Back

The impact of sex and ancestry on the molecular landscape of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Chen, C. Y.; Arbet, J. Y.; Zhu, C.; Oh, J.; Boutros, P. C.

2026-10-08 genomics
10.64898/2026.10.06.757201 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with an increasing incidence and dismal 10% survival at 5 years despite best available care. PDAC is characterized by low tumour cellularity, recurrent driver mutation alterations, and substantial inter and intra-tumoural heterogeneity. The influence of individual genetic features such as sex and ancestry on tumour heterogeneity remains poorly understood. Methods: We assembled a cohort of PDAC across five datasets for a total of 7,527 tumours. Measures of genomic instability were assessed across sex and ancestry on a global level (SNV density and percent genome altered by copy number events), and at a gene level for recurrent events. KRAS variant frequencies, ploidy and mRNA abundance were also evaluated. Ancestry was assigned using ADMIXTURE from germline genotypes where available, and patient reported otherwise. Results: We observed ancestry-specific mutation patterns in global point mutation density, with higher SNV burden in African PDAC tumours and lower SNV burden in Asian PDAC tumours as compared to European tumours. We also identified an ancestry bias in the driver gene, GNAS, in which driver SNVs in GNAS was detected more frequently in those of Asian ancestry, and less frequently in those of African ancestry. No sex- or ancestry-associations were found for KRAS, but individual KRAS variants showed a trend towards ancestry-related variation. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that ancestry contributes to the genomic heterogeneity of PDAC, shaping both global and gene-specific mutation patterns. This work underscores the importance of including diverse ancestries in PDAC molecular profiling efforts which may inform the development of tailored molecular diagnostics and targeted therapies.

Matching journals

The top 8 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.