Literature DB >> 27459855

Identification of independent association signals and putative functional variants for breast cancer risk through fine-scale mapping of the 12p11 locus.

Chenjie Zeng1, Xingyi Guo1, Jirong Long1, Karoline B Kuchenbaecker2, Arnaud Droit3, Kyriaki Michailidou2, Maya Ghoussaini4, Siddhartha Kar4, Adam Freeman5, John L Hopper6, Roger L Milne6,7, Manjeet K Bolla2, Qin Wang2, Joe Dennis2, Simona Agata8, Shahana Ahmed9, Kristiina Aittomäki10, Irene L Andrulis11,12, Hoda Anton-Culver13, Natalia N Antonenkova14, Adalgeir Arason15, Volker Arndt16, Banu K Arun17, Brita Arver18, Francois Bacot19, Daniel Barrowdale2, Caroline Baynes9, Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel1, Javier Benitez20,21, Marina Bermisheva22, Carl Blomqvist23, William J Blot1,24, Natalia V Bogdanova25, Stig E Bojesen26,27,28, Bernardo Bonanni29, Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale30,31, Judith S Brand32, Hiltrud Brauch33,34,35, Paul Brennan36, Hermann Brenner16,35,37, Annegien Broeks38, Thomas Brüning39, Barbara Burwinkel40,41, Saundra S Buys42, Qiuyin Cai1, Trinidad Caldes43, Ian Campbell44, Jane Carpenter45, Jenny Chang-Claude46,47, Ji-Yeob Choi48,49,50, Kathleen B M Claes51, Christine Clarke52, Angela Cox53, Simon S Cross54, Kamila Czene32, Mary B Daly55, Miguel de la Hoya43, Kim De Leeneer51, Peter Devilee56,57, Orland Diez58, Susan M Domchek59, Michele Doody60, Cecilia M Dorfling61, Thilo Dörk62, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva63, Martine Dumont64, Miriam Dwek65, Bernd Dworniczak66, Kathleen Egan67, Ursula Eilber46, Zakaria Einbeigi68, Bent Ejlertsen69, Steve Ellis2, Debra Frost2, Fiona Lalloo70, Peter A Fasching71,72, Jonine Figueroa60, Henrik Flyger73, Michael Friedlander74, Eitan Friedman75, Gaetana Gambino76, Yu-Tang Gao77, Judy Garber78, Montserrat García-Closas60,79, Andrea Gehrig80, Francesca Damiola81, Fabienne Lesueur82, Sylvie Mazoyer81, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet83,84,85, Graham G Giles6,7, Andrew K Godwin86, David E Goldgar87, Anna González-Neira20, Mark H Greene88, Pascal Guénel89,90, Lothar Haeberle71, Christopher A Haiman91, Emily Hallberg92, Ute Hamann93, Thomas V O Hansen94, Steven Hart92, Jaana M Hartikainen95,96,97, Mikael Hartman98,99, Norhashimah Hassan100,101, Sue Healey102, Frans B L Hogervorst103, Senno Verhoef103, Carolyn B Hendricks104,105, Peter Hillemanns62, Antoinette Hollestelle106, Peter J Hulick107, David J Hunter108,109, Evgeny N Imyanitov110, Claudine Isaacs111, Hidemi Ito112, Anna Jakubowska113, Ramunas Janavicius114, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek113, Uffe Birk Jensen115, Esther M John116,117,118, Charles Joly Beauparlant119, Michael Jones79, Maria Kabisch93, Daehee Kang48,49,50, Beth Y Karlan120, Saila Kauppila121, Michael J Kerin122, Sofia Khan123, Elza Khusnutdinova22,124, Julia A Knight125,126, Irene Konstantopoulou127, Peter Kraft108,109, Ava Kwong128,129, Yael Laitman75, Diether Lambrechts130,131, Conxi Lazaro132, Loic Le Marchand133, Chuen Neng Lee98, Min Hyuk Lee134, Jenny Lester120, Jingmei Li32, Annelie Liljegren18, Annika Lindblom135, Artitaya Lophatananon136, Jan Lubinski113, Phuong L Mai88, Arto Mannermaa95,96,97, Siranoush Manoukian137, Sara Margolin138, Frederik Marme40,139, Keitaro Matsuo140, Lesley McGuffog2, Alfons Meindl141, Florence Menegaux89,90, Marco Montagna8, Kenneth Muir136,142, Anna Marie Mulligan143,144, Katherine L Nathanson59, Susan L Neuhausen145, Heli Nevanlinna123, Polly A Newcomb146,147, Silje Nord30, Robert L Nussbaum148, Kenneth Offit149,150, Edith Olah151, Olufunmilayo I Olopade152, Curtis Olswold92, Ana Osorio153,154, Laura Papi155, Tjoung-Won Park-Simon62, Ylva Paulsson-Karlsson156, Stephanie Peeters157, Bernard Peissel158, Paolo Peterlongo159, Julian Peto63, Georg Pfeiler160, Catherine M Phelan161, Nadege Presneau65, Paolo Radice162, Nazneen Rahman163, Susan J Ramus164, Muhammad Usman Rashid93,165, Gad Rennert166, Kerstin Rhiem167, Anja Rudolph46, Ritu Salani168, Suleeporn Sangrajrang169, Elinor J Sawyer170, Marjanka K Schmidt38, Rita K Schmutzler171,172,173,174, Minouk J Schoemaker79, Peter Schürmann62, Caroline Seynaeve106, Chen-Yang Shen175,176, Martha J Shrubsole1, Xiao-Ou Shu1, Alice Sigurdson60, Christian F Singer177, Susan Slager92, Penny Soucy178, Melissa Southey179, Doris Steinemann180, Anthony Swerdlow79,181, Csilla I Szabo182, Sandrine Tchatchou183, Manuel R Teixeira184,185, Soo H Teo100,101, Mary Beth Terry186, Daniel C Tessier19, Alex Teulé187, Mads Thomassen188, Laima Tihomirova189, Marc Tischkowitz190,191, Amanda E Toland192, Nadine Tung193, Clare Turnbull163, Ans M W van den Ouweland194, Elizabeth J van Rensburg61, David Ven den Berg91, Joseph Vijai149,150, Shan Wang-Gohrke195, Jeffrey N Weitzel196, Alice S Whittemore117,118, Robert Winqvist197,198, Tien Y Wong199, Anna H Wu91, Drakoulis Yannoukakos200, Jyh-Cherng Yu201, Paul D P Pharoah2,9, Per Hall32, Georgia Chenevix-Trench202,203, Alison M Dunning9, Jacques Simard64, Fergus J Couch204, Antonis C Antoniou2, Douglas F Easton2,9, Wei Zheng205.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs10771399, at 12p11 that is associated with breast cancer risk.
METHOD: We performed a fine-scale mapping study of a 700 kb region including 441 genotyped and more than 1300 imputed genetic variants in 48,155 cases and 43,612 controls of European descent, 6269 cases and 6624 controls of East Asian descent and 1116 cases and 932 controls of African descent in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC; http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ ), and in 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify independent association signals. Data from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were used for functional annotation.
RESULTS: Analysis of data from European descendants found evidence for four independent association signals at 12p11, represented by rs7297051 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.12; P = 3 × 10(-9)), rs805510 (OR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 1.04-1.12, P = 2 × 10(-5)), and rs1871152 (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.06; P = 2 × 10(-4)) identified in the general populations, and rs113824616 (P = 7 × 10(-5)) identified in the meta-analysis of BCAC ER-negative cases and BRCA1 mutation carriers. SNPs rs7297051, rs805510 and rs113824616 were also associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.05 in East Asians, but none of the associations were statistically significant in African descendants. Multiple candidate functional variants are located in putative enhancer sequences. Chromatin interaction data suggested that PTHLH was the likely target gene of these enhancers. Of the six variants with the strongest evidence of potential functionality, rs11049453 was statistically significantly associated with the expression of PTHLH and its nearby gene CCDC91 at P < 0.05.
CONCLUSION: This study identified four independent association signals at 12p11 and revealed potentially functional variants, providing additional insights into the underlying biological mechanism(s) for the association observed between variants at 12p11 and breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRAC1 mutation carriers; Breast cancer; CCDC91; Fine-scale mapping; Genetic risk factor; PTHLH

