Yaohua Yang1, Lang Wu1, Xiao-Ou Shu1, Qiuyin Cai1, Xiang Shu1, Bingshan Li2, Xingyi Guo1, Fei Ye3, Kyriaki Michailidou4, Manjeet K Bolla4, Qin Wang4, Joe Dennis, Irene L Andrulis4,5,6, Hermann Brenner7, Georgia Chenevix-Trench8, Daniele Campa9, Jose E Castelao10, Manuela Gago-Dominguez11,12, Thilo Dörk13, Antoinette Hollestelle14, Artitaya Lophatananon15,16, Kenneth Muir15,16, Susan L Neuhausen17, Håkan Olsson18, Dale P Sandler19, Jacques Simard20, Peter Kraft21, Paul D P Pharoah4, Douglas F Easton4, Wei Zheng1, Jirong Long1. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 2. Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 3. Division of Cancer Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 4. Center for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research (HB) and German Cancer Consortium (HB), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 9. Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 10. Oncology and Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Biomedica Orense-Pontevedra-Vigo, Xerencia de Xestión Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Vigo, Spain. 11. Genomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Santiago De Compostela, Spain. 12. Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 13. Gynaecology Research Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 15. Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK. 16. Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 17. Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA. 18. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 19. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC. 20. Genomics Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec Research Center, Laval University, Québec City, QC, Canada. 21. Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health (PK) and Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA methylation plays a critical role in breast cancer development. Previous studies have identified DNA methylation marks in white blood cells as promising biomarkers for breast cancer. However, these studies were limited by low statistical power and potential biases. Using a new methodology, we investigated DNA methylation marks for their associations with breast cancer risk. METHODS: Statistical models were built to predict levels of DNA methylation marks using genetic data and DNA methylation data from HumanMethylation450 BeadChip from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1595). The prediction models were validated using data from the Women's Health Initiative (n = 883). We applied these models to genomewide association study (GWAS) data of 122 977 breast cancer patients and 105 974 controls to evaluate if the genetically predicted DNA methylation levels at CpG sites (CpGs) are associated with breast cancer risk. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of the 62 938 CpG sites CpGs investigated, statistically significant associations with breast cancer risk were observed for 450 CpGs at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P less than 7.94 × 10-7, including 45 CpGs residing in 18 genomic regions, that have not previously been associated with breast cancer risk. Of the remaining 405 CpGs located within 500 kilobase flaking regions of 70 GWAS-identified breast cancer risk variants, the associations for 11 CpGs were independent of GWAS-identified variants. Integrative analyses of genetic, DNA methylation, and gene expression data found that 38 CpGs may affect breast cancer risk through regulating expression of 21 genes. CONCLUSION: Our new methodology can identify novel DNA methylation biomarkers for breast cancer risk and can be applied to other diseases.
BACKGROUND: DNA methylation plays a critical role in breast cancer development. Previous studies have identified DNA methylation marks in white blood cells as promising biomarkers for breast cancer. However, these studies were limited by low statistical power and potential biases. Using a new methodology, we investigated DNA methylation marks for their associations with breast cancer risk. METHODS: Statistical models were built to predict levels of DNA methylation marks using genetic data and DNA methylation data from HumanMethylation450 BeadChip from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1595). The prediction models were validated using data from the Women's Health Initiative (n = 883). We applied these models to genomewide association study (GWAS) data of 122 977 breast cancerpatients and 105 974 controls to evaluate if the genetically predicted DNA methylation levels at CpG sites (CpGs) are associated with breast cancer risk. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of the 62 938 CpG sites CpGs investigated, statistically significant associations with breast cancer risk were observed for 450 CpGs at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P less than 7.94 × 10-7, including 45 CpGs residing in 18 genomic regions, that have not previously been associated with breast cancer risk. Of the remaining 405 CpGs located within 500 kilobase flaking regions of 70 GWAS-identified breast cancer risk variants, the associations for 11 CpGs were independent of GWAS-identified variants. Integrative analyses of genetic, DNA methylation, and gene expression data found that 38 CpGs may affect breast cancer risk through regulating expression of 21 genes. CONCLUSION: Our new methodology can identify novel DNA methylation biomarkers for breast cancer risk and can be applied to other diseases.
Authors: Gianluca Severi; Melissa C Southey; Dallas R English; Chol-hee Jung; Andrew Lonie; Catriona McLean; Helen Tsimiklis; John L Hopper; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Zongli Xu; Sophia C E Bolick; Lisa A DeRoo; Clarice R Weinberg; Dale P Sandler; Jack A Taylor Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jian Yang; Teresa Ferreira; Andrew P Morris; Sarah E Medland; Pamela A F Madden; Andrew C Heath; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Michael N Weedon; Ruth J Loos; Timothy M Frayling; Mark I McCarthy; Joel N Hirschhorn; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-03-18 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Timothy E Van Baak; Cristian Coarfa; Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Giovanni Fiorito; Eleonora Laritsky; Maria S Baker; Noah J Kessler; Jianrong Dong; Jack D Duryea; Matt J Silver; Ayden Saffari; Andrew M Prentice; Sophie E Moore; Akram Ghantous; Michael N Routledge; Yun Yun Gong; Zdenko Herceg; Paolo Vineis; Gianluca Severi; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Robert A Waterland Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Allan F McRae; Riccardo E Marioni; Sonia Shah; Jian Yang; Joseph E Powell; Sarah E Harris; Jude Gibson; Anjali K Henders; Lisa Bowdler; Jodie N Painter; Lee Murphy; Nicholas G Martin; John M Starr; Naomi R Wray; Ian J Deary; Peter M Visscher; Grant W Montgomery Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: D Gareth R Evans; Elke M van Veen; Helen J Byers; Andrew J Wallace; Jamie M Ellingford; Glenda Beaman; Javier Santoyo-Lopez; Timothy J Aitman; Diana M Eccles; Fiona I Lalloo; Miriam J Smith; William G Newman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jingjing Zhu; Yaohua Yang; John B Kisiel; Douglas W Mahoney; Dominique S Michaud; Xingyi Guo; William R Taylor; Xiao-Ou Shu; Xiang Shu; Duo Liu; Bingshan Li; Ran Tao; Qiuyin Cai; Wei Zheng; Jirong Long; Lang Wu Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ulrike Peters; Li Hsu; Richard Barfield; Jeroen R Huyghe; Mathieu Lemire; Xinyuan Dong; Yu-Ru Su; Stefanie Brezina; Daniel D Buchanan; Jane C Figueiredo; Steven Gallinger; Marios Giannakis; Andrea Gsur; Marc J Gunter; Heather Hampel; Tabitha A Harrison; John L Hopper; Thomas J Hudson; Christopher I Li; Victor Moreno; Polly A Newcomb; Rish K Pai; Paul D P Pharoah; Amanda I Phipps; Conghui Qu; Robert S Steinfelder; Wei Sun; Aung Ko Win; Syed H Zaidi; Peter T Campbell Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Lang Wu; Yaohua Yang; Xingyi Guo; Xiao-Ou Shu; Qiuyin Cai; Xiang Shu; Bingshan Li; Ran Tao; Chong Wu; Jason B Nikas; Yanfa Sun; Jingjing Zhu; Monique J Roobol; Graham G Giles; Hermann Brenner; Esther M John; Judith Clements; Eli Marie Grindedal; Jong Y Park; Janet L Stanford; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Christopher A Haiman; Rosalind A Eeles; Wei Zheng; Jirong Long Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 14.919