↓ Skip to main content

Identification of lung cancer histology-specific variants applying Bayesian framework variant prioritization approaches within the TRICL and ILCCO consortia

Overview of attention for article published in Carcinogenesis, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Identification of lung cancer histology-specific variants applying Bayesian framework variant prioritization approaches within the TRICL and ILCCO consortia
Published in
Carcinogenesis, September 2015
DOI 10.1093/carcin/bgv128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren R. Brenner, Christopher I. Amos, Yonathan Brhane, Maria N. Timofeeva, Neil Caporaso, Yufei Wang, David C. Christiani, Heike Bickeböller, Ping Yang, Demetrius Albanes, Victoria L. Stevens, Susan Gapstur, James McKay, Paolo Boffetta, David Zaridze, Neonilia Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Jolanta Lissowska, Peter Rudnai, Eleonora Fabianova, Dana Mates, Vladimir Bencko, Lenka Foretova, Vladimir Janout, Hans E. Krokan, Frank Skorpen, Maiken E. Gabrielsen, Lars Vatten, Inger Njølstad, Chu Chen, Gary Goodman, Mark Lathrop, Tõnu Vooder, Kristjan Välk, Mari Nelis, Andres Metspalu, Peter Broderick, Timothy Eisen, Xifeng Wu, Di Zhang, Wei Chen, Margaret R. Spitz, Yongyue Wei, Li Su, Dong Xie, Jun She, Keitaro Matsuo, Fumihiko Matsuda, Hidemi Ito, Angela Risch, Joachim Heinrich, Albert Rosenberger, Thomas Muley, Hendrik Dienemann, John K. Field, Olaide Raji, Ying Chen, John Gosney, Triantafillos Liloglou, Michael P.A. Davies, Michael Marcus, John McLaughlin, Irene Orlow, Younghun Han, Yafang Li, Xuchen Zong, Mattias Johansson, Geoffrey Liu, Shelley S. Tworoger, Loic Le Marchand, Brian E. Henderson, Lynne R. Wilkens, Juncheng Dai, Hongbing Shen, Richard S. Houlston, Maria T. Landi, Paul Brennan, Rayjean J. Hung

Abstract

Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have likely uncovered all common variants at the GWAS significance level. Additional variants within the suggestive range (0.0001> P > 5×10(-8)) are, however, still of interest for identifying causal associations. This analysis aimed to apply novel variant prioritization approaches to identify additional lung cancer variants that may not reach the GWAS level. Effects were combined across studies with a total of 33456 controls and 6756 adenocarcinoma (AC; 13 studies), 5061 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; 12 studies) and 2216 small cell lung cancer cases (9 studies). Based on prior information such as variant physical properties and functional significance, we applied stratified false discovery rates, hierarchical modeling and Bayesian false discovery probabilities for variant prioritization. We conducted a fine mapping analysis as validation of our methods by examining top-ranking novel variants in six independent populations with a total of 3128 cases and 2966 controls. Three novel loci in the suggestive range were identified based on our Bayesian framework analyses: KCNIP4 at 4p15.2 (rs6448050, P = 4.6×10(-7)) and MTMR2 at 11q21 (rs10501831, P = 3.1×10(-6)) with SCC, as well as GAREM at 18q12.1 (rs11662168, P = 3.4×10(-7)) with AC. Use of our prioritization methods validated two of the top three loci associated with SCC (P = 1.05×10(-4) for KCNIP4, represented by rs9799795) and AC (P = 2.16×10(-4) for GAREM, represented by rs3786309) in the independent fine mapping populations. This study highlights the utility of using prior functional data for sequence variants in prioritization analyses to search for robust signals in the suggestive range.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 9 21%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,773,420
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Carcinogenesis
#4,120
of 4,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,111
of 267,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carcinogenesis
#21
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.