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27459855      PMCID: PMC4962376          DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0718-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


Background

A previous genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified a common single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs10771399 (termed the index SNP in this paper) at 12p11 to be associated with breast cancer risk in women of European descent [1]. This association, which did not vary by estrogen receptor (ER) status, was one of the most significant associations found for breast cancer risk in Breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) mutation carriers so far, and the association was predominantly found in carriers with ER-negative (ER-(-)) breast cancer [2, 3]. This association was also replicated in East Asian women [4]. The index SNP lies in an approximately 300-kb linkage disequilibrium (LD) block, containing one known breast cancer associated gene that encodes parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH). This hormone has been shown to play a role in breast tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis in animal studies [5, 6] and was found to be associated with prognosis in breast cancer patients [7]. The index SNP, however, is located in a region with no evidence of functional significance [8]. The underlying biologic mechanisms and functional variants that drive the observed association have not yet been investigated. Furthermore, it is possible that additional independent risk signals may be present in the same region, as has been observed for other susceptibility regions [9-11]. In order to identify additional association signals at the12p11 locus with breast cancer risk, understand the underlying mechanisms and potential causal variants responsible for the association, we conducted a large fine-scale mapping study including data from 55,540 breast cancer cases and 51,168 controls in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

Methods

Study population

The BCAC included 40 studies of women of European descent (48,155 cases and 43,612 controls), nine of Asian descent (6269 cases and 6624 controls), and two of African-American descent (1116 cases and 932 controls). The CIMBA included 45 studies of women of European descent (15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers), of whom 7797 had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Details on the study characteristics, participant characteristics and the methodology used by the BCAC and CIMBA have been published elsewhere [12-14]. Ethical approval of each study was given by the local institutional review boards. The full names of the institutional review boards that approved each study were listed in the Additional file 1.

SNP selection and genotyping

All SNPs within a 700-kb “fine mapping” interval at 12p11 (chr12: 27958733-28658733, hg19) were identified from the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G) (http://browser.1000genomes.org) CEU (April 2010) [15] and Hapmap III [16] (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). The interval included all SNPs in LD (r2 > 0.1) with the target SNP rs197593 (r2 = 0.95 with the index SNP rs10771399) [1]. Tagging SNPs were selected to capture the remaining SNPs in the fine-mapping region at r2 > 0.9. After quality control, genotypes for 441 SNPs were available for analysis. To improve the coverage, imputation was performed using data from the 1000G (March 2012) as the reference and the program IMPUTE2 [17] (https://mathgen.stats.ox.ac.uk/impute/impute_v2.html). This was done separately for women of European, East Asian, and African descent and BRCA1 mutation carriers. Using criteria of minor allele frequency (MAF) ≥2 % and an imputation quality R2 > 0.3, genotype data were generated for a total of 1634 SNPs for studies of European women, 1360 for studies of East Asian women, 2508 for studies of African women in BCAC and 1646 for studies of BRCA1 mutation carriers in CIMBA.

Statistical analysis

For BCAC studies, unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate allelic odds ratios (OR) and their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of each of the SNPs included in the study. Analyses were performed separately for each ethnic group, and adjusted for study and principal components (seven for European studies and two each for Asian and African ancestry studies) [12]. Additional adjustment for age (age at diagnosis for cases and age at interview for controls) did not change the estimates, and thus age was not adjusted for in the main analyses. Tests of heterogeneity of the ORs across studies were conducted using Cochran’s Q test. To identify independent association signals, we performed forward stepwise selection analyses with all SNPs associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.0001 in BCAC European descendants or at P < 0.005 for East Asian descendants in the single-marker analysis. To reduce type 2 errors, we used a less stringent statistical significance threshold because of the smaller sample size for East Asian descendants than for European descendants in this study. Pairwise SNP-SNP interactions were evaluated using the likelihood ratio test for all SNPs selected from the forward stepwise regression analysis. Stratified analyses by ER status were performed, and the heterogeneity was assessed by case-only analysis. We estimated haplotype frequencies using the haplo.stats package under R with the expectation-maximum (EM) algorithm [18] and estimated the haplotype-specific ORs for women of European descent with adjustment for studies and principal components as described above. To evaluate whether the association varied by early-onset and late-onset cancer, stratified analyses by age at cancer diagnosis (≥45 or <45 years) were performed. The familial relative risk (FRR, λ) associated with independently associated variants in this locus was calculated using the method described previously [19, 20]. For CIMBA studies, the associations between genetic variants and breast cancer risk were evaluated using a 1-degree of freedom (df) per allele trend test (P-trend), by modeling the retrospective likelihood of the observed genotypes conditional on breast cancer phenotypes [21]. To allow for the non-independence among related individuals, an adjusted test statistic was used, which took into account the correlation between study participants [22]. Per-allele hazard ratio (HR) estimates were obtained by maximizing the retrospective likelihood. All analyses were stratified by country of residence. To increase the statistical power to detect independent signals in BRCA1 mutation carriers, we conducted a meta-analysis of the BCAC and CIMBA studies [23]. Because approximately 80 % of breast tumors with known ER status in BRCA1 mutation carriers were ER(-) [2], we only included the ER(-) breast cancer cases for BCAC studies. We combined the logarithm of the per-allele HR estimated in BRCA1 mutation carriers and the logarithm of the per-allele OR estimated in BCAC using a fixed-effects model. We further determined whether there is evidence for independent association signals through a serial of conditional meta-analyses. We performed a conditional analysis on the top variant identified in the meta-analysis mentioned above in each consortium, and carried out the meta-analysis on the conditional P value for each variant to identify the most significant variant after conditioning on the top variant in the whole region. We continued to perform the conditional meta-analyses until the most significant association found had a P value >0.0001.

Functional annotation

We used the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) chromatin states (chromHMM) annotation, DNase I hypersensitive, transcription factor binding sites, histone modifications of epigenetic markers (H3K4Me1, H3K4Me3 and H3K27Ac) data from ENCODE [24] (http://genome.ucsc.edu/ENCODE/) to determine the likely regulatory elements. We used chromatin interaction analysis by paired end tag (ChIA-PET), genome conformation capture (Hi-C) data from ENCODE and enhancer-promoter interaction data predicted by He et al. [25] to identify putative gene targets in mammary cell lines (human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC) and Michigan Cancer Foundation-7 (MCF7)). We used maps of enhancers as defined in Corradin et al. [8] and Hnisz et al. [26] to identify the locations of potential enhancers. We obtained RNA-seq data from ENCODE, respectively, to evaluate the expression of protein-coding genes in mammary cell lines at this locus. We also used the same data in the chronic myeloid leukemia cell line (K562) as a comparison if available. To predict the most likely functional variants, we mapped all candidates to the transcription factor binding maps generated by ENCODE [24], based on the hypothesis that causal variants alter the binding affinity of transcription factors. We prioritized variants that were located in binding sites of master transcription factors of breast cancer and disrupted binding motif of transcription factors. We also prioritized variants that were located in active promoter regions in mammary cell lines. Two publicly available tools, RegulomeDB [27] (see http://regulome.stanford.edu/) and HaploReg V3 [28] (see http://www.broadinstitute.org/mammals/haploreg/haploreg.php), were also used to evaluate those candidate functional variants.

Expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis

The eQTL analyses in tumor tissues were performed as previously described [29, 30]. Briefly, we downloaded RNA-Seq V2, DNA methylation and SNP genotype data of 1006 breast cancer tumor tissues from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data portal [26] (see http://cancergenome.nih.gov/). We log2-transformed the RNA-Seq by expectation-maximization (RSEM) value of each gene, and performed principal component adjustment of gene expression data to remove potential batch effects. Residual linear regression analysis was used to detect eQTLs while adjusting for methylation and copy number alterations (CNA), according to the approach proposed by Li et al. [29]. The eQTL analyses in 135 tumor-adjacent normal breast tissues were performed using data from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) [31] as previously described [32]. Briefly, gene expression levels were measured by the Illumina HT12 v3 microarray platform. Genotyping was performed using the Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array. Imputation was performed using data from the 1000G (CEU, March 2012) as the reference. Linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between genotypes and gene expression levels using the R (http://www.r-project.org/) package Matrix eQTL [32].

Results

Association results among women of European ancestry

Of the 2075 SNPs evaluated, 833 were associated with breast cancer risk in women of European descent at P < 0.0001 (Fig. 1). Using forward stepwise selection, we identified two SNPs that were independently associated with breast cancer risk with conditional P < 0.0001, tagging two independent signals (Table 1, Fig. 1). The index SNP is located in signal 2, approximately 30 kb upstream of the PTHLH gene and was in strong LD with the lead SNP (rs805510) for this signal (r2 = 0.92). The lead SNP in signal 1, rs7297051, is located approximately 50 kb upstream of the PTHLH gene, and was in moderate LD with the index SNP (r2 = 0.42). The lead SNPs for signals 1 and 2 were moderately correlated (r2 = 0.36). After adjusting for the lead SNPs in signals 1 and 2, we found evidence of the presence of a third independent association signal (lead SNP rs1871152; conditional P = 2 × 10-4, Table 1, Fig. 1). Signal 3 lies approximately 60 kb upstream of another gene, coiled-coil domain containing 91 (CCDC91). SNP rs1871152 was not correlated with the lead SNP in signal 1 or signal 2 (r2 = 0.01 for rs7297051 and r2 = 0.03 for rs805510). All lead SNPs for these three signals were associated with breast cancer risk at P < 5 × 10-8 in single-marker analyses (rs7297051 OR = 0.88, P = 4 × 10-28; rs805510 OR = 0.85, P = 10-25; rs1871152 OR = 0.94, P = 3 × 10-8). No apparent heterogeneity in the ORs of the identified SNPs across the 40 studies in BCAC was found (all Pheterogeneity > 0.75). No statistically significant interactions between any pair of these three lead SNPs were found (all P > 0.05).
Fig. 1

Genetic mapping and epigenetic landscape of the 12p11 locus (a). Regional association plot of the genotyped and imputed Illumina iSelect genotyping array of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (iCOGS) genotype data. Three independent signals were identified, marked as signal 1, 2 and 3. b Functional annotations using data from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project. From top to bottom, the epigenetic signals evaluated include histone modifications, DNase clusters, transcription factor ChIP-seq clusters, and ENCODE chromatin states (ChromHMM) in the ENCODE cell lines. The signals of different layered histone modifications from the same ENCODE cell line are shown in the same color (the detailed color scheme for each ENCODE cell line is described in the UCSC genome browser; http://genome.ucsc.edu). Red and orange in chromatin states represent active promoter and strong enhancer regions, respectively (the detailed color scheme of the chromatin states was described in the previous study [45]). All tracks were generated by the UCSC genome browser (hg 19). c Long-range chromatin interactions. From top to bottom, genome conformation capture (Hi-C), chromatin interaction analysis by paired end tag (ChIA-PET) and RNA-Seq data from K562 cell lines, Hi-C and RNA-Seq from human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC), ChIA-PET and RNA-Seq from MCF7 cell lines, gene annotations and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) annotations. Black lines represent interactions with the promoter region (-1500/+500) of Parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH), and gray lines represent chromatin interaction that did not involve the PTHLH promoter region. The value of the RNA-Seq analysis corresponds to the mean reads per million (RPM) value for PTHLH from 65 K562, 4 HMEC and 19 MCF7 datasets, respectively. The annotation has been obtained through the Bioconductor annotation package TxDb.Hsapiens.UCSC.hg19.knownGene. The Hi-C and ChIA-PET raw data, available in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [GSE63525.K56, GSE33664, GSE39495], were processed using the GenomicRanges package. The tracks have been generated using ggplot2 and ggbio libraries in R

Table 1

Independent association signals identified for breast cancer risk in the 12p11 locus in women of European ancestry

SignalSNPsPosition (hg 19)AllelesEAFLD (r 2)b Univariate analysisConditional analysisSNPs retained for functional annotatione
Per-allele OR (95 % CI)c P-trendPer-allele OR (95 % CI)d P-trend
2Indexa rs1077139928155080G*/A0.12-0.85 (0.83–0.88)5 × 10-25 ---
1rs729705128174817T*/C0.240.420.88 (0.86–0.90)4 × 10-28 0.92 (0.89–0.94)3 × 10-9 rs812020, chr12:28164044, rs2619434, rs2590275
2rs80551028139846T*/C0.120.880.85 (0.82–0.88)10-25 0.93 (0.89–0.96)2 × 10-5 74 SNPsf
3rs187115228379826G*/A0.310.040.94 (0.92–0.96)3 × 10-8 0.96 (0.94–0.98)2 × 10-4 376 SNPsg

*Effect alleles. aIdentified in the initial genome-wide association study conducted in women of European descent [1]. bLinkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs10771399 for women of European descent. cAdjusted for studies, and the top principal components and an additional principal component accounting for the Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Centre (LMBC) study. dIncluded all three variants, and was adjusted for studies, and the top eight principal components as well as an additional principal component accounting for the LMBC study. eAssociated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a likelihood ratio >1/100 relative to the lead SNP in each signal. fSee Table S2 in Additional file 5. gSee Table S2 in Additional file 5. EAF effect allele frequency in controls, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval

