Inherited variation in immune genes and pathways and glioblastoma risk

To determine whether inherited variations in immune function single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genes or pathways affect glioblastoma risk, we analyzed data from recent genome-wide association studies in conjunction with predefined immune function genes and pathways. Gene and pathway analyses were conducted on two independent data sets using 6629 SNPs in 911 genes on 17 immune pathways from 525 glioblastoma cases and 602 controls from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a subset of 6029 SNPs in 893 genes from 531 cases and 1782 controls from MD Anderson (MDA). To further assess consistency of SNP-level associations, we also compared data from the UK (266 cases and 2482 controls) and the Mayo Clinic (114 cases and 111 controls). Although three correlated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) SNPs were consistently associated with glioblastoma in all four data sets (Mantel–Haenzel P values = 1 × 10−5 to 4 × 10−3), independent replication is required as genome-wide significance was not attained. In gene-level analyses, eight immune function genes were significantly (minP < 0.05) associated with glioblastoma; the IL-2RA (CD25) cytokine gene had the smallest minP values in both UCSF (minP = 0.01) and MDA (minP = 0.001) data sets. The IL-2RA receptor is found on the surface of regulatory T cells potentially contributing to immunosuppression characteristic of the glioblastoma microenvironment. In pathway correlation analyses, cytokine signaling and adhesion–extravasation–migration pathways showed similar associations with glioblastoma risk in both MDA and UCSF data sets. Our findings represent the first systematic description of immune genes and pathways that characterize glioblastoma risk

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Inherited variation in immune genes and pathways and glioblastoma risk.

To determine whether inherited variations in immune function single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genes or pathways affect glioblastoma risk, we analyzed data from recent genome-wide association studies in conjunction with predefined immune function genes and pathways. Gene and pathway analyses were conducted on two independent data sets using 6629 SNPs in 911 genes on 17 immune pathways from 525 glioblastoma cases and 602 controls from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a subset of 6029 SNPs in 893 genes from 531 cases and 1782 controls from MD Anderson (MDA). To further assess consistency of SNP-level associations, we also compared data from the UK (266 cases and 2482 controls) and the Mayo Clinic (114 cases and 111 controls). Although three correlated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) SNPs were consistently associated with glioblastoma in all four data sets (Mantel-Haenzel P values = 1 × 10⁻⁵ to 4 × 10⁻³), independent replication is required as genome-wide significance was not attained. In gene-level analyses, eight immune function genes were significantly (minP &lt; 0.05) associated with glioblastoma; the IL-2RA (CD25) cytokine gene had the smallest minP values in both UCSF (minP = 0.01) and MDA (minP = 0.001) data sets. The IL-2RA receptor is found on the surface of regulatory T cells potentially contributing to immunosuppression characteristic of the glioblastoma microenvironment. In pathway correlation analyses, cytokine signaling and adhesion-extravasation-migration pathways showed similar associations with glioblastoma risk in both MDA and UCSF data sets. Our findings represent the first systematic description of immune genes and pathways that characterize glioblastoma risk

Variants in the CDKN2B and RTEL1 regions are associated with high-grade glioma susceptibility

The causes of glioblastoma and other gliomas remain obscure. To discover new candidate genes influencing glioma susceptibility, we conducted a principal component-adjusted genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 275,895 autosomal variants among 692 adult high-grade glioma cases (622 from the San Francisco Adult Glioma Study (AGS) and 70 from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)) and 3,992 controls (602 from AGS and 3,390 from Illumina iControlDB (iControls)). For replication, we analyzed the 13 SNPs with P&lt; 10 -6 using independent data from 176 high-grade glioma cases and 174 controls from the Mayo Clinic. On 9p21, rs1412829 near CDKN2B had discovery P = 3.4 7 10 -8, replication P = 0.0038 and combined P = 1.85 7 10 -10. On 20q13.3, rs6010620 intronic to RTEL1 had discovery P = 1.5 7 10 -7, replication P = 0.00035 and combined P = 3.40 7 10 9. For both SNPs, the direction of association was the same in discovery and replication phases. \ua9 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved

SSBP2 Variants Are Associated with Survival in Glioblastoma Patients

PurposeGlioblastoma is a devastating, incurable disease with few known prognostic factors. Here, we present the first genome-wide survival and validation study for glioblastoma.Experimental designCox regressions for survival with 314,635 inherited autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) among 315 San Francisco Adult Glioma Study patients for discovery and three independent validation data sets [87 Mayo Clinic, 232 glioma patients recruited from several medical centers in Southeastern United States (GliomaSE), and 115 The Cancer Genome Atlas patients] were used to identify SNPs associated with overall survival for Caucasian glioblastoma patients treated with the current standard of care, resection, radiation, and temozolomide (total n = 749). Tumor expression of the gene that contained the identified prognostic SNP was examined in three separate data sets (total n = 619). Genotype imputation was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for SNPs that had not been directly genotyped.ResultsFrom the discovery and validation analyses, we identified a variant in single-stranded DNA-binding protein 2 (SSBP2) on 5q14.1 associated with overall survival in combined analyses (HR, 1.64; P = 1.3 × 10(-6)). Expression of SSBP2 in tumors from three independent data sets also was significantly related to patient survival (P = 5.3 × 10(-4)). Using genotype imputation, the SSBP2 SNP rs17296479 had the strongest statistically significant genome-wide association with poorer overall patient survival (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.22; P = 1.0 × 10(-7)).ConclusionThe minor allele of SSBP2 SNP rs17296479 and the increased tumor expression of SSBP2 were statistically significantly associated with poorer overall survival among glioblastoma patients. With further confirmation, previously unrecognized inherited variations influencing survival may warrant inclusion in clinical trials to improve randomization. Unaccounted for genetic influence on survival could produce unwanted bias in such studies