| Literature DB >> 32600451 |
Ryan Langdon1,2, Rebecca Richmond3,4, Hannah R Elliott5,6, Tom Dudding5,6, Nabila Kazmi5,6, Chris Penfold7, Kate Ingarfield7, Karen Ho5,6, Andrew Bretherick8, Chris Haley8, Yanni Zeng8,9,10, Rosie M Walker11,12, Michael Pawlita13, Tim Waterboer13, Tom Gaunt5,6, George Davey Smith5,6,7, Matthew Suderman5,6, Steve Thomas7, Andy Ness7, Caroline Relton5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking status, alcohol consumption and HPV infection (acquired through sexual activity) are the predominant risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer and are thought to alter the prognosis of the disease. Here, we conducted single-site and differentially methylated region (DMR) epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) of these factors, in addition to ∼ 3-year survival, using Illumina Methylation EPIC DNA methylation profiles from whole blood in 409 individuals as part of the Head and Neck 5000 (HN5000) study. Overlapping sites between each factor and survival were then assessed using two-step Mendelian randomization to assess whether methylation at these positions causally affected survival.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32600451 PMCID: PMC7322918 DOI: 10.1186/s13148-020-00870-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epigenetics ISSN: 1868-7075 Impact factor: 6.551
Comparison of patient demographics in OPC samples selected for methylation data extraction; all samples in HN5000 identified as OPC and all samples in HN5000
| Variable | OPC in HN5000 with methylation data and complete phenotype data ( | OPC in HN5000 ( | All HN5000 (all sub-types) ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICD group (% oropharynx) | 100 | 100 | 35.4 |
| Sex (% female) | 27.0 | 21.9 | 27.2 |
| Age (% < 60) | 58.4 | 52.4 | 42.7 |
| Smoking (% never smoked) | 27.1 | 28.0 | 24.6 |
| Alcohol (% non-drinker) | 25.9 | 26.6 | 28.4 |
| HPV16 E6 (% negative) | 33.3 | 32.3 | 72.0 |
| Survival (% died, prior to 30/09/2017) | 26.2 | 24.2 | 28.0 |
Fig. 1Manhattan plot of EWAS of ever vs never smoking, showing CpG sites within DMRs in red. Each dot represents the EWAS result for a single CpG site, plotting – log10 (P) (y-axis) against the genomic position of the CpG site (x-axis). The horizontal red line is at P < 5.7 × 10 and represents the value below which CpG sites were considered to have good evidence of association with smoking
Fig. 3Manhattan plot of EWAS of HPV16E6 seropositivity, showing CpG sites within DMRs in red. Each dot represents the EWAS result for a single CpG site, plotting – log10 (P) (y-axis) against the genomic position of the CpG site (x-axis). The horizontal red line is at P < 5.7 × 10−8 and represents the value below which CpG sites were considered to have good evidence of association with HPV16 E6 seropositivity
Fig. 2Manhattan plot of EWAS of alcohol consumption, showing CpG sites within DMRs in red. Each dot represents the EWAS result for a single CpG site, plotting – log10 (P) (y-axis) against the genomic position of the CpG site (x-axis). The horizontal red line is at P < 5.7 × 10 and represents the value below which CpG sites were considered to have good evidence of association with alcohol consumption
Fig. 4Manhattan plot of EWAS of survival (model 1, not adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption and HPV16E6 seropositivity), showing CpG sites within DMRs in red. Each dot represents the EWAS result for a single CpG site, plotting – log10 (P) (y-axis) against the genomic position of the CpG site (x-axis). The horizontal red line is at P < 5.7 × 10−8 and represents the value below which CpG sites were considered to have good evidence of association with survival
Fig. 5Manhattan plot of EWAS of survival (model 2, adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption and HPV16E6 seropositivity), showing CpG sites within DMRs in red. Each dot represents the EWAS result for a single CpG site, plotting – log10 (P) (y-axis) against the genomic position of the CpG site (x-axis). The horizontal red line is at P < 5.7 × 10−8 and represents the value below which CpG sites were considered to have good evidence of association with survival
Fig. 6Heatmap showing correlation between differentially-methylated regions (Sidak < 0.05) for each prognostic factor (alcohol consumption, HPV16 E6 seropositivity and smoking) and survival EWAS (model 1 ~ 3-year survival adjusted for age sex and surrogate variables). Strength of association is shown by depth of colour; deeper red denotes a stronger phenotypic association with DMR
Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis results, assessing epigenetic mediation between smoking status and ~ 3-year survival at the SPEG gene (chromosome 2:220325443-220326041), GFI1 gene (chromosome 1:92946132-92947588) and PPT2 gene (chromosome 6:32120895-32120907). Inverse-variance weighted (IVW) and MR Egger results, adjusted for genetic correlation between mQTLs, are reported as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals
| Region (gene) | MR method | SNPs | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chr2:220325443-220326041 ( | IVW | 17 | 1.28 | 1.14 to 1.43 | 2.12 × 10−05 |
| Chr2:220325443-220326041 ( | MR Egger | 17 | 1.28 | 1.18 to 1.38 | 4.04 × 10−10 |
| Chr1:92946132-92947588 ( | IVW | 8 | 0.74 | 0.60 to 0.93 | 7.9 × 10−03 |
| Chr1:92946132-92947588 ( | MR Egger | 8 | 2.65 | 0.77 to 9.12 | 0.12 |
| Chr6:32120895-32120907 ( | IVW | 8 | 0.82 | 0.52 to 1.30 | 0.40 |
| Chr6:32120895-32120907 ( | MR Egger | 8 | 1.68 | 0.27 to 10.38 | 0.58 |
| cg06084174 ( | IVW | 3 | 1.14 | 0.90 to 1.45 | 0.29 |
| cg06338710 ( | Wald ratio | 1 | 0.93 | 0.47 to 1.85 | 0.84 |
| cg17113856 ( | IVW | 2 | 0.67 | 0.37 to 1.22 | 0.19 |
Fig. 7Forest plots showing SNP-specific and overall IV hazard ratio estimates (95% CI) for Mendelian randomization analyses of smoking-associated methylation at 3 gene loci (GFI1, PPT2, SPEG), against 3-year survival in oropharyngeal cancer
Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis results, assessing epigenetic mediation between alcohol consumption and ~ 3-year survival at the KHDC3L gene (chromosome 6:74072255-74072376). Inverse-variance weighted adjusted for genetic correlation between mQTLs (IVW), MR Egger and Wald ratio results are each reported as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals
| Region (gene) | MR method | SNPs | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chr6:74072255-74072376 ( | IVW | 4 | 1.17 | 0.70 to 1.97 | 0.55 |
| Chr6:74072255-74072376 ( | MR Egger | 4 | 0.89 | 0.27 to 2.98 | 0.85 |
| cg19146112 ( | Wald ratio | 1 | 1.17 | 0.54 to 2.53 | 0.68 |
Fig. 8Forest plot showing the SNP-specific and overall IV hazard ratio estimates (95% CI) for Mendelian randomization analyses of alcohol-associated methylation at the KHDC3L gene locus, against 3-year survival in oropharyngeal cancer
Fig. 9Smoothed-line plot showing minimum expected power for MR analyses using mQTLs to proxy gene regions. This figure denotes a lower bound in expected power at different OR values rather than a definitive estimate. Sample size = 409; alpha = 0.05. Each plot denotes a different proportion of variance explained, ranging from 5 to 50%