MyMedR

Displaying publications 181 - 186 of 186 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Author Correction: Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci

Schumacher FR, Olama AAA, Berndt SI, Benlloch S, Ahmed M, Saunders EJ, et al.

Nat Genet, 2019 02;51(2):363.
PMID: 30622367 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0330-6

In the version of this article initially published, the name of author Manuela Gago-Dominguez was misspelled as Manuela Gago Dominguez. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF version of the article.
Fulltext Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Barnes DR, Rookus MA, McGuffog L, Leslie G, Mooij TM, Dennis J, et al.

Genet Med, 2020 10;22(10):1653-1666.
PMID: 32665703 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-0862-x

PURPOSE: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.
RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.
CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
Fulltext Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci

Schumacher FR, Al Olama AA, Berndt SI, Benlloch S, Ahmed M, Saunders EJ, et al.

Nat Genet, 2018 Jul;50(7):928-936.
PMID: 29892016 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0142-8

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10-9; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04-6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa1.
Fulltext Association of Genomic Domains in BRCA1 and BRCA2 with Prostate Cancer Risk and Aggressiveness

Patel VL, Busch EL, Friebel TM, Cronin A, Leslie G, McGuffog L, et al.

Cancer Res, 2020 Feb 01;80(3):624-638.
PMID: 31723001 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1840

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3' region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71-4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12-11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype-phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.
Global Burden of Elevated LDL-C: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023

GBD 2023 LDL Cholesterol Collaborators, Razo C, DeCleene NK, Johnson CO, Stark BA, LeGrand K, et al.

JAMA, 2026 Aug 25;336(8):673-698.
PMID: 42525403 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2026.8628

IMPORTANCE: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of premature death worldwide. Assessing the LDL-C-related burden is critical for guiding prevention and treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the global, regional, and national burden of ischemic heart disease and ischemic stroke attributable to elevated LDL-C (relative to 35-54 mg/dL) from 1990 to 2023 and to quantify the contributions of population growth, aging, risk-deleted burden, and exposure changes to burden trends.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: This comparative risk assessment, part of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023, estimated population-level LDL-C exposure and associated health loss in 204 countries and territories. Mean LDL-C levels were estimated using spatiotemporal gaussian process regression based on 806 studies across 161 countries. Relative risks were derived from meta-analyses of 38 randomized clinical trials. Population-attributable fractions for deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were estimated by age and sex for adults aged 25 years or older from 1990 to 2023, with 95% uncertainty intervals.
EXPOSURE: Population-level LDL-C concentrations.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Population-attributable fractions, counts, and rates (all ages and age standardized per 100 000) of LDL-C-attributable deaths and DALYs from ischemic heart disease and ischemic stroke, with uncertainty intervals.
RESULTS: In 2023, elevated LDL-C accounted for 3.6 million deaths (95% uncertainty interval, 2.2-5.4 million; 6.0% of global mortality) and 90.7 million DALYs (95% uncertainty interval, 58.9-123.3 million; 3.2% of DALYs). Although global all-ages rates remained stable, age-standardized death and DALY rates decreased by 45.6% and 39.5%, respectively, since 1990. In 2023, age-standardized LDL-C-attributable DALY rates were highest in Eastern Europe and lowest in high-income Asia-Pacific. One-third of the global LDL-C burden occurred in India and China. Population growth and aging drove the increasing burden, with notable regional disparities in LDL-C exposure and risk-deleted DALY rates shifting toward middle-sociodemographic settings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite declining age-standardized rates, the absolute LDL-C burden has increased since 1990 due to demographic changes and has shifted toward middle-sociodemographic countries. Measurement and surveillance gaps persist. Strengthened prevention, diagnosis, and treatment access strategies are essential to mitigate the health burden of LDL-C.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.