Back to Authors

Lu, Yong‐Jie

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6174-6621

Mayo Clinic

Queen Mary University of London

Citations 4

Circulating Metabolic Biomarkers of Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer in the ProtecT Study
Adams, Charleen D. , Richmond, Rebecca C. , Ferreira, Diana L. Santos , Spiller, Wes , Tan, Vanessa Y. , Würtz, Peter , Donovan, Jenny , Hamdy, Freddie C. , Neal, David E. , Lane, J. Athene , Smith, George Davey , Relton, Caroline L. , Eeles, Rosalind A. , Haiman, Christopher A. , Schumacher, Fredrick R. , Olama, Ali Amin Al , Benlloch, Sara, Muir, Kenneth , Berndt, Sonja I., Conti, David V. , Gapstur, Susan M. , Stevens, Victoria L. , Batra, Jyotsna , Grönberg, Henrik , Pashayan, Nora , Schleutker, Johanna , West, Catharine , Mucci, Lorelei A. , Koutros, Stella , Sørensen, Karina D. , Mæhle, Lovise, Travis, Ruth C. , Rosenstein, Barry S. , Lu, Yong‐Jie , Kibel, Adam S. , Vega, Ana , Stanford, Janet L. , Nordestgaard, Børge G. , Maier, Christiane, Kim, Jeri , John, Esther M. , Teixeira, Manuel R. , Newcomb, Lisa F., Lessel, Davor , Kaneva, Radka , Usmani, Nawaid , Claessens, Frank , Townsend, Paul A. , Dominguez, Manuela Gago, Roobol, Monique J. , Ménégaux, F. , Pandha, Hardev , Thibodeau, Stephen N. , Martin, Richard M. , Teixeira, Manuel R , Vega, Ana , Eeles, Rosalind A , John, Esther M , Donovan, Jenny L , Muir, Kenneth , Schleutker, Johanna , Travis, Ruth C , Pashayan, Nora , Lessel, Davor , Koutros, Stella , Martin, Richard M , Conti, David V , Batra, Jyotsna , Davey Smith, George , Zheng, Jie , Kote‐Jarai, Zsofia , Berndt, Sonja I. , Wiklund, Fredrik E. , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Tangen, Catherine M. , Clements, Judith A. , Albanes, Demetrius , Wolk, Alicja , Cancel‐Tassin, Géraldine , Hamilton, Robert J , Ingles, Sue A. , Giles, Graham G. , Kogevinas, Manolis , Penney, Kathryn , Park, Jong Y. , Cybulski, Cezary , Brenner, Hermann , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Ruyck, Kim De , Razack, Azad Hassan Abdul , Khaw, Kay‐Tee , Cannon‐Albright, Lisa , Claessens, Frank

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | October 23, 2018 | Volume: 28 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 208-216

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0079 Get It

Abstract Background: Whether associations between circulating metabolites and prostate cancer are causal is unknown. We report on the largest study of metabolites and prostate cancer (2,291 cases and 2,661 controls) and appraise causality for a subset of the prostate cancer–metabolite associations using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR). Methods: The case–control portion of the study was conducted in nine UK centers with men ages 50–69 years who underwent prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Two data sources were used to appraise causality: a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of metabolites in 24,925 participants and a GWAS of prostate cancer in 44,825 cases and 27,904 controls within the Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium. Results: Thirty-five metabolites were strongly associated with prostate cancer (P < 0.0014, multiple-testing threshold). These fell into four classes: (i) lipids and lipoprotein subclass characteristics (total cholesterol and ratios, cholesterol esters and ratios, free cholesterol and ratios, phospholipids and ratios, and triglyceride ratios); (ii) fatty acids and ratios; (iii) amino acids; (iv) and fluid balance. Fourteen top metabolites were proxied by genetic variables, but MR indicated these were not causal. Conclusions: We identified 35 circulating metabolites associated with prostate cancer presence, but found no evidence of causality for those 14 testable with MR. Thus, the 14 MR-tested metabolites are unlikely to be mechanistically important in prostate cancer risk. Impact: The metabolome provides a promising set of biomarkers that may aid prostate cancer classification.
AA9int: SNP interaction pattern search using non-hierarchical additive model set
Tung, Heng-Yuan, Sellers, Thomas A. , Pow‐Sang, Julio M. , Eeles, Rosalind A. , Easton, Doug , Olama, Ali Amin Al , Benlloch, Sara, Muir, Kenneth , Grönberg, Henrik , Haiman, Christopher A. , Schleutker, Johanna , Nordestgaard, Børge G. , Travis, Ruth C. , Hamdy, Freddie C. , Neal, David E. , Pashayan, Nora , Stanford, Janet L. , Blot, William J. , Thibodeau, Stephen N. , Maier, Christiane, Kibel, Adam S. , Brenner, Hermann , Kaneva, Radka , Batra, Jyotsna , Teixeira, Manuel R. , Pandha, Hardev, Lu, Yong‐Jie , Teixeira, Manuel R , Eeles, Rosalind A , Muir, Kenneth , Schleutker, Johanna , Travis, Ruth C , Pashayan, Nora , Brenner, Hermann , Lin, Hui‐Yi , Huang, Po‐Yu , Chen, Dung‐Tsa , Easton, Douglas F. , Kote‐Jarai, Zsofia , Giles, Graham G. , Wiklund, Fredrik E. , Khaw, Kay‐Tee , Cybulski, Cezary , Cannon‐Albright, Lisa , Park, Jong Y. , Batra, Jyotsna

