Identification of lung cancer histology-specific variants applying Bayesian framework variant prioritization approaches within the TRICL and ILCCO consortia
Carcinogenesis, ISSN: 1460-2180, Vol: 36, Issue: 11, Page: 1314-1326
2015
- 16Citations
- 44Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations16
- Citation Indexes14
- 14
- CrossRef3
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures44
- Readers44
- 44
Article Description
Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have likely uncovered all common variants at the GWAS significance level. Additional variants within the suggestive range (0.0001> P> 5× 10) are, however, still of interest for identifying causal associations. This analysis aimed to apply novel variant prioritization approaches to identify additional lung cancer variants that may not reach the GWAS level. Effects were combined across studies with a total of 33 456 controls and 6756 adenocarcinoma (AC; 13 studies), 5061 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; 12 studies) and 2216 small cell lung cancer cases (9 studies). Based on prior information such as variant physical properties and functional significance, we applied stratified false discovery rates, hierarchical modeling and Bayesian false discovery probabilities for variant prioritization. We conducted a fine mapping analysis as validation of our methods by examining top-ranking novel variants in six independent populations with a total of 3128 cases and 2966 controls. Three novel loci in the suggestive range were identified based on our Bayesian framework analyses: KCNIP4 at 4p15.2 (rs6448050, P= 4.6× 10) and MTMR2 at 11q21 (rs10501831, P= 3.1× 10) with SCC, as well as GAREM at 18q12.1 (rs11662168, P= 3.4× 10) with AC. Use of our prioritization methods validated two of the top three loci associated with SCC (P= 1.05× 10 for KCNIP4, represented by rs9799795) and AC (P= 2.16× 10 for GAREM, represented by rs3786309) in the independent fine mapping populations. This study highlights the utility of using prior functional data for sequence variants in prioritization analyses to search for robust signals in the suggestive range.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84949569031&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgv128; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26363033; https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/carcin/bgv128; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgv128; https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article-abstract/36/11/1314/370999?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know