↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common susceptibility polymorphisms for colorectal and endometrial cancer near SH2B3 and TSHZ1

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common susceptibility polymorphisms for colorectal and endometrial cancer near SH2B3 and TSHZ1
Published in
Scientific Reports, December 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep17369
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy HT Cheng, Deborah Thompson, Jodie Painter, Tracy O’Mara, Maggie Gorman, Lynn Martin, Claire Palles, Angela Jones, Daniel D. Buchanan, Aung Ko Win, John Hopper, Mark Jenkins, Noralane M. Lindor, Polly A. Newcomb, Steve Gallinger, David Conti, Fred Schumacher, Graham Casey, Graham G Giles, Paul Pharoah, Julian Peto, Angela Cox, Anthony Swerdlow, Fergus Couch, Julie M Cunningham, Ellen L Goode, Stacey J Winham, Diether Lambrechts, Peter Fasching, Barbara Burwinkel, Hermann Brenner, Hiltrud Brauch, Jenny Chang-Claude, Helga B. Salvesen, Vessela Kristensen, Hatef Darabi, Jingmei Li, Tao Liu, Annika Lindblom, Per Hall, Magdalena Echeverry de Polanco, Monica Sans, Angel Carracedo, Sergi Castellvi-Bel, Augusto Rojas-Martinez, Samuel Aguiar Jnr, Manuel R. Teixeira, Alison M Dunning, Joe Dennis, Geoffrey Otton, Tony Proietto, Elizabeth Holliday, John Attia, Katie Ashton, Rodney J Scott, Mark McEvoy, Sean C Dowdy, Brooke L Fridley, Henrica MJ Werner, Jone Trovik, Tormund S Njolstad, Emma Tham, Miriam Mints, Ingo Runnebaum, Peter Hillemanns, Thilo Dörk, Frederic Amant, Stefanie Schrauwen, Alexander Hein, Matthias W Beckmann, Arif Ekici, Kamila Czene, Alfons Meindl, Manjeet K Bolla, Kyriaki Michailidou, Jonathan P Tyrer, Qin Wang, Shahana Ahmed, Catherine S Healey, Mitul Shah, Daniela Annibali, Jeroen Depreeuw, Nada A. Al-Tassan, Rebecca Harris, Brian F. Meyer, Nicola Whiffin, Fay J Hosking, Ben Kinnersley, Susan M. Farrington, Maria Timofeeva, Albert Tenesa, Harry Campbell, Robert W. Haile, Shirley Hodgson, Luis Carvajal-Carmona, Jeremy P. Cheadle, Douglas Easton, Malcolm Dunlop, Richard Houlston, Amanda Spurdle, Ian Tomlinson

Abstract

High-risk mutations in several genes predispose to both colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC). We therefore hypothesised that some lower-risk genetic variants might also predispose to both CRC and EC. Using CRC and EC genome-wide association series, totalling 13,265 cancer cases and 40,245 controls, we found that the protective allele [G] at one previously-identified CRC polymorphism, rs2736100 near TERT, was associated with EC risk (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, P = 0.000167); this polymorphism influences the risk of several other cancers. A further CRC polymorphism near TERC also showed evidence of association with EC (OR = 0.92; P = 0.03). Overall, however, there was no good evidence that the set of CRC polymorphisms was associated with EC risk, and neither of two previously-reported EC polymorphisms was associated with CRC risk. A combined analysis revealed one genome-wide significant polymorphism, rs3184504, on chromosome 12q24 (OR = 1.10, P = 7.23 × 10(-9)) with shared effects on CRC and EC risk. This polymorphism, a missense variant in the gene SH2B3, is also associated with haematological and autoimmune disorders, suggesting that it influences cancer risk through the immune response. Another polymorphism, rs12970291 near gene TSHZ1, was associated with both CRC and EC (OR = 1.26, P = 4.82 × 10(-8)), with the alleles showing opposite effects on the risks of the two cancers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 78 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,217,403
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#58,516
of 123,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,818
of 387,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,271
of 2,653 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 387,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,653 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 50% of its contemporaries.