Large-scale association study identifies lung cancer susceptibility copy number variants and their potential functional role in genetic instability
Xiao, F.; Qin, F.; Luo, X.; Slewitzke, S. E.; Fernandes, G. F.; Johansson, M.; Xiao, X.; Zaridze, D.; Bojesen, S. E.; Shete, S.; Albanes, D.; Aldrich, M. C.; Tardon, A.; Fernandez-Tardon, G.; Le Marchand, L.; Rennert, G.; Bickeböeller, H.; Wichmann, H.-E.; Risch, A.; Muley, T.; Rosenberger, A.; Field, J. K.; Davies, M.; Woll, P.; Kiemeney, L. A.; Haugen, A.; Zienolddiny, S.; Lam, S.; Johansson, M.; Grankvist, K.; Schabath, M. B.; Andrew, A.; Lazarus, P.; Arnold, S. M.; Zhu, D.; Brenner, H.; Neuhouser, M. L.; Hung, R. J.; Christiani, D. C.; McKay, J.; Cai, G.; Xia, J.; Amos, C. I.
Show abstract
Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous lung cancer susceptibility loci based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), yet a substantial proportion of heritability remains unexplained. We therefore evaluated germline copy number variants (CNVs) as an underexplored source of genetic susceptibility and potential contributors to genomic instability in lung cancer. Methods: We conducted a genome-wide analysis of germline CNVs using 19,342 cases and 15,917 controls from the Transdisciplinary Research in Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) consortium, with replication in two independent cohorts. High-confidence CNVs were identified by integrating two CNV callers including PennCNV and modSaRa2. Association analyses were performed using both gene-based and CNV region-based approaches. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were constructed from top loci, and functional validation was conducted using siRNA-mediated knockdown in lung fibroblast cells. Results: We identified CNVs in four genomic regions (1p36.22, 2q31.2, 6p21.32, and 19q13.32) significantly associated with lung cancer risk. Two loci (1p36.22 and 2q31.2) were consistently supported across both analytical strategies. A CNV-based PRS constructed from key genes (CLCN6, NFE2L2, OPA3, and PSMB8) was significantly associated with lung cancer risk and replicated across independent datasets. Functional assays demonstrated that knockdown of NFE2L2 and OPA3 increased endogenous DNA damage, supporting a role in genomic stability. Conclusions: Germline CNVs contribute to lung cancer susceptibility and may influence carcinogenesis through mechanisms related to genomic instability. Impact: These findings expand the genetic architecture of lung cancer and highlight CNVs as potential biomarkers for improving risk stratification and informing precision prevention strategies.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation and Droplet Digital PCR uncover recurrent copy number variation of the titin segmental duplication region 92%
- Analysis of nucleotide variations in human g-quadruplex forming regions associated with disease states 92%
- Single cell transcriptomic profiling identifies molecular phenotypes of newborn human lung cells 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exome-wide analysis of copy number variation shows association of the human leukocyte antigen region with asthma in UK Biobank 92%
- Co-expression in tissue-specific gene networks links genes in cancer-susceptibility loci to known somatic driver genes 92%
- Genome-wide Copy Number Variations in a Large Cohort of Bantu African Children 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Overlap between COPD genetic association results and transcriptional quantitative trait loci 92%
- Pleiotropy-guided transcriptome imputation from normal and tumor tissues identifies new candidate susceptibility genes for breast and ovarian cancer 91%
- Genetic analyses of inflammatory polyneuropathy and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy identified candidate genes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.