Genetic mapping and epigenetic landscape of the 12p11 locus (a). Regional association plot of the genotyped and imputed Illumina iSelect genotyping array of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (iCOGS) genotype data. Three independent signals were identified, marked as signal 1, 2 and 3. b Functional annotations using data from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project. From top to bottom, the epigenetic signals evaluated include histone modifications, DNase clusters, transcription factor ChIP-seq clusters, and ENCODE chromatin states (ChromHMM) in the ENCODE cell lines. The signals of different layered histone modifications from the same ENCODE cell line are shown in the same color (the detailed color scheme for each ENCODE cell line is described in the UCSC genome browser; http://genome.ucsc.edu). Red and orange in chromatin states represent active promoter and strong enhancer regions, respectively (the detailed color scheme of the chromatin states was described in the previous study [45]). All tracks were generated by the UCSC genome browser (hg 19). c Long-range chromatin interactions. From top to bottom, genome conformation capture (Hi-C), chromatin interaction analysis by paired end tag (ChIA-PET) and RNA-Seq data from K562 cell lines, Hi-C and RNA-Seq from human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC), ChIA-PET and RNA-Seq from MCF7 cell lines, gene annotations and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) annotations. Black lines represent interactions with the promoter region (-1500/+500) of Parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH), and gray lines represent chromatin interaction that did not involve the PTHLH promoter region. The value of the RNA-Seq analysis corresponds to the mean reads per million (RPM) value for PTHLH from 65 K562, 4 HMEC and 19 MCF7 datasets, respectively. The annotation has been obtained through the Bioconductor annotation package TxDb.Hsapiens.UCSC.hg19.knownGene. The Hi-C and ChIA-PET raw data, available in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [GSE63525.K56, GSE33664, GSE39495], were processed using the GenomicRanges package. The tracks have been generated using ggplot2 and ggbio libraries in R Independent association signals identified for breast cancer risk in the 12p11 locus in women of European ancestry *Effect alleles. aIdentified in the initial genome-wide association study conducted in women of European descent [1]. bLinkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs10771399 for women of European descent. cAdjusted for studies, and the top principal components and an additional principal component accounting for the Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Centre (LMBC) study. dIncluded all three variants, and was adjusted for studies, and the top eight principal components as well as an additional principal component accounting for the LMBC study. eAssociated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a likelihood ratio >1/100 relative to the lead SNP in each signal. fSee Table S2 in Additional file 5. gSee Table S2 in Additional file 5. EAF effect allele frequency in controls, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval Using the lead SNP from each signal, rs805510, rs7297051 and rs1871152, we identified seven haplotypes with a frequency greater than 1 % (Table 2). The most common haplotype (frequency 51 %), carrying the major allele of each SNP, was used as the reference in the association analysis. The most statistically significant association was observed for the haplotype carrying the minor alleles at both signals 1 and 2 (TTA and TTG), while less pronounced yet significant associations were observed for individuals carrying the minor allele for signal 1 but not signal 2 (CTA and CTG), consistent with results for the independent association signals from the regression analyses. The evidence for signal 3 comes largely from the observation that the CCG haplotype, which carries the rare allele for signal 3 alone, was associated with reduced risk. The haplotype carrying only the minor allele in the lead SNP for signal 2 was too rare to evaluate. Stratified analyses revealed no evidence of any apparent heterogeneity in the association of these haplotypes with breast cancer risk by age at breast cancer diagnosis (age at diagnosis <45 vs ≥45 years).
Table 2

Associations between common haplotypes derived using lead single nucleotide polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in women of European ancestry

HaplotypeOverall breast cancerBreast cancer (age at diagnosis <45 years)Breast cancer (age at diagnosis ≥45 years) P heterogeneity b
rs805510 - rs7297051- rs1871152FrequencyOR (95 % CI)a P valueFrequencyOR (95 % CI)a P valueFrequencyOR (95 % CI)a P value
C-C-A0.511.00 (Ref)Ref0.521.00 (Ref)Ref0.511.00 (Ref)Ref-
C-C-G0.240.92 (0.89–0.95)7 × 10-8 0.220.94 (0.89–1.00)0.040.240.92 (0.89–0.95)4 × 10-7 0.24
C-T-A0.090.90 (0.87–0.95)3 × 10-6 0.090.96 (0.89–1.03)0.280.090.90 (0.86–0.94)4 × 10-7 0.09
C-T-G0.030.89 (0.82–0.96)2 × 10-3 0.030.85 (0.73–0.98)0.020.030.89 (0.82–0.96)3 × 10-3 0.37
T-T-A0.040.82 (0.77–0.88)9 × 10-9 0.040.76 (0.67–0.87)5 × 10-5 0.040.83 (0.76–0.85)5 × 10-8 0.19
T-T-G0.070.79 (0.76–0.83)3 × 10-23 0.060.78 (0.71–0.85)5 × 10-8 0.070.81 (0.77–0.85)3 × 10-18 0.45
Rare0.010.88 (0.79–0.99)0.040.010.90 (0.72–1.13)0.370.010.88 (0.78–0.99)0.040.45

aAdjusted for studies and the top principal components. b P for heterogeneity between cases with age at diagnosis <45 years and ≥45 years. Ref reference

Associations between common haplotypes derived using lead single nucleotide polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in women of European ancestry aAdjusted for studies and the top principal components. b P for heterogeneity between cases with age at diagnosis <45 years and ≥45 years. Ref reference The associations of the three SNPs did not vary appreciably by ER status (Additional file 2: Table S3). In an attempt to identify potential independent association signals that might have been missed in the analysis described above that included all breast cancer cases (Table 1), we conducted forward stepwise regression analyses separately for ER(+) and ER(-) cases. For the ER(+) breast cancer, the lead SNPs for signals 1 and 2 were identical to those found for all cases combined. For signal 3, however, a different lead SNP (rs7959641) was identified, which was moderately correlated with rs1871152, the lead SNP identified in the overall analysis (r2 = 0.28) (Additional file 2: Table S3). The lead SNP for signal 3 in ER(-) cases is different from the SNP identified in all cases combined, but these two SNPs were highly correlated (r2 = 0.86) (Additional file 2: Table S3).

Association results for BRCA1 mutation carriers of European descent

Of the 2087 SNPs evaluated in the CIMBA among BRCA1 mutation carriers of European descent, 234 were associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.0001. The most significant association was found with rs113824616 (per-C allele HR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.64–0.82, P =1 × 10-7; Table 3). The three lead SNPs identified in BCAC had similar associations, although the association was statistically significant at P < 0.05 in conditional analyses only for the lead SNPs of signals 1 and 3 (rs7297051 and rs1871152, respectively) (Additional file 3: Table S4). Meta-analysis of data from BCAC ER(-) cases and CIMBA showed that rs113824616 was associated with breast cancer risk after adjusting for rs7297051 (conditional P = 7 × 10-5, r2 with rs10773199 = 0.40; Table 3). No additional independent signals were identified. We defined the association signal represented by SNP rs113824616 as signal 4.
Table 3

Independent association signals in the meta-analysis of BCAC (ER-) and BRCA1 mutation carriers from CIMBA

SNPsPosition (hg 19)AllelesEAFLD (r 2)§ Univariate analysisConditional analysis
Per-allele effect (95 % CI)a P-trendPer-allele effect (95 % CI)b P-trend
Indexǂ rs1077139928155080G*/A0.10-0.86 (0.80–0.91)3 × 10-6 --
Meta-analysis of ER-negative cancer (BCAC + CIMBA)
BCAC ER-
 Signal 1rs729705128174817T*/C0.240.420.87 (0.83–0.91)3 × 10-10 0.89 (0.85–0.94)1 × 10-5
 Signal 4rs11382461628184905C*/T0.050.400.75 (0.67–0.84)5 × 10-7 0.86 (0.76–0.98)0.02
CIMBA BRCA1 mutation carriers
 Signal 1rs729705128174817T*/C0.230.370.89 (0.85–0.93)3 × 10-7 0.94 (0.90–0.98)0.003
 Signal 4rs11382461628184905C*/T0.040.490.73 (0.64–0.82)1 × 10-7 0.83 (0.74–0.93)0.001

Effect for Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC): odds ratio; effect for Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) cohort: hazard ratio. *Effect alleles. aAdjusted for studies, and the top principal components. bIncluded both variants, and adjusted for studies and the top principal components. SNPs single nucleotide polymorphisms, EAF effect allele frequency in the or (BCAC) controls, LD linkage disequilibrium, CI confidence interval, ER estrogen receptor. §represents LD with the index SNP rs10771399. ǂrepresented the index SNP, Identified in the initial genome-wide association study conducted in women of European descent [1]

Independent association signals in the meta-analysis of BCAC (ER-) and BRCA1 mutation carriers from CIMBA Effect for Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC): odds ratio; effect for Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) cohort: hazard ratio. *Effect alleles. aAdjusted for studies, and the top principal components. bIncluded both variants, and adjusted for studies and the top principal components. SNPs single nucleotide polymorphisms, EAF effect allele frequency in the or (BCAC) controls, LD linkage disequilibrium, CI confidence interval, ER estrogen receptor. §represents LD with the index SNP rs10771399. ǂrepresented the index SNP, Identified in the initial genome-wide association study conducted in women of European descent [1]

