METHODS: To discover novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and possible causal genes, we performed a pancreatic cancer transcriptome-wide association study in Europeans using three approaches: FUSION, MetaXcan, and Summary-MulTiXcan. We integrated genome-wide association studies summary statistics from 9040 pancreatic cancer cases and 12 496 controls, with gene expression prediction models built using transcriptome data from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (NCI Laboratory of Translational Genomics [n = 95] and Genotype-Tissue Expression v7 [n = 174] datasets) and data from 48 different tissues (Genotype-Tissue Expression v7, n = 74-421 samples).
RESULTS: We identified 25 genes whose genetically predicted expression was statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer risk (false discovery rate < .05), including 14 candidate genes at 11 novel loci (1p36.12: CELA3B; 9q31.1: SMC2, SMC2-AS1; 10q23.31: RP11-80H5.9; 12q13.13: SMUG1; 14q32.33: BTBD6; 15q23: HEXA; 15q26.1: RCCD1; 17q12: PNMT, CDK12, PGAP3; 17q22: SUPT4H1; 18q11.22: RP11-888D10.3; and 19p13.11: PGPEP1) and 11 at six known risk loci (5p15.33: TERT, CLPTM1L, ZDHHC11B; 7p14.1: INHBA; 9q34.2: ABO; 13q12.2: PDX1; 13q22.1: KLF5; and 16q23.1: WDR59, CFDP1, BCAR1, TMEM170A). The association for 12 of these genes (CELA3B, SMC2, and PNMT at novel risk loci and TERT, CLPTM1L, INHBA, ABO, PDX1, KLF5, WDR59, CFDP1, and BCAR1 at known loci) remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction.
CONCLUSIONS: By integrating gene expression and genotype data, we identified novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and candidate functional genes that warrant further investigation.
METHODS: Based on the EM transcriptomic datasets GSE7305 and GSE23339, as well as the IBD transcriptomic datasets GSE87466 and GSE126124, differential gene analysis was performed using the limma package in the R environment. Co-expressed differentially expressed genes were identified, and a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network for the differentially expressed genes was constructed using the 11.5 version of the STRING database. The MCODE tool in Cytoscape facilitated filtering out protein interaction subnetworks. Key genes in the PPI network were identified through two topological analysis algorithms (MCC and Degree) from the CytoHubba plugin. Upset was used for visualization of these key genes. The diagnostic value of gene expression levels for these key genes was assessed using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and Area Under the Curve (AUC) The CIBERSORT algorithm determined the infiltration status of 22 immune cell subtypes, exploring differences between EM and IBD patients in both control and disease groups. Finally, different gene expression trends shared by EM and IBD were input into CMap to identify small molecule compounds with potential therapeutic effects.
RESULTS: 113 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) that were co-expressed in EM and IBD have been identified, comprising 28 down-regulated genes and 86 up-regulated genes. The co-expression differential gene of EM and IBD in the functional enrichment analyses focused on immune response activation, circulating immunoglobulin-mediated humoral immune response and humoral immune response. Five hub genes (SERPING1、VCAM1、CLU、C3、CD55) were identified through the Protein-protein Interaction network and MCODE.High Area Under the Curve (AUC) values of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for 5hub genes indicate the predictive ability for disease occurrence.These hub genes could be used as potential biomarkers for the development of EM and IBD. Furthermore, the CMap database identified a total of 9 small molecule compounds (TTNPB、CAY-10577、PD-0325901 etc.) targeting therapeutic genes for EM and IBD.
DISCUSSION: Our research revealed common pathogenic mechanisms between EM and IBD, particularly emphasizing immune regulation and cell signalling, indicating the significance of immune factors in the occurence and progression of both diseases. By elucidating shared mechanisms, our study provides novel avenues for the prevention and treatment of EM and IBD.
RESULTS: We developed a fast Bayesian method which uses the sequencing coverage information determined from the concentration of an RNA sample to estimate the posterior distribution of a true gene count. Our method has better or comparable performance compared to NOISeq and GFOLD, according to the results from simulations and experiments with real unreplicated data. We incorporated a previously unused sequencing coverage parameter into a procedure for differential gene expression analysis with RNA-Seq data.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that our method can be used to overcome analytical bottlenecks in experiments with limited number of replicates and low sequencing coverage. The method is implemented in CORNAS (Coverage-dependent RNA-Seq), and is available at https://github.com/joel-lzb/CORNAS .