Bioinformatics | June 5, 2018 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 24 | Pages: 4141-4150

10.1093/bioinformatics/bty461 Get It

AbstractMotivationThe use of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions to predict complex diseases is getting more attention during the past decade, but related statistical methods are still immature. We previously proposed the SNP Interaction Pattern Identifier (SIPI) approach to evaluate 45 SNP interaction patterns/patterns. SIPI is statistically powerful but suffers from a large computation burden. For large-scale studies, it is necessary to use a powerful and computation-efficient method. The objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based mini-version of SIPI as the screening tool or solitary use and to evaluate the impact of inheritance mode and model structure on detecting SNP–SNP interactions.ResultsWe tested two candidate approaches: the ‘Five-Full’ and ‘AA9int’ method. The Five-Full approach is composed of the five full interaction models considering three inheritance modes (additive, dominant and recessive). The AA9int approach is composed of nine interaction models by considering non-hierarchical model structure and the additive mode. Our simulation results show that AA9int has similar statistical power compared to SIPI and is superior to the Five-Full approach, and the impact of the non-hierarchical model structure is greater than that of the inheritance mode in detecting SNP–SNP interactions. In summary, it is recommended that AA9int is a powerful tool to be used either alone or as the screening stage of a two-stage approach (AA9int+SIPI) for detecting SNP–SNP interactions in large-scale studies.Availability and implementationThe ‘AA9int’ and ‘parAA9int’ functions (standard and parallel computing version) are added in the SIPI R package, which is freely available at https://linhuiyi.github.io/LinHY_Software/.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
SNP interaction pattern identifier (SIPI): an intensive search for SNP–SNP interaction patterns
Lin, Hui‐Yi , Chen, Dung‐Tsa, Huang, Po-Yu, Liu, Yung-Hsin, Zabaleta, Jovanny , Mercante, Donald E., Fang, Zhide , Sellers, Thomas A. , Pow‐Sang, Julio M. , Cheng, Chia‐Ho, Eeles, Rosalind A. , Easton, Doug , Olama, Ali Amin Al , Benlloch, Sara, Muir, Kenneth , Grönberg, Henrik , Haiman, Christopher A. , Schleutker, Johanna , Nordestgaard, Børge G. , Travis, Ruth C. , Hamdy, Freddie C. , Pashayan, Nora , Stanford, Janet L. , Blot, William J. , Thibodeau, Stephen N. , Maier, Christiane, Kibel, Adam S. , Brenner, Hermann , Kaneva, Radka , Batra, Jyotsna , Teixeira, Manuel R. , Pandha, Hardev, Lu, Yong‐Jie , Ochoa, Augusto C. , Kote‐Jarai, Zsofia , Giles, Graham G. , Wiklund, Fredrik E. , Khaw, Kay‐Tee , Cybulski, Cezary , Cannon‐Albright, Lisa , Park, Jong Y. , Teixeira, Manuel R , Eeles, Rosalind A , Muir, Kenneth , Schleutker, Johanna , Travis, Ruth C , Pashayan, Nora , Lin, Hui-Yi , Brenner, Hermann , Batra, Jyotsna , Zabaleta, Jovanny