Association results among women of East Asian ancestry

Of the 1801 SNPs evaluated, 118 were associated with breast cancer risk in women of East Asian ancestry (P < 0.005) (Fig. 1). The four lead SNPs in European descendants had a similar association with breast cancer risk in East Asian women, although the association was statistically significant at P < 0.005 only for the lead SNPs of signals 1 and 2 (rs7297051 and rs805510, respectively) (Additional file 4: Table S5). The MAFs for the lead SNPs of signals 1, 2 and 4 were similar to those in Europeans, but the MAF for signal 3 (rs1871152) was markedly lower in East Asians. In conditional regression analyses, only the association with signal 1 was independently statistically significant, perhaps due to the small sample size. The per-allele ORs did not differ materially from those in Europeans in the conditional analysis (data not shown). The most significant association in Asians was with SNP rs2737455 (MAF = 0.17, per-major (T) allele OR = 1.16, 95 % CI 1.09–1.25, P = 10-5). Among women of East Asian descent, this SNP was in high LD with the two lead SNPs for signals 1 and 2 identified in populations of European ancestry, rs7297051 (r2 = 0.67) and rs805510 (r2 = 0.84). This variant was also associated with breast cancer in women of European descent (per T-allele OR = 1.17, 95 % CI 1.14–1.21, P = 5 × 10-25). No additional independent signal was found on stepwise regression.

Association results for women of African ancestry

Of the 2949 SNPs evaluated in African descendants, 116 were statistically significantly associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.05. The most significant association was with rs10843021 (MAF = 0.38, per-C allele OR = 1.22, 95 % CI 1.08–1.39, P = 0.001), which is located 60 kb downstream of the gene PTHLH. This SNP is not in LD with any of the lead SNPs identified for women of European or East Asian descent (all r2 < 0.02). There was some evidence of association of this SNP with breast cancer risk in women of European descent (P = 8 × 10-5) but not in women of Asian descent (P = 0.23). None of the lead SNPs identified for women of European or East Asian descent were associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.05 in African descendants, although the directions of the associations were consistent and the effect sizes did not differ significantly (Additional file 4: Table S5). The MAF of the index SNP rs10771399 (MAF = 0.04) was much lower in African descendants than that in Asian and European descendants (P < 0.001). To identify putative causal variants, we used data from European descendants to exclude any variants that had a likelihood ratio <1/100 relative to the most significantly associated SNP in each signal (33). Based on this threshold, four variants in signal 1, 74 variants in signal 2, 376 variants in signal 3, and 2 variants in signal 4 were retained as candidates for causal variants (Fig. 1a and Additional file 5: Table S2). Using data from ENCODE, we found that the histone markers (H3K27Ac and H3K4Me3) were enriched in each signal (Fig. 1b). Using both ChIA-PET chromatin interaction data and Hi-C data from ENCODE, we identified multiple and dense chromosomal interactions of variants at signals 1 and 2 with the promoter region of PTHLH in MCF7 cells (Fig. 1c). There was some evidence of interaction of variants at signal 3 with the promoter of PTHLH (Fig. 1c). Using maps of predicted enhancer regions produced by Hnisz et al. [26] and Corradin et al. [8], we found that multiple candidate variants were located in enhancer regions in mammary cell lines (Fig. 2). Using predicted enhancer-promoter interaction data in HMEC and MCF7 cell lines generated by He et al. [25] (Fig. 2), we identified two interacting genes of these enhancers, CCDC91 and PTHLH.
Fig. 2

Enhancer-promoter interaction data at 12p11. From top to bottom, enhancer locations as defined by Corradin et al. [8] and Hnisz et al. [26] are shown in human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC) cell lines. Enhancer-promoter (EP)-predicted interactions as defined by He et al. [25] are shown in K562, MCF7 and HMEC cells. Gene annotations and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) annotations. Orange EP interactions are those with the coiled-coil domain containing 91 (CCDC91) gene; blue EP are those with Parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH)

Enhancer-promoter interaction data at 12p11. From top to bottom, enhancer locations as defined by Corradin et al. [8] and Hnisz et al. [26] are shown in human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC) cell lines. Enhancer-promoter (EP)-predicted interactions as defined by He et al. [25] are shown in K562, MCF7 and HMEC cells. Gene annotations and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) annotations. Orange EP interactions are those with the coiled-coil domain containing 91 (CCDC91) gene; blue EP are those with Parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH) We next overlaid these candidate variants to the transcription factor binding site maps generated from ENCODE. We identified rs812020 within signal 1, rs788463 and rs10843066 within signal 2, and rs10843110, rs56318627 and rs11049453 within signal 3 to be the most likely functional variants (Fig. 3a and b; Additional file 6: Table S6). These SNPs were within or close to binding sites of multiple breast cancer-related transcription factors. Furthermore, these SNPs were predicted to disrupt the binding motifs recognized by transcription factors (Fig. 3a and b), suggesting a regulatory role. For example, in signal 1, rs812020 (per C-allele OR = 0.89, 95 % CI 0.87–0.91, P = 2 × 10-27) was annotated to a region bound by multiple key transcription factors for breast cancer, including GATA3 and FOXA1 (Fig. 3a and b). This SNP is predicted to disrupt the binding motif recognized by the transcription factor E2F3 and may change its binding affinity [32]. E2F3 has been found to increase centrosome amplification in mammary epithelial cells and regulate breast tumor development and metastasis [33]. In signal 3, SNP rs11049453 (per G-allele OR = 1.06, 95 % CI 1.04–1.08, P = 9 × 10-8) was in the binding site of transcription factors P300 and CTCF in MCF7 cell lines [31] (Fig. 3). It was also predicted to disrupt the binding motif of paired box (PAX) [33], which has been associated with the progression of breast cancer [34, 35]. No functional significance of the candidate variants in signal 4 was found.
Fig. 3

Putative functional variants and association of rs11049453 with gene expression in breast tumor tissues. a Epigenetic signals of five potential functional variants. From top to bottom, lanes showing that those variants mapped to transcription factors predicted binding motifs, DNase I hypersensitivity sites and transcription factor ChIP-Seq binding peaks in the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) cell lines and MCF7. The corresponding location of each variant is indicated by a dashed line. b Epigenetic landscape at the 12p11 locus for breast cancer risk. From top to bottom, RefSeq genes (PTHLH and CCDC91), layered H3K4Me1, H3K4Me3 and H3K27Ac histone modifications and annotation using chromatin states on the ENCODE cell lines. The signals of different layered histone modifications from the same ENCODE cell line are shown in the same color (the detailed color scheme for each ENCODE cell line is described in the UCSC genome browser). Red and orange in the chromatin states represent the active promoter and strong enhancer regions, respectively (the detailed color scheme of the chromatin states was described in the previous study [45]). c rs11049453 and the expression of coiled-coil domain containing 91 (CCDC91) and parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH). The association of the genotypes and the expression level of each gene was evaluated by residual linear regression [29]. bp base pairs, C/EBP CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein, E2F3 E2F transcription factor 3, HNF1B HNF1 homeobox B, PPARG peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, PAX paired box

