4.8 Article

Large-scale association analysis in Asians identifies new susceptibility loci for prostate cancer

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9469

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Key Project of the National Science Foundation of China [81130047]
  2. National Key Basic Research Program Grant 973 of China [2012CB518301]
  3. intramural grants from Fudan University
  4. National Science Foundation of China [81202001, 81202269]
  5. Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning [XBR2013092]
  6. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [14ZZ010]
  7. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology of the Japanese government
  8. National Institutes of Health [CA164973, HG004726]
  9. Ellrodt-Schweighauser Family Chair of Cancer Genomic Research of NorthShore University HealthSystem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified similar to 100 genetic loci associated with prostate cancer risk. Less than a dozen of these loci were initially identified from GWAS in two Asian populations, likely because of smaller sample sizes of these individual GWAS in Asians. Here, we conduct a large-scale meta-analysis of two GWAS from the Japanese population (1,583 cases and 3,386 controls) and the Chinese population (1,417 cases and 1,008 controls), followed by replication in three independent sample sets. We identify two independent susceptibility loci for prostate cancer at 11p15.4 (rs12791447, P = 3.59 x 10(-8); PPFIBP2) and 14q23.2 (rs58262369, P = 6.05 x 10(-10); ESR2). The mRNA levels of PPFIBP2 and ESR2 are differentially expressed in prostate tumours and paired normal tissues. Our study adds two new loci to the limited number of prostate cancer risk-associated variants in Asians and provides important insight into potential biological mechanisms of prostate cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available