gareth Evans,Peter A Fasching,Jonine Figueroa,Olivia Fletcher,Henrik Flyger,Asta Försti,Lin Fritschi,Marike Gabrielson,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Susan M Gapstur,José A García-Sáenz,Mia M Gaudet,Vassilios Georgoulias,Graham G Giles,Irina R Gilyazova,Gord Glendon,Mark S Goldberg,David E Goldgar,Anna González-Neira,Grethe I Grenaker Alnæs,Mervi Grip,Jacek Gronwald,Anne Grundy,Pascal Guénel,Lothar Haeberle,Eric Hahnen,Christopher A Haiman,Niclas Håkansson,Ute Hamann,Susan E Hankinson,Elaine F Harkness,Steven N Hart,Wei He,Alexander Hein,Jane Heyworth,Peter Hillemanns,Antoinette Hollestelle,Maartje J Hooning,Robert N Hoover,John L Hopper,Anthony Howell,Guanmengqian Huang,Keith Humphreys,David J Hunter,Milena Jakimovska,Anna Jakubowska,Wolfgang Janni,Esther M John,Nichola Johnson,Michael E Jones,Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen,Audrey Jung,Rudolf Kaaks,Katarzyna Kaczmarek,Vesa Kataja,Renske Keeman,Michael J Kerin,Elza Khusnutdinova,Johanna I Kiiski,Julia A Knight,Yon-Dschun Ko,Veli-Matti Kosma,Stella Koutros,Vessela N Kristensen,Ute Krüger,Tabea Kühl,Diether Lambrechts,Loic Le Marchand,Eunjung Lee,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Jenna Lilyquist,Annika Lindblom,Sara Lindström,Jolanta Lissowska,Wing-Yee Lo,Sibylle Loibl,Jirong Long,Jan Lubiński,Michael P Lux,Robert J MacInnis,Tom Maishman,Enes Makalic,Ivana Maleva Kostovska,Arto Mannermaa,Siranoush Manoukian,Sara Margolin,John W M Martens,Maria Elena Martinez,Dimitrios Mavroudis,Catriona McLean,Alfons Meindl,Usha Menon,Pooja Middha,Nicola Miller,Fernando Moreno,Anna Marie Mulligan,Claire Mulot,Victor M Muñoz-Garzon,Susan L Neuhausen,Heli Nevanlinna,Patrick Neven,William G Newman,Sune F Nielsen,Børge G Nordestgaard,Aaron Norman,Kenneth Offit,Janet E Olson,Håkan Olsson,Nick Orr,V Shane Pankratz,Tjoung-Won Park-Simon,Jose I A Perez,Clara Pérez-Barrios,Paolo Peterlongo,Julian Peto,Mila Pinchev,Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska,Eric C Polley,Ross Prentice,Nadege Presneau,Darya Prokofyeva,Kristen Purrington,Katri Pylkäs,Brigitte Rack,Paolo Radice,Rohini Rau-Murthy,Gad Rennert,Hedy S Rennert,Valerie Rhenius,Mark Robson,Atocha Romero,Kathryn J Ruddy,Matthias Ruebner,Emmanouil Saloustros,Dale P Sandler,Elinor J Sawyer,Daniel F Schmidt,Rita K Schmutzler,Andreas Schneeweiss,Minouk J Schoemaker,Fredrick Schumacher,Peter Schürmann,Lukas Schwentner,Christopher Scott,Rodney J Scott,Caroline Seynaeve,Mitul Shah,Mark E Sherman,Martha J Shrubsole,Xiao-Ou Shu,Susan Slager,Ann Smeets,Christof Sohn,Penny Soucy,Melissa C Southey,John J Spinelli,Christa Stegmaier,Jennifer Stone,Anthony J Swerdlow,Rulla M Tamimi,William J Tapper,Jack A Taylor,Mary Beth Terry,Kathrin Thöne,Rob A E M Tollenaar,Ian Tomlinson,Thérèse Truong,Maria Tzardi,Hans-Ulrich Ulmer,Michael Untch,Celine M Vachon,Elke M van Veen,Joseph Vijai,Clarice R Weinberg,Camilla Wendt,Alice S Whittemore,Hans Wildiers,Walter Willett,Robert Winqvist,Alicja Wolk,Xiaohong R Yang,Drakoulis Yannoukakos,Yan Zhang,Wei Zheng,Argyrios Ziogas,ABCTB Investigators,kConFab/AOCS Investigators,NBCS Collaborators,Alison M Dunning,Deborah J Thompson,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Jenny Chang-Claude,Marjanka K Schmidt,Per Hall,Roger L Milne,Paul D P Pharoah,Antonis C Antoniou,Nilanjan Chatterjee,Peter Kraft,Montserrat García-Closas,Jacques Simard,Douglas F Easton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002

2019-01-03

Abstract:Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.
A case of Albright's syndrome with primary hypogonadism.