Putative functional variants and association of rs11049453 with gene expression in breast tumor tissues. a Epigenetic signals of five potential functional variants. From top to bottom, lanes showing that those variants mapped to transcription factors predicted binding motifs, DNase I hypersensitivity sites and transcription factor ChIP-Seq binding peaks in the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) cell lines and MCF7. The corresponding location of each variant is indicated by a dashed line. b Epigenetic landscape at the 12p11 locus for breast cancer risk. From top to bottom, RefSeq genes (PTHLH and CCDC91), layered H3K4Me1, H3K4Me3 and H3K27Ac histone modifications and annotation using chromatin states on the ENCODE cell lines. The signals of different layered histone modifications from the same ENCODE cell line are shown in the same color (the detailed color scheme for each ENCODE cell line is described in the UCSC genome browser). Red and orange in the chromatin states represent the active promoter and strong enhancer regions, respectively (the detailed color scheme of the chromatin states was described in the previous study [45]). c rs11049453 and the expression of coiled-coil domain containing 91 (CCDC91) and parathyroid hormone-like hormone (PTHLH). The association of the genotypes and the expression level of each gene was evaluated by residual linear regression [29]. bp base pairs, C/EBP CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein, E2F3 E2F transcription factor 3, HNF1B HNF1 homeobox B, PPARG peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, PAX paired box To further explore the potential target genes, we performed eQTL analysis in both breast tumor and normal tissues. Using data on tumor tissues from TCGA, we found that rs10843110, rs56318627 and rs11049453 within signal 3 were associated with the expression of PTHLH at P < 0.05 and CCDC91 at P < 0.10 (Additional file 7: Table S7). Among these highly correlated SNPs, the most significant association was found for rs11049453: the risk allele G of rs11049453 was associated with increased expression of PTHLH (P = 0.01) and decreased expression of CCDC91 (P = 0.03, Fig. 3c). However, we did not find any statistically significant association for these six variants using data from adjacent normal breast tissues from METABRIC (all P > 0.05).

Discussion

Through a fine-scale mapping study at 12p11, we identified four independent association signals for breast cancer risk in women of European descent. It is of interest that the fourth signal was identified only through the meta-analysis of ER(-) breast cancer and BRCA1 mutation carriers, suggesting that this signal may be more specific to ER(-) cancers. The associations of these signals were in general consistent in women of European and East Asian descent. Multiple genetic studies have confirmed that a locus at 12p11 is associated with breast cancer risk [2, 4]. However, it remained unknown whether the observed association was due to a single or multiple causal variants at this locus. In this study, we demonstrated that there were at least four independent signals at 12p11, three 100 kb upstream of the gene PTHLH (signals 1, 2 and 4), and one 60 kbp upstream from the gene CCDC91 (signal 3), suggesting that there may be multiple causal variants and multiple underlying mechanisms for the observed association at the 12p11 locus. Furthermore, we identified multiple candidate causal variants at each signal: four in signal 1, 74 in signal 2, 376 in signal 3 and 2 in signal 4. Using functional genomic data from ENCODE, we observed that multiple candidate functional variants located in enhancer regions, and identified PTHLH and CCDC91 as the likely target genes for these enhancers. Using data on transcription factor binding, we identified six putative functional variants with strong evidence of regulation of gene expression. Among these six variants, we observed that the rs11049453 was significantly associated with the expression of PTHLH and CCDC91. However, we could not exclude the possibility that there were other functional variants and other target genes at this locus. PTHLH encodes the protein PTHrP, which has intracrine, autocrine or paracrine action in most normal tissues; its downstream effects include promotion of growth and anti-apoptotic effects [36]. It is a cause of humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy [37], and is expressed in more than two thirds of breast tumor tissue samples [7, 38]. It has been shown to affect the regulation of tumor-related genes, and is thought to affect the proliferation and migration of breast cancer cells [39]. PTHrP plays an important role in the formation of osteolytic bone metastases in breast cancer through its action on osteoblasts to increase RANK-ligand and promote osteoclast formation [40]. It has been proposed that PTHrP may promote breast cancer tumorigenesis; however, previous studies had conflicting results [41]. Less is known about the function of the CCDC91 gene, which is located approximately 232 kb from the PTHLH gene. CCDC91 encodes a protein known as p56 accessory protein or GGA binding partner, which binds proteins, and facilitates the transportation of secreted proteins through the trans-Golgi network [42]. CCDC91 is also expressed in a variety of cancer cell lines including MCF7 [43]. Using cBioPortal (http://www.cbioportal.org/public-portal/), we found that both PTHLH and CCDC91 genes were altered in breast tumors and that there was a statistically significant co-occurrence of alternations (including mutations and copy number aberrations) in both genes (P for tendency towards co-occurrence <0.001). Together with our findings, these results suggest that there might be correlation between these two genes and that alterations in both genes might contribute concurrently to breast cancer susceptibility. Future studies evaluating both genes and their interrelationship are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanism. Functional annotation data suggested that the functional variants underlying the observed association, mainly those in signal 2, are located in enhancer regions involved in the transcriptional regulation of PTHLH and CCDC91 in the MCF7 and HMEC cells. Moreover, we did not find similar functional evidence for the same region in the K562 cells, which suggests that the regulatory effects might be context-specific. We identified multiple putative functional variants associated with transcriptional factors that have been found to be important for breast cancer, including GATA3, FOXA1, C/EBP, P300 and STAT3, and overlapped with binding motifs of transcriptional factors, including E2F3, C/EBP, HNF1B, PPARG and PAX. Despite strong evidence for altering the binding of transcription factor and regulating gene transcription, we found only one eQTL among these putative functional variants, which lies in signal 3, suggesting that the underlying functional variants might exert a more subtle regulatory effect on gene expressions than expected. Although we found strong genetic and epigenetic evidence for potential functional variants in signals 1 and 2, we did not observe statistically significant association between these variants and the expression of PTHLH or CCDC91, or any other protein-coding genes within a flanking region of 500 kb for each variant. It is possible that the causal variants in these two signals might be involved in regulating non-coding genes or more distant genes. Future functional studies that comprehensively investigate the regulatory elements at these loci and their target genes will be needed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms. The top risk variants identified in women of Asian and European ancestry were not associated with breast cancer risk in African descendants. It is possible that these top risk variants might not be correlated with the causal variants in African descendants due to their different LD structures. For example, the effect allele frequencies (EAFs) for the index SNP rs10773199 and the top risk variant rs805510 in African descendants were 0.04 and 0.45, respectively, and the EAFs for these two SNPs were similar in European descendants (EAF = 0.12 for both SNPs) and in East Asian descendants (EAF = 0.17 and 0.15, respectively), suggesting a distinct LD structure at this locus in African descendants. Similarly, the EAF for the SNP rs113824616 in African descendants (EAF = 0.01) was substantially lower than that in European descendants (EAF = 0.05). In addition, the sample size for African descendants included in this study was small and the power to detect the association of these variants was low. A previous fine-mapping study in African Americans with a larger sample size (3016 cases/2745 controls) than our study (1116 cases/932 controls) showed that rs10773199 is marginally associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 0.84, P = 0.089) [44], suggesting that there might be an association of the 12p11 locus with breast cancer risk in African descendants. Studies with a large sample size are needed to elucidate the association between this locus and breast cancer risk in African descendants. To date this is the largest and most comprehensive fine-mapping study of the 12p11 region in relation to breast cancer risk. By using densely genotyped data from a very large number of cases and controls of European descent, we derived highly reliable estimates of the association between each common SNP and breast cancer risk in women of European descent. The sample size was relatively small for East Asian and African descendants, and associations with risk of overall breast cancer and molecular subtypes in these populations should be further evaluated in future larger studies.

Conclusions

Through fine-mapping of the 12p11 locus, we identified multiple independent association signals for breast cancer risk. We estimate that the four independent signals identified by this study explain approximately 1 % of the familial relative risk of breast cancer in populations of European ancestry, more than doubling the risk explained by the index SNP (0.4 %). Bioinformatics analyses revealed that these signals are mapped to enhancer regions that interact with the gene PTHLH and CCDC91. We identified putative functional variants that might contribute to the observed association. Our findings also suggest a possible interrelation between PTHLH and CCDC91 in the etiology of breast cancer. Our study has expanded the knowledge of genetic risk associated with breast cancer at the 12p11 locus and provided clues for future functional characterization.

