4.8 Article

Identification of 31 loci for mammographic density phenotypes and their associations with breast cancer risk

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18883-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [U19CA148065, X01HG007492, R01CA166827, R01CA168893, R01CA237541, RC2AG036607, K07CA143047]
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  3. Ellison Medical Foundation
  4. Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation
  5. Kaiser Permanente
  6. Government of Canada through Genome Canada
  7. Government of Canada through Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  8. 'Ministere de l' Economie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Quebec' through Genome Quebec
  9. Cancer Research UK [C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710]
  10. European Union [HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, H2020 633784, 634935]
  11. [PSR-SIIRI-701]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mammographic density (MD) phenotypes are strongly associated with breast cancer risk and highly heritable. In this GWAS meta-analysis of 24,192 women, we identify 31 MD loci at P<5x10(-8), tripling the number known to 46. Seventeen identified MD loci also are associated with breast cancer risk in an independent meta-analysis (P<0.05). Mendelian randomization analyses show that genetic estimates of dense area (DA), nondense area (NDA), and percent density (PD) are all significantly associated with breast cancer risk (P<0.05). Pathway analyses reveal distinct biological processes involving DA, NDA and PD loci. These findings provide additional insights into the genetic basis of MD phenotypes and their associations with breast cancer risk. Mammographic density represents one the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk. Here the authors perform genome-wide association study meta-analysis of women screened with full-field digital mammography and identify 31 previously unreported loci associated with mammographic density phenotypes.

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