Zhu, Jingjing

AbstractBackground:The role of methylation in pancreatic cancer risk remains unclear. We integrated genome and methylome data to identify CpG sites (CpG) with the genetically predicted methylation to be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. We also studied gene expression to understand the identified associations.Methods:Using genetic data and white blood cell methylation data from 1,595 subjects of European descent, we built genetic models to predict DNA methylation levels. After internal and external validation, we applied prediction models with satisfactory performance to the genetic data of 8,280 pancreatic cancer cases and 6,728 controls of European ancestry to investigate the associations of predicted methylation with pancreatic cancer risk. For associated CpGs, we compared their measured levels in pancreatic tumor versus benign tissue.Results:We identified 45 CpGs at nine loci showing an association with pancreatic cancer risk, including 15 CpGs showing an association independent from identified risk variants. We observed significant correlations between predicted methylation of 16 of the 45 CpGs and predicted expression of eight adjacent genes, of which six genes showed associations with pancreatic cancer risk. Of the 45 CpGs, we were able to compare measured methylation of 16 in pancreatic tumor versus benign pancreatic tissue. Of them, six showed differentiated methylation.Conclusions:We identified methylation biomarker candidates associated with pancreatic cancer using genetic instruments and added additional insights into the role of methylation in regulating gene expression in pancreatic cancer development.Impact:A comprehensive study using genetic instruments identifies 45 CpG sites at nine genomic loci for pancreatic cancer risk.

Abstract Background: Whether circulating polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels are associated with pancreatic cancer risk is uncertain. Mendelian randomization (MR) represents a study design using genetic instruments to better characterize the relationship between exposure and outcome. Methods: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data. Results: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98–1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99–1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87–1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex. Conclusions: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Impact: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of most lethal malignancies with few known risk factors and biomarkers. Identification of disease biomarkers is critical for understanding the pathogenesis of this cancer and identifying high risk individuals for close surveillance. Several blood protein biomarkers have been linked to PDAC in previous studies, but these studies have assessed only a limited number of biomarkers usually in small samples. To identify novel circulating protein biomarkers of PDAC, we studied 8,280 cases and 6,728 controls of European descent from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, by using genetic instruments. Protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) for 1,226 plasma proteins identified in a large INTERVAL study of 3,301 healthy European descendants were used as instruments to evaluate associations between genetically predicted protein levels and PDAC. For proteins showing a significant association, we further conducted conditional analysis with adjustments for previously identified risk variants to assess whether the observed associations between genetically predicted protein concentrations and PDAC risk were independent of the risk variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Furthermore, for the proteins that were associated with PDAC risk, we performed an enrichment analysis of the genes encoding these proteins to examine whether they are enriched in specific pathways, functions or networks. We observed associations between predicted concentrations of 38 proteins and PDAC risk at a false discovery rate of < 0.05, including those of 23 proteins that showed a significant association even after Bonferroni correction (4.08 × 10−5). These include Histo-blood group ABO system transferase encoded by ABO, which has been previously implicated as a potential target gene of PDAC risk variant identified in GWAS. Eight of the identified proteins (Beta-crystallin B2, Dedicator of cytokinesis protein 9, VIP36-like protein, Erythrocyte band 7 integral membrane protein, Tensin-2, Transmembrane protease serine 11D, Alcohol dehydrogenase 1B, and C-X-C motif chemokine 10) were associated with PDAC risk after conditioning on previously reported pancreatic cancer risk variants (odds ratios ranged from 0.79 to 1.52, P-values from 1.28 × 10−3 to 6.47 × 10−4). Pathway enrichment analysis showed that the encoding genes for the implicated proteins were significantly enriched in cancer-related pathways, such as STAT3 and IL-15 production. In conclusion, we identified 38 protein biomarker candidates for PDAC risk, which if validated by additional studies, may contribute to the etiological understanding of PDAC tumor development. Citation Format: Jingjing Zhu, Xiang Shu, Xingyi Guo, Duo Liu, Jiandong bao, Roger Milne, Graham G Giles, Chong Wu, Mengmeng Du, Emily White, Harvey A Risch, Nuria Malats, Eric J. Duell, Phyllis J. Goodman, Donghui Li, Paige Bracci, Verena Katzke, Rachel E Neale, Steven Gallinger, Stephen Van Den Eeden, Alan Arslan, Federico Canzian, Charles Kooperberg, Brian Wolpin, Laura Beane-Freeman, Ghislaine Scelo, Kala Visvanatha, Christopher A. Haiman, Loïc Le Marchand, Herbert Yu, Gloria M Petersen, Rachael Stolzenberg-Solomon, Alison P Klein, Laufey T Amundadottir, Qiuyin Cai, Jirong Long, Xiao-Ou Shu, Wei Zheng, Lang Wu. Associations between genetically predicted blood protein biomarkers and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 1200.

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignancies, with few known risk factors and biomarkers. Several blood protein biomarkers have been linked to PDAC in previous studies, but these studies have assessed only a limited number of biomarkers, usually in small samples. In this study, we evaluated associations of circulating protein levels and PDAC risk using genetic instruments. Methods: To identify novel circulating protein biomarkers of PDAC, we studied 8,280 cases and 6,728 controls of European descent from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, using genetic instruments of protein quantitative trait loci. Results: We observed associations between predicted concentrations of 38 proteins and PDAC risk at an FDR of < 0.05, including 23 of those proteins that showed an association even after Bonferroni correction. These include the protein encoded by ABO, which has been implicated as a potential target gene of PDAC risk variant. Eight of the identified proteins (LMA2L, TM11D, IP-10, ADH1B, STOM, TENC1, DOCK9, and CRBB2) were associated with PDAC risk after adjusting for previously reported PDAC risk variants (OR ranged from 0.79 to 1.52). Pathway enrichment analysis showed that the encoding genes for implicated proteins were significantly enriched in cancer-related pathways, such as STAT3 and IL15 production. Conclusions: We identified 38 candidates of protein biomarkers for PDAC risk. Impact: This study identifies novel protein biomarker candidates for PDAC, which if validated by additional studies, may contribute to the etiologic understanding of PDAC development.