IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v15y2024i1d10.1038_s41467-024-46927-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Phenome-wide Mendelian randomisation analysis of 378,142 cases reveals risk factors for eight common cancers

Author

Listed:
  • Molly Went

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

  • Amit Sud

    (The Institute of Cancer Research
    Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
    Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
    Harvard Medical School)

  • Charlie Mills

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

  • Abi Hyde

    (The Institute of Cancer Research
    University of Cambridge)

  • Richard Culliford

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

  • Philip Law

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

  • Jayaram Vijayakrishnan

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

  • Ines Gockel

    (University Hospital of Leipzig)

  • Carlo Maj

    (University Hospital of Marburg)

  • Johannes Schumacher

    (University Hospital of Marburg)

  • Claire Palles

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Martin Kaiser

    (The Institute of Cancer Research
    The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Richard Houlston

    (The Institute of Cancer Research)

Abstract

For many cancers there are only a few well-established risk factors. Here, we use summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in a Mendelian randomisation (MR) phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) to identify potentially causal relationships for over 3,000 traits. Our outcome datasets comprise 378,142 cases across breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, endometrial, oesophageal, renal, and ovarian cancers, as well as 485,715 controls. We complement this analysis by systematically mining the literature space for supporting evidence. In addition to providing supporting evidence for well-established risk factors (smoking, alcohol, obesity, lack of physical activity), we also find sex steroid hormones, plasma lipids, and telomere length as determinants of cancer risk. A number of the molecular factors we identify may prove to be potential biomarkers. Our analysis, which highlights aetiological similarities and differences in common cancers, should aid public health prevention strategies to reduce cancer burden. We provide a R/Shiny app to visualise findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Molly Went & Amit Sud & Charlie Mills & Abi Hyde & Richard Culliford & Philip Law & Jayaram Vijayakrishnan & Ines Gockel & Carlo Maj & Johannes Schumacher & Claire Palles & Martin Kaiser & Richard Hou, 2024. "Phenome-wide Mendelian randomisation analysis of 378,142 cases reveals risk factors for eight common cancers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-46927-z
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-46927-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46927-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-024-46927-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weiwei Liang & Xinjian Peng & Qingqing Li & Pingzhang Wang & Ping Lv & Quansheng Song & Shaoping She & Shiyang Huang & Keqiang Chen & Wanghua Gong & Wuxing Yuan & Vishal Thovarai & Teizo Yoshimura & C, 2020. "FAM3D is essential for colon homeostasis and host defense against inflammation associated carcinogenesis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    3. Ting Zhou & William Damsky & Orr-El Weizman & Meaghan K. McGeary & K. Patricia Hartmann & Connor E. Rosen & Suzanne Fischer & Ruaidhri Jackson & Richard A. Flavell & Jun Wang & Miguel F. Sanmamed & Ma, 2020. "IL-18BP is a secreted immune checkpoint and barrier to IL-18 immunotherapy," Nature, Nature, vol. 583(7817), pages 609-614, July.
    4. Gibran Hemani & Kate Tilling & George Davey Smith, 2017. "Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Claudia Giambartolomei & Damjan Vukcevic & Eric E Schadt & Lude Franke & Aroon D Hingorani & Chris Wallace & Vincent Plagnol, 2014. "Bayesian Test for Colocalisation between Pairs of Genetic Association Studies Using Summary Statistics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    7. Ghislaine Scelo & Mark P. Purdue & Kevin M. Brown & Mattias Johansson & Zhaoming Wang & Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow & Yuanqing Ye & Jonathan N. Hofmann & Jiyeon Choi & Matthieu Foll & Valerie Gaborieau &, 2017. "Genome-wide association study identifies multiple risk loci for renal cell carcinoma," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Sebastian May-Wilson & Nana Matoba & Kaitlin H. Wade & Jouke-Jan Hottenga & Maria Pina Concas & Massimo Mangino & Eryk J. Grzeszkowiak & Cristina Menni & Paolo Gasparini & Nicholas J. Timpson & Maria , 2022. "Large-scale GWAS of food liking reveals genetic determinants and genetic correlations with distinct neurophysiological traits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vieira, Flávio & MacDonald, Ronald & Damasceno, Aderbal, 2012. "The role of institutions in cross-section income and panel data growth models: A deeper investigation on the weakness and proliferation of instruments," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 127-140.
    2. McCausland, David & Pouliakas, Konstantinos & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2005. "Some are Punished and Some are Rewarded: A Study of the Impact of Performance Pay on Job Satisfaction," MPRA Paper 14243, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Hebous, Shafik & Zimmermann, Tom, 2014. "Revisiting the Narrative Approach of Estimating Fiscal Multipliers," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100408, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Hilber, Christian A.L., 2010. "New housing supply and the dilution of social capital," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 419-437, May.
    5. Berthélemy Michel & Bonev Petyo & Dussaux Damien & Söderberg Magnus, 2019. "Methods for strengthening a weak instrument in the case of a persistent treatment," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 23(1), pages 1-30, February.
    6. Milo Bianchi & Paolo Buonanno & Paolo Pinotti, 2012. "Do Immigrants Cause Crime?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(6), pages 1318-1347, December.
    7. Antoine, Bertille & Lavergne, Pascal, 2023. "Identification-robust nonparametric inference in a linear IV model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 1-24.
    8. Hugo Benítez-Silva & Debra Dwyer & Wayne-Roy Gayle & Thomas Muench, 2008. "Expectations in micro data: rationality revisited," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 381-416, March.
    9. A. Belloni & D. Chen & V. Chernozhukov & C. Hansen, 2012. "Sparse Models and Methods for Optimal Instruments With an Application to Eminent Domain," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2369-2429, November.
    10. Peter Lorentzen & John McMillan & Romain Wacziarg, 2008. "Death and development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 81-124, June.
    11. Jean-Thomas Bernard & Ba Chu & Lynda Khalaf & Marcel Voia, 2019. "Non-Standard Confidence Sets for Ratios and Tipping Points with Applications to Dynamic Panel Data," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 134, pages 79-108.
    12. Benitez-Silva, Hugo & Dwyer, Debra S., 2006. "Expectation formation of older married couples and the rational expectations hypothesis," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 191-218, April.
    13. Harouna Sedgo & Luc Désiré Omgba, 2023. "Corruption and distortion of public expenditures: evidence from Africa," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 30(2), pages 419-452, April.
    14. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    15. Russell Davidson & James G. MacKinnon, 2006. "The case against JIVE," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 827-833, September.
    16. Badinger, Harald, 2008. "Trade policy and productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 867-891, July.
    17. Hugo Benítez-Silva & Debra S. Dwyer, 2003. "What to Expect when you are Expecting Rationality: Testing Rational Expectations using Micro Data," Working Papers wp037, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    18. Tito Belchior Silva Moreira & Benjamin Miranda Tabak & Mario Jorge Mendonça & Adolfo Sachsida, 2016. "An Evaluation of the Non-Neutrality of Money," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    19. Maurice J.G. Bun & Sarafidis, V., 2013. "Dynamic Panel Data Models," UvA-Econometrics Working Papers 13-01, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Dept. of Econometrics.
    20. Gergely Ganics & Atsushi Inoue & Barbara Rossi, 2021. "Confidence Intervals for Bias and Size Distortion in IV and Local Projections-IV Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 307-324, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-46927-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.