Back

Multi-omics Mendelian randomisation using expression, protein and splicing quantitative trait loci to identify novel drug targets associated with risk of gliomagenesis

Thornton, Z. A.; Andrews, L. J.; Zhao, H.; Zheng, J.; Robinson, J. W.; Kurian, K. M.

2022-05-16 oncology
10.1101/2022.05.11.22274959 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGenetic variants associated with molecular traits that are also associated with liability to glioma can provide causal evidence for the prioritisation of these traits as candidate drug targets. MethodsWe performed two-sample Mendelian randomisation and genetic colocalisation of a large panel of molecular traits on glioma. Molecular data were taken from studies of expression quantitative trait loci (QTL) [11,985 genes]; splicing QTL [13,285 genes] and protein QTL [7,376 proteins] derived from 15 brain tissues. Glioma summary-level data was extracted from a genome-wide association meta-analysis of 12,496 cases and 18,190 controls. ResultsOur MR analysis showed evidence for a causal effect of 85 molecular traits on glioma - 37 were robust according to colocalisation and Steiger filtering. We found causal evidence for 10 genes previously associated with glioma risk. We identified one novel genetic locus with strong causal evidence in the gene expression analysis: HBEGF (5q31.3) in all glioma [OR 1.36 (95%CI 1.19 to 1.55); P = 4.41 x 10-6]. We also identified three novel genetic loci with strong causal evidence in the splicing variation analysis: CEP192 (18p11.21) in glioblastoma [OR 4.40 (95%CI 2.28 to 8.48); P = 9.78 x 10-4]; FAIM (3q22.3) in all glioma [OR 2.72 to 3.43; P = 1.03 x 10-5 to 1.09 x 10-5] and SLC8A1 (2p22.1) in all glioma [OR 0.37 (95%CI 0.24 to 0.56; P = 5.72 x 10-6]. ConclusionsWe provide robust causal evidence for genes previously associated with glioma risk in genome-wide association studies, as well as four novel genes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.