MyMedR

Displaying publications 61 - 71 of 71 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output

Song P, Adeloye D, Acharya Y, Bojude DA, Ali S, Alibudbud R, et al.

J Glob Health, 2024 Feb 16;14:04054.
PMID: 38386716 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.14.04054

BACKGROUND: In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.
Fulltext Evaluating approaches for constructing polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer in men of African and European ancestry

Darst BF, Shen J, Madduri RK, Rodriguez AA, Xiao Y, Sheng X, et al.

Am J Hum Genet, 2023 Jul 06;110(7):1200-1206.
PMID: 37311464 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.05.010

Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRSs) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRSs based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer-risk variants from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping studies (PRS269). GW-PRS models were trained with a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls that we previously used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS269. Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI = 0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI = 0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer ORs of 1.83 (95% CI = 1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI = 2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. Compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC = 0.679, 95% CI = 0.659-0.700 and AUC = 0.845, 95% CI = 0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer ORs (OR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.87-2.26 and OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation studies. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the PRS269 developed from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping.
Fulltext Evaluating Approaches for Constructing Polygenic Risk Scores for Prostate Cancer in Men of African and European Ancestry

Darst BF, Shen J, Madduri RK, Rodriguez AA, Xiao Y, Sheng X, et al.

medRxiv, 2023 May 15.
PMID: 37292833 DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.12.23289860

Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRS) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRS based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer risk variants from multi-ancestry GWAS and fine-mapping studies (PRS 269 ). GW-PRS models were trained using a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS 269 . Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California/Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI=0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI=0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer OR of 1.83 (95% CI=1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI=2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. However, compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS 269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC=0.679, 95% CI=0.659-0.700 and AUC=0.845, 95% CI=0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer OR (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.87-2.26 and OR=2.21, 95% CI=2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation data. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the multi-ancestry PRS 269 constructed with fine-mapping.
Fulltext Fine-mapping of prostate cancer susceptibility loci in a large meta-analysis identifies candidate causal variants

Dadaev T, Saunders EJ, Newcombe PJ, Anokian E, Leongamornlert DA, Brook MN, et al.

Nat Commun, 2018 06 11;9(1):2256.
PMID: 29892050 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04109-8

Prostate cancer is a polygenic disease with a large heritable component. A number of common, low-penetrance prostate cancer risk loci have been identified through GWAS. Here we apply the Bayesian multivariate variable selection algorithm JAM to fine-map 84 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, using summary data from a large European ancestry meta-analysis. We observe evidence for multiple independent signals at 12 regions and 99 risk signals overall. Only 15 original GWAS tag SNPs remain among the catalogue of candidate variants identified; the remainder are replaced by more likely candidates. Biological annotation of our credible set of variants indicates significant enrichment within promoter and enhancer elements, and transcription factor-binding sites, including AR, ERG and FOXA1. In 40 regions at least one variant is colocalised with an eQTL in prostate cancer tissue. The refined set of candidate variants substantially increase the proportion of familial relative risk explained by these known susceptibility regions, which highlights the importance of fine-mapping studies and has implications for clinical risk profiling.
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 07;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.
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 Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

Conti DV, Darst BF, Moss LC, Saunders EJ, Sheng X, Chou A, et al.

Nat Genet, 2021 Jan;53(1):65-75.
PMID: 33398198 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0

Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction.
Publisher Correction: Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

Conti DV, Darst BF, Moss LC, Saunders EJ, Sheng X, Chou A, et al.

Nat Genet, 2021 Mar;53(3):413.
PMID: 33473200 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-021-00786-2
Fulltext Characterizing prostate cancer risk through multi-ancestry genome-wide discovery of 187 novel risk variants

Wang A, Shen J, Rodriguez AA, Saunders EJ, Chen F, Janivara R, et al.

Nat Genet, 2023 Dec;55(12):2065-2074.
PMID: 37945903 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-023-01534-4

The transferability and clinical value of genetic risk scores (GRSs) across populations remain limited due to an imbalance in genetic studies across ancestrally diverse populations. Here we conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of 156,319 prostate cancer cases and 788,443 controls of European, African, Asian and Hispanic men, reflecting a 57% increase in the number of non-European cases over previous prostate cancer genome-wide association studies. We identified 187 novel risk variants for prostate cancer, increasing the total number of risk variants to 451. An externally replicated multi-ancestry GRS was associated with risk that ranged from 1.8 (per standard deviation) in African ancestry men to 2.2 in European ancestry men. The GRS was associated with a greater risk of aggressive versus non-aggressive disease in men of African ancestry (P = 0.03). Our study presents novel prostate cancer susceptibility loci and a GRS with effective risk stratification across ancestry groups.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.

Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
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.