Bioinformatics | November 29, 2016 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 822-833

10.1093/bioinformatics/btw762 Get It

Abstract Motivation Testing SNP–SNP interactions is considered as a key for overcoming bottlenecks of genetic association studies. However, related statistical methods for testing SNP–SNP interactions are underdeveloped. Results We propose the SNP Interaction Pattern Identifier (SIPI), which tests 45 biologically meaningful interaction patterns for a binary outcome. SIPI takes non-hierarchical models, inheritance modes and mode coding direction into consideration. The simulation results show that SIPI has higher power than MDR (Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction), AA_Full, Geno_Full (full interaction model with additive or genotypic mode) and SNPassoc in detecting interactions. Applying SIPI to the prostate cancer PRACTICAL consortium data with approximately 21 000 patients, the four SNP pairs in EGFR-EGFR, EGFR-MMP16 and EGFR-CSF1 were found to be associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness with the exact or similar pattern in the discovery and validation sets. A similar match for external validation of SNP–SNP interaction studies is suggested. We demonstrated that SIPI not only searches for more meaningful interaction patterns but can also overcome the unstable nature of interaction patterns. Availability and Implementation The SIPI software is freely available at http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/LinSoftware/. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL, a Multinational Consortium, Using 25 Known Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Loci
Olama, Ali Amin Al , Benlloch, Sara, Antoniou, Antonis C. , Giles, Graham G. , Severi, Gianluca , Neal, David E. , Hamdy, Freddie C. , Donovan, Jenny , Muir, Kenneth , Schleutker, Johanna , Henderson, Brian E., Haiman, Christopher A. , Schumacher, Fredrick R. , Pashayan, Nora , Ostrander, Elaine A. , Stanford, Janet L. , Batra, Jyotsna , Clements, Judith A. , Chambers, Suzanne K. , Weischer, Maren , Nordestgaard, Børge G. , Sørensen, Karina D. , Ørntoft, Torben F., Maier, Christiane, Doerk, Thilo, Dickinson, Joanne L. , Cannon‐Albright, Lisa , Brenner, Hermann , Habuchi, Tomonori , Thibodeau, Stephen N. , Cooney, Kathleen A. , Chappuis, Pierre O. , Hutter, Pierre, Kaneva, Radka , Foulkes, William D. , Lu, Yong‐Jie , Zhang, Hongwei , Stephenson, Robert A., Cox, Angela , Southey, Melissa C. , FitzGerald, Liesel M. , Leongamornlert, Daniel , Saunders, Edward J. , Tymrakiewicz, Malgorzata, Guy, Michelle, Little, Sarah J., Govindasami, Koveela, Sawyer, Emma, Wilkinson, Rosemary, Herkommer, Kathleen , Hopper, John L. , Lophatonanon, Aritaya, Rinckleb, Antje E., Eeles, Rosalind A. , Easton, Douglas F. , Dörk, Thilo , Aitken, Joanne F. , Borre, Michael , Lose, Felicity , Srinivasan, Srilakshmi , Tilley, Wayne D. , Samaratunga, Hemamali , Goranova, Teodora , Catto, James W.F. , Pharoah, Paul D.P. , Ingles, Sue A. , Park, Jong Y. , Cybulski, Cezary , Rebbeck, Timothy R. , Zeigler-Johnson, Charnita M , Zeegers, Maurice Petrus , Spurdle, Amanda B. , Dadaev, Tokhir , Kote‐Jarai, Zsofia , Dwyer, Terry , Dörk, Thilo , Giles, Graham G , Foulkes, William D , Eeles, Rosalind A , Southey, Melissa C , Donovan, Jenny L , Muir, Kenneth , Schleutker, Johanna , Pashayan, Nora , Cannon-Albright, Lisa A , Brenner, Hermann , Cox, Angela , Samaratunga, Hemamali , Severi, Gianluca , Batra, Jyotsna , Clements, Judith

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | April 3, 2015 | Volume: 24 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1121-1129

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0317 Get It

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. Results: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4–57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2–5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). Conclusions: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. Impact: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(7); 1121–9. ©2015 AACR.