P. Yang,F. W. Chen,K. Tzen

1982-09-01

Abstract:
Comparison of colorectal cancer (CRC) characteristics across genetic ancestries: Implications for early cancer detection (ECD).

Parvathi Myer,Preethi Srinivasan,Sara L. Bristow,Shifra Krinshpun,Omid Solari,Vasily N. Aushev,Adham A Jurdi,Minetta C. Liu,Breeana L. Mitchell,Alexey Aleshin,Johannes G. Reiter,Jeffrey N. Weitzel,Yoshiaki Nakamura,Takayuki Yoshino,Jeffrey Wall,Alexander Ioannidis,Carlos Bustamante

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.164

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:164 Background: Blood-based ECD has the potential to reduce mortality rates by improving strategies for, adoption of, and adherence to screening. A deeper understanding of the cancer genomic landscape across genetic ancestries will aid comparable detection performance across a broad population. We evaluated the mutational landscape in patients with CRC across genetic ancestries. Methods: 16,080 de-identified patients with stage I-IV CRC who had personalized, tumor-informed commercial ctDNA testing (Signatera) based on whole exome sequencing (WES) were included. Genetic ancestry determined via supervised local ancestry inference (pmid36042219) included African (AFR), East Asian (EAS), European (EUR), Latino (LAT), and South Asian (SAS). Patients assigned to a single ancestry were included (except SAS due to small cohort size). Somatic single nucleotide variants called from WES were used for mutational signature inference. EUR was the reference group for standard statistical tests with corrections for multiple hypothesis testing. Results: A single genomic ancestry was assigned for 16,257 (99.2%) patients (AFR n=1697, 10%; EAS n=2247, 14%; EUR n=10,526, 64%; LAT n=1291, 1%; SAS n=184, 1%). Across AFR, EAS, EUR, and LAT, approximately half of patients were male (range, 47-54%) and most were aged >50 years. Microsatellite instability (MSI) rates were significantly higher in EUR (14.5%) v AFR (11%, p<0.001), EAS (8%, p<0.001), and LAT (11%, p=0.002). Compared to EUR (range 0.027-875.1 mut/Mb), the distribution of TMB was significantly higher in EAS (0.304-906.2 mut/Mb, p<0.001) and lower in LAT (0.053-476.7 mut/Mb, p<0.001). The POLE hyper-mutator signature was seen in 1.2% of all patients and in 7.6% of all hyper-mutated cases. Patients with the POLE signature were less common in EUR (1.1%) v AFR (2%, p=0.001). There were significant differences in the frequency of driver mutations in APC, BRAF, KRAS, TP53, and PIK3CA between EUR and the other ancestry groups in both MSI and MSS tumors (Table). Median exposure levels to alkylation were higher in EAS v EUR. Conclusions: These data confirm previous results in AFR populations, and reveal novel differences in the EAS and LAT populations. Findings from this study may provide information for developing risk stratification and prevention strategies for the early detection of cancer and provide rationale for precision treatment based on ancestry. [Table: see text]

oncology
Identifying Novel Susceptibility Genes for Colorectal Cancer Risk From a Transcriptome-Wide Association Study of 125,478 Subjects