Abbreviations

BCAC, Breast Cancer Association Consortium; BRCA1, Breast cancer 1; C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein; CCDC91, Coiled-coil domain containing 91; ChIA-PET, chromatin interaction analysis by paired end tag; CI, confidence interval; CIMBA, Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2; CNA, copy number alterations; E2F3, E2F transcription factor 3; EAF, effect allele frequency; EM, expectation-maximum; ENCODE, Encyclopedia of DNA Elements; eQTL, expression quantitative trait loci; ER, estrogen receptor; FOXA1, forkhead box A1; GATA3, trans-acting T-cell-specific transcription factor GATA-3; GWAS, genome-wide association study; Hi-C, genome conformation capture; HMEC, human mammary epithelial cells; HNF1B, HNF1 homeobox B; HR, hazard ratio; iCOGS, Illumina iSelect genotyping array of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study; IMPUTEv2, IMPUTE version 2; LD, linkage disequilibrium; MAF, minor allele frequency; MCF7, Michigan Cancer Foundation-7; METABRIC, Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium; OR, odds ratio; PAX, paired box; PPARG, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma; PTHLH, parathyroid hormone-like hormone; QC, quality control; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas
  45 in total

1.  The trans-Golgi network accessory protein p56 promotes long-range movement of GGA/clathrin-containing transport carriers and lysosomal enzyme sorting.

Authors:  Gonzalo A Mardones; Patricia V Burgos; Doug A Brooks; Emma Parkinson-Lawrence; Rafael Mattera; Juan S Bonifacino
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 4.138

Review 2.  Beyond GWASs: illuminating the dark road from association to function.

Authors:  Stacey L Edwards; Jonathan Beesley; Juliet D French; Alison M Dunning
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Super-enhancers in the control of cell identity and disease.

Authors:  Denes Hnisz; Brian J Abraham; Tong Ihn Lee; Ashley Lau; Violaine Saint-André; Alla A Sigova; Heather A Hoke; Richard A Young
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  Genome-wide association study identifies a new breast cancer susceptibility locus at 6q25.1.

Authors:  Wei Zheng; Jirong Long; Yu-Tang Gao; Chun Li; Ying Zheng; Yong-Bin Xiang; Wanqing Wen; Shawn Levy; Sandra L Deming; Jonathan L Haines; Kai Gu; Alecia Malin Fair; Qiuyin Cai; Wei Lu; Xiao-Ou Shu
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  Methyl-CpG binding proteins identify novel sites of epigenetic inactivation in human cancer.

Authors:  Esteban Ballestar; Maria F Paz; Laura Valle; Susan Wei; Mario F Fraga; Jesus Espada; Juan Cruz Cigudosa; Tim Hui-Ming Huang; Manel Esteller
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 11.598

6.  Parathyroid hormone-related protein regulates tumor-relevant genes in breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Angela Dittmer; Martina Vetter; Dario Schunke; Paul N Span; Fred Sweep; Christoph Thomssen; Jürgen Dittmer
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Parathyroid hormone-related protein protects against mammary tumor emergence and is associated with monocyte infiltration in ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Nicholas I Fleming; Melanie K Trivett; Joshy George; John L Slavin; William K Murray; Jane M Moseley; Robin L Anderson; David M Thomas
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Genotype imputation with thousands of genomes.

Authors:  Bryan Howie; Jonathan Marchini; Matthew Stephens
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.154

9.  Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci.

Authors:  Douglas F Easton; Karen A Pooley; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Deborah Thompson; Dennis G Ballinger; Jeffery P Struewing; Jonathan Morrison; Helen Field; Robert Luben; Nicholas Wareham; Shahana Ahmed; Catherine S Healey; Richard Bowman; Kerstin B Meyer; Christopher A Haiman; Laurence K Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Fabrice Odefrey; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Hui-Chun Wang; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Sheila Seal; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Christen K Axelsson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Rainer Fagerholm; Hannaleena Eerola; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Per Hall; Sara Wedren; Jianjun Liu; Yen-Ling Low; Natalia Bogdanova; Peter Schürmann; Thilo Dörk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Catharina E Jacobi; Peter Devilee; Jan G M Klijn; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jinghui Zhang; Angela Cox; Ian W Brock; Gordon MacPherson; Malcolm W R Reed; Fergus J Couch; Ellen L Goode; Janet E Olson; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; André Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; John L Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Melissa Southey; Graham G Giles; Chris Schroen; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Yon-Dschun Ko; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Jaana Hartikainen; Nicholas E Day; David R Cox; Bruce A J Ponder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Genome-wide association analysis in East Asians identifies breast cancer susceptibility loci at 1q32.1, 5q14.3 and 15q26.1.

Authors:  Qiuyin Cai; Ben Zhang; Hyuna Sung; Siew-Kee Low; Sun-Seog Kweon; Wei Lu; Jiajun Shi; Jirong Long; Wanqing Wen; Ji-Yeob Choi; Dong-Young Noh; Chen-Yang Shen; Keitaro Matsuo; Soo-Hwang Teo; Mi Kyung Kim; Ui Soon Khoo; Motoki Iwasaki; Mikael Hartman; Atsushi Takahashi; Kyota Ashikawa; Koichi Matsuda; Min-Ho Shin; Min Ho Park; Ying Zheng; Yong-Bing Xiang; Bu-Tian Ji; Sue K Park; Pei-Ei Wu; Chia-Ni Hsiung; Hidemi Ito; Yoshio Kasuga; Peter Kang; Shivaani Mariapun; Sei Hyun Ahn; Han Sung Kang; Kelvin Y K Chan; Ellen P S Man; Hiroji Iwata; Shoichiro Tsugane; Hui Miao; Jiemin Liao; Yusuke Nakamura; Michiaki Kubo; Ryan J Delahanty; Yanfeng Zhang; Bingshan Li; Chun Li; Yu-Tang Gao; Xiao-Ou Shu; Daehee Kang; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Early Diagnosis of Sepsis: Is an Integrated Omics Approach the Way Forward?

Authors:  Raymond J Langley; Hector R Wong
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.074

2.  Characterizing Genetic Susceptibility to Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry.

Authors:  Ye Feng; Suhn Kyong Rhie; Dezheng Huo; Edward A Ruiz-Narvaez; Stephen A Haddad; Christine B Ambrosone; Esther M John; Leslie Bernstein; Wei Zheng; Jennifer J Hu; Regina G Ziegler; Sarah Nyante; Elisa V Bandera; Sue A Ingles; Michael F Press; Sandra L Deming; Jorge L Rodriguez-Gil; Yonglan Zheng; Song Yao; Yoo-Jeong Han; Temidayo O Ogundiran; Timothy R Rebbeck; Clement Adebamowo; Oladosu Ojengbede; Adeyinka G Falusi; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Stefan Ambs; William Blot; Qiuyin Cai; Lisa Signorello; Katherine L Nathanson; Kathryn L Lunetta; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Jeannette T Bensen; Stephen J Chanock; Loic Le Marchand; Andrew F Olshan; Laurence N Kolonel; David V Conti; Gerhard A Coetzee; Daniel O Stram; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Julie R Palmer; Christopher A Haiman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  A Comprehensive cis-eQTL Analysis Revealed Target Genes in Breast Cancer Susceptibility Loci Identified in Genome-wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Xingyi Guo; Weiqiang Lin; Jiandong Bao; Qiuyin Cai; Xiao Pan; Mengqiu Bai; Yuan Yuan; Jiajun Shi; Yaqiong Sun; Mi-Ryung Han; Jing Wang; Qi Liu; Wanqing Wen; Bingshan Li; Jirong Long; Jianghua Chen; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Expression Quantitative Trait loci (QTL) in tumor adjacent normal breast tissue and breast tumor tissue.

