A systematic review of cancer GWAS and candidate gene meta-analyses reveals limited overlap but similar effect sizes

Candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) represent two complementary approaches to uncovering genetic contributions to common diseases. We systematically reviewed the contributions of these approaches to our knowledge of genetic associations with cancer risk by analyzing the data in the Cancer Genome-wide Association and Meta Analyses database (Cancer GAMAdb). The database catalogs studies published since January 1, 2000, by study and cancer type. In all, we found that meta-analyses and pooled analyses of candidate genes reported 349 statistically significant associations and GWAS reported 269, for a total of 577 unique associations. Only 41 (7.1%) associations were reported in both candidate gene meta-analyses and GWAS, usually with similar effect sizes. When considering only noteworthy associations (defined as those with false-positive report probabilities ≤0.2) and accounting for indirect overlap, we found 202 associations, with 27 of those appearing in both meta-analyses and GWAS. Our findings suggest that meta-analyses of well-conducted candidate gene studies may continue to add to our understanding of the genetic associations in the post-GWAS era.

[1]  S. Garte.  The role of ethnicity in cancer susceptibility gene polymorphisms: the example of CYP1A1. , 1998, Carcinogenesis.

[2]  K. Isselbacher,et al.  Heterozygous germ line hCHK2 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. , 1999, Science.

[3]  L R Cardon,et al.  Extent and distribution of linkage disequilibrium in three genomic regions. , 2001, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  R. Myers,et al.  Candidate-gene approaches for studying complex genetic traits: practical considerations , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[5]  D. Clayton,et al.  A unified stepwise regression procedure for evaluating the relative effects of polymorphisms within a gene using case/control or family data: application to HLA in type 1 diabetes. , 2002, American journal of human genetics.

[6]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  J. Palmgren,et al.  Linkage Disequilibrium Mapping of CHEK2: Common Variation and Breast Cancer Risk , 2006, PLoS medicine.

[8]  Paolo Vineis,et al.  A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[9]  Lon R Cardon,et al.  Evaluating coverage of genome-wide association studies , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[10]  M. Khoury,et al.  Tracking the epidemiology of human genes in the literature: the HuGE Published Literature database. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  The continued need to synthesize the results of genetic associations across multiple studies , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[12]  Siobhan M. Dolan,et al.  Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  John D Potter,et al.  Genetic susceptibility to cancer: the role of polymorphisms in candidate genes. , 2008, JAMA.

[14]  A. Singleton,et al.  Genomewide association studies and human disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Meta-analysis in genome-wide association studies. , 2009, Pharmacogenomics.

[16]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  An empirical comparison of meta-analyses of published gene-disease associations versus consortium analyses , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  F. Collins,et al.  Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  M. Khoury,et al.  Invited commentary: from genome-wide association studies to gene-environment-wide interaction studies--challenges and opportunities. , 2008, American journal of epidemiology.

[19]  M. Xiong,et al.  Implication of next-generation sequencing on association studies , 2011, BMC Genomics.

[20]  Jon Genuneit,et al.  Unifying Candidate Gene and GWAS Approaches in Asthma , 2010, PloS one.

[21]  J. Witte.  Genome-wide association studies and beyond. , 2010, Annual review of public health.

[22]  Lucia A. Hindorff,et al.  Genetic architecture of cancer and other complex diseases: lessons learned and future directions. , 2011, Carcinogenesis.

[23]  Stacey S. Cherny,et al.  Evaluating the effective numbers of independent tests and significant p-value thresholds in commercial genotyping arrays and public imputation reference datasets , 2011, Human Genetics.

[24]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Cancer GAMAdb: database of cancer genetic associations from meta-analyses and genome-wide association studies , 2011, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[25]  M. Brown,et al.  Promise and pitfalls of the Immunochip , 2011, Arthritis research & therapy.

[26]  C. Carlson,et al.  Principles for the post-GWAS functional characterization of cancer risk loci , 2011, Nature Genetics.

[27]  Steven Hawken,et al.  Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic association studies in colorectal cancer. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  Peter Kraft,et al.  Challenges and opportunities in genome-wide environmental interaction (GWEI) studies , 2012, Human Genetics.

[29]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  What Should the Genome-wide Significance Threshold Be? Empirical Replication of Borderline Genetic Associations Yfor a Full List of Investigators Offering Data and Clarifications See Acknowledgments , 2022 .

[30]  Tanya M. Teslovich,et al.  The Metabochip, a Custom Genotyping Array for Genetic Studies of Metabolic, Cardiovascular, and Anthropometric Traits , 2012, PLoS genetics.

[31]  F. Cambien,et al.  Caution in Interpreting Results from Imputation Analysis When Linkage Disequilibrium Extends over a Large Distance: A Case Study on Venous Thrombosis , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Excess of Rare Variants in Non–Genome-Wide Association Study Candidate Genes in Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics.

[33]  Orli G. Bahcall,et al.  iCOGS collection provides a collaborative model , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[34]  L. Liang,et al.  One thousand genomes imputation in the national cancer institute breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium aggressive prostate cancer genome‐wide association study , 2013, The Prostate.

[35]  Peter Kraft,et al.  Identification of 23 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci using the iCOGS custom genotyping array , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[36]  J. Barrett,et al.  How next-generation sequencing is transforming complex disease genetics. , 2013, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[37]  Patrick Neven,et al.  Evidence of Gene–Environment Interactions between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Loci and Established Environmental Risk Factors , 2013, PLoS genetics.

[38]  J. Witte,et al.  The Impact of Improved Microarray Coverage and Larger Sample Sizes on Future Genome‐Wide Association Studies , 2013, Genetic epidemiology.