Harnessing publicly available genetic data to prioritize lipid modifying therapeutic targets for prevention of coronary heart disease based on dysglycemic risk

Therapeutic interventions that lower LDL-cholesterol effectively reduce the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, statins, the most widely prescribed LDL-cholesterol lowering drugs, increase diabetes risk. We used genome-wide association study (GWAS) data in the public domain to investigate the relationship of LDL-C and diabetes and identify loci encoding potential drug targets for LDL-cholesterol modification without causing dysglycemia. We obtained summary-level GWAS data for LDL-C from GLGC, glycemic traits from MAGIC, diabetes from DIAGRAM and CAD from CARDIoGRAMplusC4D consortia. Mendelian randomization analyses identified a one standard deviation (SD) increase in LDL-C caused an increased risk of CAD (odds ratio [OR] 1.63 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.55, 1.71), which was not influenced by removing SNPs associated with diabetes. LDL-C/CAD-associated SNPs showed consistent effect directions (binomial P = 6.85 × 10−5). Conversely, a 1-SD increase in LDL-C was causally protective of diabetes (OR 0.86; 95 % CI 0.81, 0.91), however LDL-cholesterol/diabetes-associated SNPs did not show consistent effect directions (binomial P = 0.15). HMGCR, our positive control, associated with LDL-C, CAD and a glycemic composite (derived from GWAS meta-analysis of four glycemic traits and diabetes). In contrast, PCSK9, APOB, LPA, CETP, PLG, NPC1L1 and ALDH2 were identified as “druggable” loci that alter LDL-C and risk of CAD without displaying associations with dysglycemia. In conclusion, LDL-C increases the risk of CAD and the relationship is independent of any association of LDL-C with diabetes. Loci that encode targets of emerging LDL-C lowering drugs do not associate with dysglycemia, and this provides provisional evidence that new LDL-C lowering drugs (such as PCSK9 inhibitors) may not influence risk of diabetes

BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon K3326X and the risk of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers

Background: The K3326X variant in BRCA2 (BRCA2*c.9976A>T; p.Lys3326*; rs11571833) has been found to be associated with small increased risks of breast cancer. However, it is not clear to what extent linkage disequilibrium with fully pathogenic mutations might account for this association. There is scant information about the effect of K3326X in other hormone-related cancers. Methods: Using weighted logistic regression, we analyzed data from the large iCOGS study including 76 637 cancer case patients and 83 796 control patients to estimate odds ratios (ORw) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for K3326X variant carriers in relation to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer risks, with weights defined as probability of not having a pathogenic BRCA2 variant. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, we also examined the associations of K3326X with breast and ovarian cancer risks among 7183 BRCA1 variant carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The K3326X variant was associated with breast (ORw = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.40, P = 5.9x10- 6) and invasive ovarian cancer (ORw = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P = 3.8x10-3). These associations were stronger for serous ovarian cancer and for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer (ORw = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.70, P = 3.4x10-5 and ORw = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.76, P = 4.1x10-5, respectively). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was a statistically significant inverse association of the K3326X variant with risk of ovarian cancer (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.84, P = .013) but no association with breast cancer. No association with prostate cancer was observed. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that the K3326X variant is associated with risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers independent of other pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanism of action responsible for these associations

Fine-mapping of the HNF1B multicancer locus identifies candidate variants that mediate endometrial cancer risk.

Common variants in the hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 homeobox B (HNF1B) gene are associated with the risk of Type II diabetes and multiple cancers. Evidence to date indicates that cancer risk may be mediated via genetic or epigenetic effects on HNF1B gene expression. We previously found single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the HNF1B locus to be associated with endometrial cancer, and now report extensive fine-mapping and in silico and laboratory analyses of this locus. Analysis of 1184 genotyped and imputed SNPs in 6608 Caucasian cases and 37 925 controls, and 895 Asian cases and 1968 controls, revealed the best signal of association for SNP rs11263763 (P = 8.4 × 10(-14), odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-0.89), located within HNF1B intron 1. Haplotype analysis and conditional analyses provide no evidence of further independent endometrial cancer risk variants at this locus. SNP rs11263763 genotype was associated with HNF1B mRNA expression but not with HNF1B methylation in endometrial tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Genetic analyses prioritized rs11263763 and four other SNPs in high-to-moderate linkage disequilibrium as the most likely causal SNPs. Three of these SNPs map to the extended HNF1B promoter based on chromatin marks extending from the minimal promoter region. Reporter assays demonstrated that this extended region reduces activity in combination with the minimal HNF1B promoter, and that the minor alleles of rs11263763 or rs8064454 are associated with decreased HNF1B promoter activity. Our findings provide evidence for a single signal associated with endometrial cancer risk at the HNF1B locus, and that risk is likely mediated via altered HNF1B gene expression