Authors:  Alejandro Quiroz-Zárate; Benjamin J Harshfield; Rong Hu; Nick Knoblauch; Andrew H Beck; Susan E Hankinson; Vincent Carey; Rulla M Tamimi; David J Hunter; John Quackenbush; Aditi Hazra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Identification of circular RNAs as a promising new class of diagnostic biomarkers for human breast cancer.

Authors:  Lingshuang Lü; Jian Sun; Peiyi Shi; Weimin Kong; Kun Xu; Biyu He; Simin Zhang; Jianming Wang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-04

6.  Capture Hi-C identifies putative target genes at 33 breast cancer risk loci.

Authors:  Joseph S Baxter; Olivia C Leavy; Nicola H Dryden; Sarah Maguire; Nichola Johnson; Vita Fedele; Nikiana Simigdala; Lesley-Ann Martin; Simon Andrews; Steven W Wingett; Ioannis Assiotis; Kerry Fenwick; Ritika Chauhan; Alistair G Rust; Nick Orr; Frank Dudbridge; Syed Haider; Olivia Fletcher
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  Long non-coding RNA RUNXOR accelerates MDSC-mediated immunosuppression in lung cancer.

Authors:  Xinyu Tian; Jie Ma; Ting Wang; Jie Tian; Yu Zheng; Rongrong Peng; Yungang Wang; Yue Zhang; Lingxiang Mao; Huaxi Xu; Shengjun Wang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 8.  Elucidating the Underlying Functional Mechanisms of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Through Post-GWAS Analyses.

Authors:  Mahdi Rivandi; John W M Martens; Antoinette Hollestelle
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 4.599

9.  Identifying Novel Susceptibility Genes for Colorectal Cancer Risk From a Transcriptome-Wide Association Study of 125,478 Subjects.

Authors:  Xingyi Guo; Weiqiang Lin; Wanqing Wen; Jeroen Huyghe; Stephanie Bien; Qiuyin Cai; Tabitha Harrison; Zhishan Chen; Conghui Qu; Jiandong Bao; Jirong Long; Yuan Yuan; Fangqin Wang; Mengqiu Bai; Goncalo R Abecasis; Demetrius Albanes; Sonja I Berndt; Stéphane Bézieau; D Timothy Bishop; Hermann Brenner; Stephan Buch; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Peter T Campbell; Sergi Castellví-Bel; Andrew T Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Sang Hee Cho; David V Conti; Albert de la Chapelle; Edith J M Feskens; Steven J Gallinger; Graham G Giles; Phyllis J Goodman; Andrea Gsur; Mark Guinter; Marc J Gunter; Jochen Hampe; Heather Hampel; Richard B Hayes; Michael Hoffmeister; Ellen Kampman; Hyun Min Kang; Temitope O Keku; Hyeong Rok Kim; Loic Le Marchand; Soo Chin Lee; Christopher I Li; Li Li; Annika Lindblom; Noralane Lindor; Roger L Milne; Victor Moreno; Neil Murphy; Polly A Newcomb; Deborah A Nickerson; Kenneth Offit; Rachel Pearlman; Paul D P Pharoah; Elizabeth A Platz; John D Potter; Gad Rennert; Lori C Sakoda; Clemens Schafmayer; Stephanie L Schmit; Robert E Schoen; Fredrick R Schumacher; Martha L Slattery; Yu-Ru Su; Catherine M Tangen; Cornelia M Ulrich; Franzel J B van Duijnhoven; Bethany Van Guelpen; Kala Visvanathan; Pavel Vodicka; Ludmila Vodickova; Veronika Vymetalkova; Xiaoliang Wang; Emily White; Alicja Wolk; Michael O Woods; Graham Casey; Li Hsu; Mark A Jenkins; Stephen B Gruber; Ulrike Peters; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 33.883

10.  Functional annotation of the 2q35 breast cancer risk locus implicates a structural variant in influencing activity of a long-range enhancer element.

Authors:  Joseph S Baxter; Nichola Johnson; Katarzyna Tomczyk; Andrea Gillespie; Sarah Maguire; Rachel Brough; Laura Fachal; Kyriaki Michailidou; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Thomas U Ahearn; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Natalia N Antonenkova; Volker Arndt; Kristan J Aronson; Annelie Augustinsson; Heiko Becher; Matthias W Beckmann; Sabine Behrens; Javier Benitez; Marina Bermisheva; Natalia V Bogdanova; Stig E Bojesen; Hermann Brenner; Sara Y Brucker; Qiuyin Cai; Daniele Campa; Federico Canzian; Jose E Castelao; Tsun L Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Ji-Yeob Choi; Christine L Clarke; Sarah Colonna; Don M Conroy; Fergus J Couch; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Kamila Czene; Mary B Daly; Peter Devilee; Thilo Dörk; Laure Dossus; Miriam Dwek; Diana M Eccles; Arif B Ekici; A Heather Eliassen; Christoph Engel; Peter A Fasching; Jonine Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Chi Gao; Montserrat García-Closas; José A García-Sáenz; Maya Ghoussaini; Graham G Giles; Mark S Goldberg; Anna González-Neira; Pascal Guénel; Melanie Gündert; Lothar Haeberle; Eric Hahnen; Christopher A Haiman; Per Hall; Ute Hamann; Mikael Hartman; Sigrid Hatse; Jan Hauke; Antoinette Hollestelle; Reiner Hoppe; John L Hopper; Ming-Feng Hou; Hidemi Ito; Motoki Iwasaki; Agnes Jager; Anna Jakubowska; Wolfgang Janni; Esther M John; Vijai Joseph; Audrey Jung; Rudolf Kaaks; Daehee Kang; Renske Keeman; Elza Khusnutdinova; Sung-Won Kim; Veli-Matti Kosma; Peter Kraft; Vessela N Kristensen; Katerina Kubelka-Sabit; Allison W Kurian; Ava Kwong; James V Lacey; Diether Lambrechts; Nicole L Larson; Susanna C Larsson; Loic Le Marchand; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Jingmei Li; Jirong Long; Artitaya Lophatananon; Jan Lubiński; Arto Mannermaa; Mehdi Manoochehri; Siranoush Manoukian; Sara Margolin; Keitaro Matsuo; Dimitrios Mavroudis; Rebecca Mayes; Usha Menon; Roger L Milne; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib; Kenneth Muir; Taru A Muranen; Rachel A Murphy; Heli Nevanlinna; Katie M O'Brien; Kenneth Offit; Janet E Olson; Håkan Olsson; Sue K Park; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Alpa V Patel; Paolo Peterlongo; Julian Peto; Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska; Nadege Presneau; Katri Pylkäs; Brigitte Rack; Gad Rennert; Atocha Romero; Matthias Ruebner; Thomas Rüdiger; Emmanouil Saloustros; Dale P Sandler; Elinor J Sawyer; Marjanka K Schmidt; Rita K Schmutzler; Andreas Schneeweiss; Minouk J Schoemaker; Mitul Shah; Chen-Yang Shen; Xiao-Ou Shu; Jacques Simard; Melissa C Southey; Jennifer Stone; Harald Surowy; Anthony J Swerdlow; Rulla M Tamimi; William J Tapper; Jack A Taylor; Soo Hwang Teo; Lauren R Teras; Mary Beth Terry; Amanda E Toland; Ian Tomlinson; Thérèse Truong; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Michael Untch; Celine M Vachon; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Sophia S Wang; Clarice R Weinberg; Camilla Wendt; Stacey J Winham; Robert Winqvist; Alicja Wolk; Anna H Wu; Taiki Yamaji; Wei Zheng; Argyrios Ziogas; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Stephen J Pettitt; Christopher J Lord; Syed Haider; Nick Orr; Olivia Fletcher
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.