Predicting non-native insect impact: focusing on the trees to see the forest

Non-native organisms have invaded novel ecosystems for centuries, yet we have only a limited understanding of why their impacts vary widely from minor to severe. Predicting the impact of non-established or newly detected species could help focus biosecurity measures on species with the highest potential to cause widespread damage. However, predictive models require an understanding of potential drivers of impact and the appropriate level at which these drivers should be evaluated. Here, we used non-native, specialist herbivorous insects of forest ecosystems to test which factors drive impact and if there were differences based on whether they used woody angiosperms or conifers as hosts. We identified convergent and divergent patterns between the two host types indicating fundamental similarities and differences in their interactions with non-native insects. Evolutionary divergence time between native and novel hosts was a significant driver of insect impact for both host types but was modulated by different factors in the two systems. Beetles in the subfamily Scolytinae posed the highest risk to woody angiosperms, and different host traits influenced impact of specialists on conifers and woody angiosperms. Tree wood density was a significant predictor of host impact for woody angiosperms with intermediate densities (0.5–0.6 mg/mm3) associated with highest risk, whereas risk of impact was highest for conifers that coupled shade tolerance with drought intolerance. These results underscore the importance of identifying the relevant levels of biological organization and ecological interactions needed to develop accurate risk models for species that may arrive in novel ecosystems

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

Abstract: Background: The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. Methods: We analysed current and former smokers aged 40–80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). Results: Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81–0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79–0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79–0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14–1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05–2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). Conclusion: In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries

Fine-mapping identifies multiple prostate cancer risk loci at 5p15, one of which associates with TERT expression

Associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 5p15 and multiple cancer types have been reported. We have previously shown evidence for a strong association between prostate cancer (PrCa) risk and rs2242652 at 5p15, intronic in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene that encodes TERT. To comprehensively evaluate the association between genetic variation across this region and PrCa, we performed a fine-mapping analysis by genotyping 134 SNPs using a custom Illumina iSelect array or Sequenom MassArray iPlex, followed by imputation of 1094 SNPs in 22 301 PrCa cases and 22 320 controls in The PRACTICAL consortium. Multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis identified four signals in the promoter or intronic regions of TERT that independently associated with PrCa risk. Gene expression analysis of normal prostate tissue showed evidence that SNPs within one of these regions also associated with TERT expression, providing a potential mechanism for predisposition to disease

Pubertal development and prostate cancer risk: Mendelian randomization study in a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have observed a positive association between an earlier age at sexual development and prostate cancer, but markers of sexual maturation in boys are imprecise and observational estimates are likely to suffer from a degree of uncontrolled confounding. To obtain causal estimates, we examined the role of pubertal development in prostate cancer using genetic polymorphisms associated with Tanner stage in adolescent boys in a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. METHODS: We derived a weighted genetic risk score for pubertal development, combining 13 SNPs associated with male Tanner stage. A higher score indicated a later puberty onset. We examined the association of this score with prostate cancer risk, stage and grade in the UK-based ProtecT case-control study (n = 2,927), and used the PRACTICAL consortium (n = 43,737) as a replication sample. RESULTS: In ProtecT, the puberty genetic score was inversely associated with prostate cancer grade (odds ratio (OR) of high- vs. low-grade cancer, per tertile of the score: 0.76; 95 % CI, 0.64-0.89). In an instrumental variable estimation of the causal OR, later physical development in adolescence (equivalent to a difference of one Tanner stage between pubertal boys of the same age) was associated with a 77 % (95 % CI, 43-91 %) reduced odds of high Gleason prostate cancer. In PRACTICAL, the puberty genetic score was associated with prostate cancer stage (OR of advanced vs. localized cancer, per tertile: 0.95; 95 % CI, 0.91-1.00) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio amongst cases, per tertile: 0.94; 95 % CI, 0.90-0.98), but not with disease grade. CONCLUSIONS: Older age at sexual maturation is causally linked to a reduced risk of later prostate cancer, especially aggressive disease.This work was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund (2011/419) and Cancer Research UK (C18281/A19169). The Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) is supported by the MRC and the University of Bristol (G0600705, MC_UU_12013/19), and the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme is supported by Cancer Research UK programme grant C18281/A19169. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit is funded by the NIHR and is a partnership between University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The ProtecT study is supported by the UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (HTA 96/20/99; ISRCTN20141297). Funding for PRACTICAL and the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/ A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978), and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 – the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the 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, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. We acknowledge support from the NIHR to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0602-

The effects of height and BMI on prostate cancer incidence and mortality:a Mendelian randomization study in 20,848 cases and 20,214 controls from the PRACTICAL consortium