High-throughput automated scoring of Ki67 in breast cancer tissue microarrays from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Automated methods are needed to facilitate high-throughput and reproducible scoring of Ki67 and other markers in breast cancer tissue microarrays (TMAs) in large-scale studies. To address this need, we developed an automated protocol for Ki67 scoring and evaluated its performance in studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We utilized 166 TMAs containing 16,953 tumour cores representing 9,059 breast cancer cases, from 13 studies, with information on other clinical and pathological characteristics. TMAs were stained for Ki67 using standard immunohistochemical procedures, and scanned and digitized using the Ariol system. An automated algorithm was developed for the scoring of Ki67, and scores were compared to computer assisted visual (CAV) scores in a subset of 15 TMAs in a training set. We also assessed the correlation between automated Ki67 scores and other clinical and pathological characteristics. Overall, we observed good discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 85%) and good agreement (kappa = 0.64) between the automated and CAV scoring methods in the training set. The performance of the automated method varied by TMA (kappa range= 0.37-0.87) and study (kappa range = 0.39-0.69). The automated method performed better in satisfactory cores (kappa = 0.68) than suboptimal (kappa = 0.51) cores (p-value for comparison = 0.005); and among cores with higher total nuclei counted by the machine (4,000-4,500 cells: kappa = 0.78) than those with lower counts (50-500 cells: kappa = 0.41; p-value = 0.010). Among the 9,059 cases in this study, the correlations between automated Ki67 and clinical and pathological characteristics were found to be in the expected directions. Our findings indicate that automated scoring of Ki67 can be an efficient method to obtain good quality data across large numbers of TMAs from multicentre studies. However, robust algorithm development and rigorous pre- and post-analytical quality control procedures are necessary in order to ensure satisfactory performance.ABCS was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009-4363]; BBMRI-NL, which is a Research Infrastructure financed by the Dutch government (NWO 184.021.007); and the Dutch National Genomics Initiative. CNIO-BCS was supported by the Genome Spain Foundation, the Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer and grants from the Asociacion Espaola Contra el Cancer and the Fondo de Investigacion Sanitario (PI11/00923 and PI081120). The Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit (CNIO) is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Wurttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, the Academy of Finland and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. We wish to thank Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study (which has received funding from the NHMRC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Australia, and the National Institute of Health (USA)) for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. The MCBCS was supported by an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. ORIGO authors thank E. Krol-Warmerdam, and J. Blom; The contributing studies were funded by grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (UL1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL CP16). PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SEARCH is funded by programme grant from Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124. C490/A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. Part of this work was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009223175) (COGS). The UKBGS is funded by Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. We acknowledge funds from Breakthrough Breast Cancer, UK, in support of MGC at the time this work was carried out and funds from the Cancer Research, UK, in support of MA.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjp2.4

A genome-wide association study of early menopause and the combined impact of identified variants

Early menopause (EM) affects up to 10% of the female population, reducing reproductive lifespan considerably. Currently, it constitutes the leading cause of infertility in the western world, affecting mainly those women who postpone their first pregnancy beyond the age of 30 years. The genetic aetiology of EM is largely unknown in the majority of cases. We have undertaken a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in 3493 EM cases and 13 598 controls from 10 independent studies. No novel genetic variants were discovered, but the 17 variants previously associated with normal age at natural menopause as a quantitative trait (QT) were also associated with EM and primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). Thus, EM has a genetic aetiology which overlaps variation in normal age at menopause and is at least partly explained by the additive effects of the same polygenic variants. The combined effect of the common variants captured by the single nucleotide polymorphism arrays was estimated to account for ∼30% of the variance in EM. The association between the combined 17 variants and the risk of EM was greater than the best validated non-genetic risk factor, smokin

Identification of new genetic susceptibility loci for breast cancer through consideration of gene-environment interactions

Genes that alter disease risk only in combination with certain environmental exposures may not be detected in genetic association analysis. By using methods accounting for gene-environment (G × E) interaction, we aimed to identify novel genetic loci associated with breast cancer risk. Up to 34,475 cases and 34,786 controls of European ancestry from up to 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium were included. Overall, 71,527 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), enriched for association with breast cancer, were tested for interaction with 10 environmental risk factors using three recently proposed hybrid methods and a joint test of association and interaction. Analyses were adjusted for age, study, population stratification, and confounding factors as applicable. Three SNPs in two independent loci showed statistically significant association: SNPs rs10483028 and rs2242714 in perfect linkage disequilibrium on chromosome 21 and rs12197388 in ARID1B on chromosome 6. While rs12197388 was identified using the joint test with parity and with age at menarche (P-values = 3 × 10(−07)), the variants on chromosome 21 q22.12, which showed interaction with adult body mass index (BMI) in 8,891 postmenopausal women, were identified by all methods applied. SNP rs10483028 was associated with breast cancer in women with a BMI below 25 kg/m(2) (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.38) but not in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or higher (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.11, P for interaction = 3.2 × 10(−05)). Our findings confirm comparable power of the recent methods for detecting G × E interaction and the utility of using G × E interaction analyses to identify new susceptibility loci

Comprehensive genetic assessment of the ESR1 locus identifies a risk region for endometrial cancer.

