70 research outputs found

    Genetic association study of QT interval highlights role for calcium signaling pathways in myocardial repolarization.

    Get PDF
    The QT interval, an electrocardiographic measure reflecting myocardial repolarization, is a heritable trait. QT prolongation is a risk factor for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) and could indicate the presence of the potentially lethal mendelian long-QT syndrome (LQTS). Using a genome-wide association and replication study in up to 100,000 individuals, we identified 35 common variant loci associated with QT interval that collectively explain ∼8-10% of QT-interval variation and highlight the importance of calcium regulation in myocardial repolarization. Rare variant analysis of 6 new QT interval-associated loci in 298 unrelated probands with LQTS identified coding variants not found in controls but of uncertain causality and therefore requiring validation. Several newly identified loci encode proteins that physically interact with other recognized repolarization proteins. Our integration of common variant association, expression and orthogonal protein-protein interaction screens provides new insights into cardiac electrophysiology and identifies new candidate genes for ventricular arrhythmias, LQTS and SCD

    Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Multiple Serrated Polyps: A Cross-Sectional Case Series from Genetics Clinics

    Get PDF
    Patients with multiple serrated polyps are at an increased risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent reports have linked cigarette smoking with the subset of CRC that develops from serrated polyps. The aim of this work therefore was to investigate the association between smoking and the risk of CRC in high-risk genetics clinic patients presenting with multiple serrated polyps. Methods and Findings We identified 151 Caucasian individuals with multiple serrated polyps including at least 5 outside the rectum, and classified patients into non-smokers, current or former smokers at the time of initial diagnosis of polyposis. Cases were individuals with multiple serrated polyps who presented with CRC. Controls were individuals with multiple serrated polyps and no CRC. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate associations between smoking and CRC with adjustment for age at first presentation, sex and co-existing traditional adenomas, a feature that has been consistently linked with CRC risk in patients with multiple serrated polyps. CRC was present in 56 (37%) individuals at presentation. Patients with at least one adenoma were 4 times more likely to present with CRC compared with patients without adenomas (OR = 4.09; 95%CI 1.27 to 13.14; P = 0.02). For females, the odds of CRC decreased by 90% in current smokers as compared to never smokers (OR = 0.10; 95%CI 0.02 to 0.47; P = 0.004) after adjusting for age and adenomas. For males, there was no relationship between current smoking and CRC. There was no statistical evidence of an association between former smoking and CRC for both sexes. Conclusion A decreased odds for CRC was identified in females with multiple serrated polyps who currently smoke, independent of age and the presence of a traditional adenoma. Investigations into the biological basis for these observations could lead to non-smoking-related therapies being developed to decrease the risk of CRC and colectomy in these patients.Daniel D. Buchanan, Kevin Sweet, Musa Drini, Mark A. Jenkins, Aung Ko Win, Dallas R. English, Michael D. Walsh, Mark Clendenning, Diane M. McKeone, Rhiannon J. Walters, Aedan Roberts, Sally-Ann Pearson, Erika Pavluk, John L. Hopper, Michael R. Gattas, Jack Goldblatt, Jill George, Graeme K. Suthers, Kerry D. Phillips, Sonja Woodal, Julie Arnold, Kathy Tucker, Amanda Muir, Michael Field, Sian Greening, Steven Gallinger, Renee Perrier, John A. Baron, John D. Potter, Robert Haile, Wendy Franke, Albert de la Chapelle, Finlay Macrae, Christophe Rosty, Neal I. Walker, Susan Parry and Joanne P. Youn

    Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

    Get PDF
    Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)

    An international effort towards developing standards for best practices in analysis, interpretation and reporting of clinical genome sequencing results in the CLARITY Challenge

    Get PDF
    There is tremendous potential for genome sequencing to improve clinical diagnosis and care once it becomes routinely accessible, but this will require formalizing research methods into clinical best practices in the areas of sequence data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. The CLARITY Challenge was designed to spur convergence in methods for diagnosing genetic disease starting from clinical case history and genome sequencing data. DNA samples were obtained from three families with heritable genetic disorders and genomic sequence data were donated by sequencing platform vendors. The challenge was to analyze and interpret these data with the goals of identifying disease-causing variants and reporting the findings in a clinically useful format. Participating contestant groups were solicited broadly, and an independent panel of judges evaluated their performance. RESULTS: A total of 30 international groups were engaged. The entries reveal a general convergence of practices on most elements of the analysis and interpretation process. However, even given this commonality of approach, only two groups identified the consensus candidate variants in all disease cases, demonstrating a need for consistent fine-tuning of the generally accepted methods. There was greater diversity of the final clinical report content and in the patient consenting process, demonstrating that these areas require additional exploration and standardization. CONCLUSIONS: The CLARITY Challenge provides a comprehensive assessment of current practices for using genome sequencing to diagnose and report genetic diseases. There is remarkable convergence in bioinformatic techniques, but medical interpretation and reporting are areas that require further development by many groups

    Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

    Get PDF
    Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)
    corecore