Background\ud \ud Epidemiological studies suggest a potential role for obesity and determinants of adult stature in prostate cancer risk and mortality, but the relationships described in the literature are complex. To address uncertainty over the causal nature of previous observational findings, we investigated associations of height- and adiposity-related genetic variants with prostate cancer risk and mortality.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We conducted a case–control study based on 20,848 prostate cancers and 20,214 controls of European ancestry from 22 studies in the PRACTICAL consortium. We constructed genetic risk scores that summed each man’s number of height and BMI increasing alleles across multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms robustly associated with each phenotype from published genome-wide association studies.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud The genetic risk scores explained 6.31 and 1.46 % of the variability in height and BMI, respectively. There was only weak evidence that genetic variants previously associated with increased BMI were associated with a lower prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation increase in BMI genetic score 0.98; 95 % CI 0.96, 1.00; p = 0.07). Genetic variants associated with increased height were not associated with prostate cancer incidence (OR 0.99; 95 % CI 0.97, 1.01; p = 0.23), but were associated with an increase (OR 1.13; 95 % CI 1.08, 1.20) in prostate cancer mortality among low-grade disease (p heterogeneity, low vs. high grade <0.001). Genetic variants associated with increased BMI were associated with an increase (OR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.14) in all-cause mortality among men with low-grade disease (p heterogeneity = 0.03).\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud We found little evidence of a substantial effect of genetically elevated height or BMI on prostate cancer risk, suggesting that previously reported observational associations may reflect common environmental determinants of height or BMI and prostate cancer risk. Genetically elevated height and BMI were associated with increased mortality (prostate cancer-specific and all-cause, respectively) in men with low-grade disease, a potentially informative but novel finding that requires replication

Fine mapping of chromosome 5p15.33 based on a targeted deep sequencing and high density genotyping identifies novel lung cancer susceptibility loci

Chromosome 5p15.33 has been identified as a lung cancer susceptibility locus, however the underlying causal mechanisms were not fully elucidated. Previous fine-mapping studies of this locus have relied on imputation or investigated a small number of known, common variants. This study represents a significant advance over previous research by investigating a large number of novel, rare variants, as well as their underlying mechanisms through telomere length. Variants for this fine-mapping study were identified through a targeted deep sequencing (average depth of coverage greater than 4000×) of 576 individuals. Subsequently, 4652 SNPs, including 1108 novel SNPs, were genotyped in 5164 cases and 5716 controls of European ancestry. After adjusting for known risk loci, rs2736100 and rs401681, we identified a new, independent lung cancer susceptibility variant in LPCAT1: rs139852726 (OR = 0.46, P = 4.73×10(–9)), and three new adenocarcinoma risk variants in TERT: rs61748181 (OR = 0.53, P = 2.64×10(–6)), rs112290073 (OR = 1.85, P = 1.27×10(–5)), rs138895564 (OR = 2.16, P = 2.06×10(–5); among young cases, OR = 3.77, P = 8.41×10(–4)). In addition, we found that rs139852726 (P = 1.44×10(–3)) was associated with telomere length in a sample of 922 healthy individuals. The gene-based SKAT-O analysis implicated TERT as the most relevant gene in the 5p15.33 region for adenocarcinoma (P = 7.84×10(–7)) and lung cancer (P = 2.37×10(–5)) risk. In this largest fine-mapping study to investigate a large number of rare and novel variants within 5p15.33, we identified novel lung and adenocarcinoma susceptibility loci with large effects and provided support for the role of telomere length as the potential underlying mechanism

Investigating the possible causal role of coffee consumption with prostate cancer risk and progression using Mendelian randomization analysis.

Coffee consumption has been shown in some studies to be associated with lower risk of prostate cancer. However, it is unclear if this association is causal or due to confounding or reverse causality. We conducted a Mendelian randomisation analysis to investigate the causal effects of coffee consumption on prostate cancer risk and progression. We used two genetic variants robustly associated with caffeine intake (rs4410790 and rs2472297) as proxies for coffee consumption in a sample of 46,687 men of European ancestry from 25 studies in the PRACTICAL consortium. Associations between genetic variants and prostate cancer case status, stage and grade were assessed by logistic regression and with all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no clear evidence that a genetic risk score combining rs4410790 and rs2472297 was associated with prostate cancer risk (OR per additional coffee increasing allele: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98,1.03) or having high-grade compared to low-grade disease (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97,1.04). There was some evidence that the genetic risk score was associated with higher odds of having nonlocalised compared to localised stage disease (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06). Amongst men with prostate cancer, there was no clear association between the genetic risk score and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97,1.04) or prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98,1.08). These results, which should have less bias from confounding than observational estimates, are not consistent with a substantial effect of coffee consumption on reducing prostate cancer incidence or progression.British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, and the National Institute for Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Cancer Research UK. Grant Number: C18281/A19169 RMM and Caroline Relton (Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme) Canadian Institutes of Health Research the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme. Grant Numbers: 223175, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 Cancer Research UK. Grant Numbers: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS. Grant Number: 1 U19 CA 148537-01 the GAME-ON initiative the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme. Grant Numbers: 223175, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 Cancer Research UK. Grant Numbers: C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692 the National Institutes of Health. Grant Number: CA128978 Post-Cancer GWAS initiative. Grant Numbers: 1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, 1U19 CA148112 the GAME-ON initiative the Department of Defence. Grant Number: W81XWH-10-1-0341 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer Komen Foundation for the Cure Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Grant Number: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria Australian NHMRC. Grant Numbers: 209057, 251553, 504711 Cancer Council Victoria Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database U.K. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme of the NIH Research. Grant Numbers: HTA 96/20/99, ISRCTN20141297 Prodigal study and the ProMPT (Prostate Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment) National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Department of Health, the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK. Grant Number: G0500966/75466 Cancer Research UK. Grant Number: C5047/A7357 NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust National Institute for Health Research Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit based at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol FCH, DEN and JLD are NIHR Senior Investigators MRC and the University of Bristol. Grant Numbers: G0600705, MC_UU_12013/6This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.3046