Excessive exposure to estrogen is a well-established risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC), particularly for cancers of endometrioid histology. The physiological function of estrogen is primarily mediated by estrogen receptor alpha, encoded by ESR1. Consequently, several studies have investigated whether variation at the ESR1 locus is associated with risk of EC, with conflicting results. We performed comprehensive fine-mapping analyses of 3633 genotyped and imputed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 6607 EC cases and 37 925 controls. There was evidence of an EC risk signal located at a potential alternative promoter of the ESR1 gene (lead SNP rs79575945, P=1.86×10(-5)), which was stronger for cancers of endometrioid subtype (P=3.76×10(-6)). Bioinformatic analysis suggests that this risk signal is in a functionally important region targeting ESR1, and eQTL analysis found that rs79575945 was associated with expression of SYNE1, a neighbouring gene. In summary, we have identified a single EC risk signal located at ESR1, at study-wide significance. Given SNPs located at this locus have been associated with risk for breast cancer, also a hormonally driven cancer, this study adds weight to the rationale for performing informed candidate fine-scale genetic studies across cancer types.This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (ID#1031333 to A B Spurdle, DF, A M Dunning, ID#39435 to ANECS, ID#552402, QIMR Controls); National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Fellowship Scheme (to A B Spurdle); Principal Research Fellow of Cancer Research UK (to D F Easton); Joseph Mitchell Trust (to A M Dunning); Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre (to I Tomlinson); The European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement number 22175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS); Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118 to COGS and BCAC, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014 to COGS and BCAC, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565, C490/A10124 to SEARCH, CORGI - NSECG, to I Tomlinson); National Institutes of Health (CA128978, R01 CA122443 to MECS and MAY, P30 CA15083 to MECS, P50 CA136393 to MECS and MAY, CAHRES); Post-Cancer GWAS Initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, 1U19 CA148112 – the GAME-ON initiative); Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer; Komen Foundation for the Cure; The Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (to COGS); Cancer Council Queensland (ID#4196615 to ANECS); Council Cancer Tasmania (ID#403031, #ID457636 to ANECS); Medical Research Council (G0000934 to the British 1958 Birth Cohort); Wellcome Trust (068545/Z/02, 085475 to the British 1958 Birth Cohort); Wellcome Trust Human Genetics Grant (090532/Z/09/Z to NSECG); European Union (EU FP7 CHIBCHA to NSECG); The University of Newcastle (to QIMR Controls, to NECS); Gladys M Brawn Senior Research Fellowship (QIMR Controls); The Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation (QIMR Controls); Hunter Medical Research Institute (HCS, NECS); Hunter Area Pathology Service (HCS); ELAN fund of the University of Erlangen (BECS); Verelst Foundation for endometrial cancer (LES); Fred C and Katherine B Anderson Foundation (to MECS, to MAY); Mayo Foundation (to MECS, to MAY); Ovarian Cancer Research Fund with support of the Smith family, in memory of Kathryn Sladek Smith (MECS, PPD/RPCI.07 to OCAC); Helse Vest Grant (MoMaTEC); University of Bergen (MoMaTEC); Melzer Foundation (MoMaTEC); The Norwegian Cancer Society – Harald Andersens legat (MoMaTEC); The Research Council of Norway (MoMaTEC); Haukeland University of Hospital (MoMaTEC); NBN Children's Cancer Research Group (NECS); Ms Jennie Thomas (NECS); regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (20110222, 20110483, 20110141 and DF 07015 all to RENDOCAS, to KARBAC); The Swedish Labor Market Insurance (100069 to RENDOCAS); The Swedish Cancer Society (11 0439 to RENDOCAS); Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (CAHRES); Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (CAHRES); UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge (OCAC); Baden-Württemberg state Ministry of Science, Research and Arts (ESTHER); Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (ESTHER); Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany (01KW9975/5 to GENICA, 01KW9976/8 to GENICA, 01KW9977/0 to GENICA, 01KW0114 to GENICA, to ESTHER); Robert Bosch Foundation (GENICA); Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum – DKFZ (GENICA); Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum, IPA (GENICA); Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus (GENICA); Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. (70-2892-BR I to MARIE); Hamburg Cancer Society (MARIE); German Cancer Research Center (MARIE); Breast Cancer Research Foundation (MCBCS); David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation (MCBCS); Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation (MCBCS); VicHealth (MCCS); Cancer Council Victoria (MCCS); Breakthrough Breast Cancer (UKBGS); Institute of Cancer Research (UKBGS); and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (UKBGS/ICR).This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Society for Endocrinology via http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/ERC-15-031