4.6 Article

Whole Exome-Wide Association Identifies Rare Variants in GALNT9 Associated with Middle Eastern Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Risk

期刊

CANCERS
卷 15, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174235

关键词

papillary thyroid cancer; exome-wide association study; GALNT9; rare variants; sequence kernal association test

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified a strong association between GALNT9 gene and rare inactivating variants in Middle Eastern population with Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), and also found several other genes associated with PTC risk. The study highlights the potential role of GALNT9 and other genes in PTC predisposition and emphasizes the need for large collaborations and innovative approaches to understand the genetic heterogeneity of PTC predisposition.
Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the commonest thyroid cancer. The majority of inherited causes of PTC remain elusive. However, understanding the genetic underpinnings and origins remains a challenging endeavor. An exome-wide association study was performed to identify rare germline variants in coding regions associated with PTC risk in the Middle Eastern population. By analyzing exome-sequencing data from 249 PTC patients (cases) and 1395 individuals without any known cancer (controls), GALNT9 emerged as being strongly associated with rare inactivating variants (RIVs) (4/249 cases vs. 1/1395 controls, OR = 22.75, p = 5.09 x 10-5). Furthermore, three genes, TRIM40, ARHGAP23, and SOX4, were enriched for rare damaging variants (RDVs) at the exome-wide threshold (p < 2.5 x 10-6). An additional seven genes (VARS1, ZBED9, PRRC2A, VWA7, TRIM31, TRIM40, and COL8A2) were associated with a Middle Eastern PTC risk based on the sequence kernel association test (SKAT). This study underscores the potential of GALNT9 and other implicated genes in PTC predisposition, illuminating the need for large collaborations and innovative approaches to understand the genetic heterogeneity of PTC predisposition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据