Association between GWAS-identified lung adenocarcinoma susceptibility loci and EGFR mutations in never-smoking Asian women, and comparison with findings from Western populations

To evaluate associations by EGFR mutation status for lung adenocarcinoma risk among never-smoking Asian women, we conducted a meta-analysis of 11 loci previously identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Genotyping in an additional 10,780 never-smoking cases and 10,938 never-smoking controls from Asia confirmed associations with eight known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Two new signals were observed at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8), namely, rs7216064 (17q24.3, BPTF), for overall lung adenocarcinoma risk, and rs3817963 (6p21.3, BTNL2) which is specific to cases with EGFR mutations. In further sub-analyses by EGFR status, rs9387478 (ROS1/DCBLD1) and rs2179920 (HLA-DPB1) showed stronger estimated associations in EGFR-positive compared to EGFR-negative cases. Comparison of the overall associations with published results in Western populations revealed that the majority of these findings were distinct, underscoring the importance of distinct contributing factors for smoking and non-smoking lung cancer. Our results extend the catalogue of regions associated with lung adenocarcinoma in non-smoking Asian women and highlight the importance of how the germline could inform risk for specific tumour mutation patterns, which could have important translational implications

Association between GWAS-identified lung adenocarcinoma susceptibility loci and EGFR mutations in never-smoking Asian women, and comparison with findings from Western populations

To evaluate associations by EGFR mutation status for lung adenocarcinoma risk among never-smoking Asian women, we conducted a meta-analysis of 11 loci previously identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Genotyping in an additional 10,780 never-smoking cases and 10,938 never-smoking controls from Asia confirmed associations with eight known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Two new signals were observed at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8), namely, rs7216064 (17q24.3, BPTF), for overall lung adenocarcinoma risk, and rs3817963 (6p21.3, BTNL2) which is specific to cases with EGFR mutations. In further sub-analyses by EGFR status, rs9387478 (ROS1/DCBLD1) and rs2179920 (HLA-DPB1) showed stronger estimated associations in EGFR-positive compared to EGFR-negative cases. Comparison of the overall associations with published results in Western populations revealed that the majority of these findings were distinct, underscoring the importance of distinct contributing factors for smoking and non-smoking lung cancer. Our results extend the catalogue of regions associated with lung adenocarcinoma in non-smoking Asian women and highlight the importance of how the germline could inform risk for specific tumour mutation patterns, which could have important translational implications

Tuberculosis infection and lung adenocarcinoma:Mendelian randomization and pathway analysis of genome-wide association study data from never-smoking Asian women

We investigated whether genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis (TB) influences lung adenocarcinoma development among never-smokers using TB genome-wide association study (GWAS) results within the Female Lung Cancer Consortium in Asia. Pathway analysis with the adaptive rank truncated product method was used to assess the association between a TB-related gene-set and lung adenocarcinoma using GWAS data from 5512 lung adenocarcinoma cases and 6277 controls. The gene-set consisted of 31 genes containing known/suggestive associations with genetic variants from previous TB-GWAS. Subsequently, we followed-up with Mendelian Randomization to evaluate the association between TB and lung adenocarcinoma using three genome-wide significant variants from previous TB-GWAS in East Asians. The TB-related gene-set was associated with lung adenocarcinoma (p = 0.016). Additionally, the Mendelian Randomization showed an association between TB and lung adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.66, p = 0.027). Our findings support TB as a causal risk factor for lung cancer development among never-smoking Asian women.</p

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field