Xingyi Guo,Weiqiang Lin,Wanqing Wen,Jeroen Huyghe,Stephanie Bien,Qiuyin Cai,Tabitha Harrison,Zhishan Chen,Conghui Qu,Jiandong Bao,Jirong Long,Yuan Yuan,Fangqin Wang,Mengqiu Bai,Goncalo R Abecasis,Demetrius Albanes,Sonja I Berndt,Stéphane Bézieau,D Timothy Bishop,Hermann Brenner,Stephan Buch,Andrea Burnett-Hartman,Peter T Campbell,Sergi Castellví-Bel,Andrew T Chan,Jenny Chang-Claude,Stephen J Chanock,Sang Hee Cho,David V Conti,Albert de la Chapelle,Edith J M Feskens,Steven J Gallinger,Graham G Giles,Phyllis J Goodman,Andrea Gsur,Mark Guinter,Marc J Gunter,Jochen Hampe,Heather Hampel,Richard B Hayes,Michael Hoffmeister,Ellen Kampman,Hyun Min Kang,Temitope O Keku,Hyeong Rok Kim,Loic Le Marchand,Soo Chin Lee,Christopher I Li,Li Li,Annika Lindblom,Noralane Lindor,Roger L Milne,Victor Moreno,Neil Murphy,Polly A Newcomb,Deborah A Nickerson,Kenneth Offit,Rachel Pearlman,Paul D P Pharoah,Elizabeth A Platz,John D Potter,Gad Rennert,Lori C Sakoda,Clemens Schafmayer,Stephanie L Schmit,Robert E Schoen,Fredrick R Schumacher,Martha L Slattery,Yu-Ru Su,Catherine M Tangen,Cornelia M Ulrich,Franzel J B van Duijnhoven,Bethany Van Guelpen,Kala Visvanathan,Pavel Vodicka,Ludmila Vodickova,Veronika Vymetalkova,Xiaoliang Wang,Emily White,Alicja Wolk,Michael O Woods,Graham Casey,Li Hsu,Mark A Jenkins,Stephen B Gruber,Ulrike Peters,Wei Zheng,Goncalo R. Abecasis,Sonja I. Berndt,D. Timothy Bishop,Peter T. Campbell,Andrew T. Chan,Stephen J. Chanock,David V. Conti,Edith J.M. Feskens,Steven J. Gallinger,Graham G. Giles,Phyllis J. Goodman,Marc J. Gunter,Richard B. Hayes,Temitope O. Keku,Christopher I. Li,Roger L. Milne,Polly A. Newcomb,Deborah A. Nickerson,Paul D.P. Pharoah,Elizabeth A. Platz,John D. Potter,Lori C. Sakoda,Stephanie L. Schmit,Robert E. Schoen,Fredrick R. Schumacher,Martha L. Slattery,Catherine M. Tangen,Cornelia M. Ulrich,Franzel J.B. van Duijnhoven,Michael O. Woods,Mark A. Jenkins,Stephen B. Gruber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.062

IF: 29.4

2021-03-01

Gastroenterology

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Susceptibility genes and the underlying mechanisms for the majority of risk loci identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk remain largely unknown. We conducted a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) to identify putative susceptibility genes.METHODS: Gene-expression prediction models were built using transcriptome and genetic data from the 284 normal transverse colon tissues of European descendants from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx), and model performance was evaluated using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 355). We applied the gene-expression prediction models and GWAS data to evaluate associations of genetically predicted gene-expression with CRC risk in 58,131 CRC cases and 67,347 controls of European ancestry. Dual-luciferase reporter assays and knockdown experiments in CRC cells and tumor xenografts were conducted.RESULTS: We identified 25 genes associated with CRC risk at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P < 9.1 × 10<sup>-6</sup>, including genes in 4 novel loci, PYGL (14q22.1), RPL28 (19q13.42), CAPN12 (19q13.2), MYH7B (20q11.22), and MAP1L3CA (20q11.22). In 9 known GWAS-identified loci, we uncovered 9 genes that have not been reported previously, whereas 4 genes remained statistically significant after adjusting for the lead risk variant of the locus. Through colocalization analysis in GWAS loci, we additionally identified 12 putative susceptibility genes that were supported by TWAS analysis at P < .01. We showed that risk allele of the lead risk variant rs1741640 affected the promoter activity of CABLES2. Knockdown experiments confirmed that CABLES2 plays a vital role in colorectal carcinogenesis.CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals new putative susceptibility genes and provides new insight into the biological mechanisms underlying CRC development.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Colorectal cancer risk stratification using a polygenic risk score in symptomatic primary care patients-a UK Biobank retrospective cohort study

Bethan Mallabar-Rimmer,Samuel W D Merriel,Amy P Webster,Leigh Jackson,Andrew R Wood,Matthew Barclay,Jessica Tyrrell,Katherine S Ruth,Christina Thirlwell,Richard Oram,Michael N Weedon,Sarah E R Bailey,Harry D Green

