4.5 Review

Functional studies of lung cancer GWAS beyond association

Journal

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
Volume 31, Issue R1, Pages R22-R36

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddac140

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [U19CA203654, R03CA25622, R01CA243483]
  2. Cancer Prevention Research Interest of Texas (CPRIT) award [RR170048]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews the progress of lung cancer GWAS research and emphasizes the heterogeneity of lung cancer GWAS results across histological subtypes, ancestries, and smoking status. It also highlights the importance and strategies of post-GWAS studies for lung cancer.
Fourteen years after the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) of lung cancer was published, approximately 45 genomic loci have now been significantly associated with lung cancer risk. While functional characterization was performed for several of these loci, a comprehensive summary of the current molecular understanding of lung cancer risk has been lacking. Further, many novel computational and experimental tools now became available to accelerate the functional assessment of disease-associated variants, moving beyond locus-by-locus approaches. In this review, we first highlight the heterogeneity of lung cancer GWAS findings across histological subtypes, ancestries and smoking status, which poses unique challenges to follow-up studies. We then summarize the published lung cancer post-GWAS studies for each risk-associated locus to assess the current understanding of biological mechanisms beyond the initial statistical association. We further summarize strategies for GWAS functional follow-up studies considering cutting-edge functional genomics tools and providing a catalog of available resources relevant to lung cancer. Overall, we aim to highlight the importance of integrating computational and experimental approaches to draw biological insights from the lung cancer GWAS results beyond association.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available