↓ Skip to main content

Novel Common Genetic Susceptibility Loci for Colorectal Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Novel Common Genetic Susceptibility Loci for Colorectal Cancer
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, June 2018
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djy099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie L Schmit, Christopher K Edlund, Fredrick R Schumacher, Jian Gong, Tabitha A Harrison, Jeroen R Huyghe, Chenxu Qu, Marilena Melas, David J Van Den Berg, Hansong Wang, Stephanie Tring, Sarah J Plummer, Demetrius Albanes, M Henar Alonso, Christopher I Amos, Kristen Anton, Aaron K Aragaki, Volker Arndt, Elizabeth L Barry, Sonja I Berndt, Stéphane Bezieau, Stephanie Bien, Amanda Bloomer, Juergen Boehm, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Hermann Brenner, Stefanie Brezina, Daniel D Buchanan, Katja Butterbach, Bette J Caan, Peter T Campbell, Christopher S Carlson, Jose E Castelao, Andrew T Chan, Jenny Chang-Claude, Stephen J Chanock, Iona Cheng, Ya-Wen Cheng, Lee Soo Chin, James M Church, Timothy Church, Gerhard A Coetzee, Michelle Cotterchio, Marcia Cruz Correa, Keith R Curtis, David Duggan, Douglas F Easton, Dallas English, Edith J M Feskens, Rocky Fischer, Liesel M FitzGerald, Barbara K Fortini, Lars G Fritsche, Charles S Fuchs, Manuela Gago-Dominguez, Manish Gala, Steven J Gallinger, W James Gauderman, Graham G Giles, Edward L Giovannucci, Stephanie M Gogarten, Clicerio Gonzalez-Villalpando, Elena M Gonzalez-Villalpando, William M Grady, Joel K Greenson, Andrea Gsur, Marc Gunter, Christopher A Haiman, Jochen Hampe, Sophia Harlid, John F Harju, Richard B Hayes, Philipp Hofer, Michael Hoffmeister, John L Hopper, Shu-Chen Huang, Jose Maria Huerta, Thomas J Hudson, David J Hunter, Gregory E Idos, Motoki Iwasaki, Rebecca D Jackson, Eric J Jacobs, Sun Ha Jee, Mark A Jenkins, Wei-Hua Jia, Shuo Jiao, Amit D Joshi, Laurence N Kolonel, Suminori Kono, Charles Kooperberg, Vittorio Krogh, Tilman Kuehn, Sébastien Küry, Andrea LaCroix, Cecelia A Laurie, Flavio Lejbkowicz, Mathieu Lemire, Heinz-Josef Lenz, David Levine, Christopher I Li, Li Li, Wolfgang Lieb, Yi Lin, Noralane M Lindor, Yun-Ru Liu, Fotios Loupakis, Yingchang Lu, Frank Luh, Jing Ma, Christoph Mancao, Frank J Manion, Sanford D Markowitz, Vicente Martin, Koichi Matsuda, Keitaro Matsuo, Kevin J McDonnell, Caroline E McNeil, Roger Milne, Antonio J Molina, Bhramar Mukherjee, Neil Murphy, Polly A Newcomb, Kenneth Offit, Hanane Omichessan, Domenico Palli, Jesus P Paredes Cotoré, Julyann Pérez-Mayoral, Paul D Pharoah, John D Potter, Conghui Qu, Leon Raskin, Gad Rennert, Hedy S Rennert, Bridget M Riggs, Clemens Schafmayer, Robert E Schoen, Thomas A Sellers, Daniela Seminara, Gianluca Severi, Wei Shi, David Shibata, Xiao-Ou Shu, Erin M Siegel, Martha L Slattery, Melissa Southey, Zsofia K Stadler, Mariana C Stern, Sebastian Stintzing, Darin Taverna, Stephen N Thibodeau, Duncan C Thomas, Antonia Trichopoulou, Shoichiro Tsugane, Cornelia M Ulrich, Franzel J B van Duijnhoven, Bethany van Guelpan, Joseph Vijai, Jarmo Virtamo, Stephanie J Weinstein, Emily White, Aung Ko Win, Alicja Wolk, Michael Woods, Anna H Wu, Kana Wu, Yong-Bing Xiang, Yun Yen, Brent W Zanke, Yi-Xin Zeng, Ben Zhang, Niha Zubair, Sun-Seog Kweon, Jane C Figueiredo, Wei Zheng, Loic Le Marchand, Annika Lindblom, Victor Moreno, Ulrike Peters, Graham Casey, Li Hsu, David V Conti, Stephen B Gruber

Abstract

Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 42 loci (P < 5 × 10-8) associated with risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded consortium efforts facilitating the discovery of additional susceptibility loci may capture unexplained familial risk. We conducted a GWAS in European descent CRC cases and control subjects using a discovery-replication design, followed by examination of novel findings in a multiethnic sample (cumulative n = 163 315). In the discovery stage (36 948 case subjects/30 864 control subjects), we identified genetic variants with a minor allele frequency of 1% or greater associated with risk of CRC using logistic regression followed by a fixed-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analysis. All novel independent variants reaching genome-wide statistical significance (two-sided P < 5 × 10-8) were tested for replication in separate European ancestry samples (12 952 case subjects/48 383 control subjects). Next, we examined the generalizability of discovered variants in East Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics (12 085 case subjects/22 083 control subjects). Finally, we examined the contributions of novel risk variants to familial relative risk and examined the prediction capabilities of a polygenic risk score. All statistical tests were two-sided. The discovery GWAS identified 11 variants associated with CRC at P < 5 × 10-8, of which nine (at 4q22.2/5p15.33/5p13.1/6p21.31/6p12.1/10q11.23/12q24.21/16q24.1/20q13.13) independently replicated at a P value of less than .05. Multiethnic follow-up supported the generalizability of discovery findings. These results demonstrated a 14.7% increase in familial relative risk explained by common risk alleles from 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9% to 13.7%; known variants) to 11.9% (95% CI = 9.2% to 15.5%; known and novel variants). A polygenic risk score identified 4.3% of the population at an odds ratio for developing CRC of at least 2.0. This study provides insight into the architecture of common genetic variation contributing to CRC etiology and improves risk prediction for individualized screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Master 17 8%
Professor 15 7%
Other 10 5%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 77 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 96 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,817,866
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#1,172
of 7,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,884
of 329,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#18
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.