4.8 Article

Pan-cancer study detects genetic risk variants and shared genetic basis in two large cohorts

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18246-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01CA088164, R01CA201358, R25CA112355, K07CA188142, K24CA169004, U01CA127298]
  2. UCSF Goldberg-Benioff Program in Cancer Translational Biology
  3. National Institute on Aging
  4. NIH Common Fund [RC2 AG036607]
  5. National Institute of Mental Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Deciphering the shared genetic basis of distinct cancers has the potential to elucidate carcinogenic mechanisms and inform broadly applicable risk assessment efforts. Here, we undertake genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and comprehensive evaluations of heritability and pleiotropy across 18 cancer types in two large, population-based cohorts: the UK Biobank (408,786 European ancestry individuals; 48,961 cancer cases) and the Kaiser Permanente Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohorts (66,526 European ancestry individuals; 16,001 cancer cases). The GWAS detect 21 genome-wide significant associations independent of previously reported results. Investigations of pleiotropy identify 12 cancer pairs exhibiting either positive or negative genetic correlations; 25 pleiotropic loci; and 100 independent pleiotropic variants, many of which are regulatory elements and/or influence cross-tissue gene expression. Our findings demonstrate widespread pleiotropy and offer further insight into the complex genetic architecture of cross-cancer susceptibility. Pleiotropic loci and genome-wide genetic correlations have identified shared heritability across some types of cancers. Here, the authors perform genome-wide association studies and characterize pan-cancer heritability and pleiotropy in individuals of European ancestry across 18 cancer types from two large cohorts.

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