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01654-3

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Accurate cancer risk assessment approaches could increase rates of early CRC diagnosis, improve health outcomes for patients and reduce pressure on diagnostic services. The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for blood in stool is widely used in primary care to identify symptomatic patients with likely CRC. However, there is a 6-16% noncompliance rate with FIT in clinic and ~90% of patients over the symptomatic 10 µg/g test threshold do not have CRC. A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies an individual's genetic risk of a condition based on many common variants. Existing PRS for CRC have so far been used to stratify asymptomatic populations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 50,387 UK Biobank participants with a CRC symptom in their primary care record at age 40+. A PRS based on 201 variants, 5 genetic principal components and 22 other risk factors and markers for CRC were assessed for association with CRC diagnosis within 2 years of first symptom presentation using logistic regression. Associated variables were included in an integrated risk model and trained in 80% of the cohort to predict CRC diagnosis within 2 years. An integrated risk model combining PRS, age, sex, and patient-reported symptoms was predictive of CRC development in a testing cohort (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, ROCAUC: 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.81). This model has the potential to improve early diagnosis of CRC, particularly in cases of patient noncompliance with FIT.
ON THE EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF LAMINAR-TURBULENT TRANSITIONS IN LIQUID FLOW.

L. Krovetz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/10/2/310

IF: 3.5

1965-04-01

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Abstract:Laminar-turbulent transitions were detected experimentally by direct visualization, high-speed cinematographic observation of a rapidly injected bolus of dye, visualization of dye streamlines and pressure-flow plots. On the grounds of both experimental ease and reproducibility the use of dye streamline with increasing flow rates is recommended. The fluid must first be allowed to come to thermal equilibrium and rest. Under slightly different experimental conditions, transition was observed at mean Reynolds' numbers as low as 2120 to as high as 2990.
Comparing Ancestry Standardization Approaches for a Transancestry Colorectal Cancer Polygenic Risk Score

Elisabeth A. Rosenthal,Li Hsu,Minta Thomas,Ulrike Peters,Christopher Kachulis,Karynne Patterson,Gail P. Jarvik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.22590

2024-09-25

Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a complex disease with monogenic, polygenic and environmental risk factors. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) aim to identify high polygenic risk individuals. Due to differences in genetic background, PRS distributions vary by ancestry, necessitating standardization. We compared four post‐hoc methods using the All of Us Research Program Whole Genome Sequence data for a transancestry CRC PRS. We contrasted results from linear models trained on A. the entire data or an ancestrally diverse subset AND B. covariates including principal components of ancestry or admixture. Standardization with the training subset also adjusted the variance. All methods performed similarly within ancestry, OR (95% C.I.) per s.d. change in PRS: African 1.5 (1.02, 2.08), Admixed American 2.2 (1.27, 3.85), European 1.6 (1.43, 1.89), and Middle Eastern 1.1 (0.71, 1.63). Using admixture and an ancestrally diverse training set provided distributions closest to standard Normal. Training a model on ancestrally diverse participants, adjusting both the mean and variance using admixture as covariates, created standard Normal z‐scores, which can be used to identify patients at high polygenic risk. These scores can be incorporated into comprehensive risk calculation including other known risk factors, allowing for more precise risk estimates.

genetics & heredity,mathematical & computational biology

[Development of stomatological aid in Bulgarian Democratic Republic].

Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Evaluating the predictive value of genetic risk score in colorectal cancer among Chinese Han population

Fine-mapping analysis including over 254,000 East Asian and European descendants identifies 136 putative colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study of East Asians Identifies Loci Associated with Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

Deciphering colorectal cancer genetics through multi-omic analysis of 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of European and east Asian ancestries

Discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer

Genetic architectures of proximal and distal colorectal cancer are partly distinct

Prostate cancer risk stratification improvement across multiple ancestries with new polygenic hazard score

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations

Genetic landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC) across genetic ancestries: Implications for early cancer detection (ECD).

Differences in polygenic score distributions in European ancestry populations: implications for breast cancer risk prediction

Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

Abstract A021: Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes

A case of Albright's syndrome with primary hypogonadism.

Comparison of colorectal cancer (CRC) characteristics across genetic ancestries: Implications for early cancer detection (ECD).

Identifying Novel Susceptibility Genes for Colorectal Cancer Risk From a Transcriptome-Wide Association Study of 125,478 Subjects

Colorectal cancer risk stratification using a polygenic risk score in symptomatic primary care patients-a UK Biobank retrospective cohort study

ON THE EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF LAMINAR-TURBULENT TRANSITIONS IN LIQUID FLOW.

Comparing Ancestry Standardization Approaches for a Transancestry Colorectal Cancer Polygenic Risk Score