Search

Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 common genetic variants independently associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, but the causal variants and target genes are mostly unknown. We sought to fine-map all known CRC risk loci using GWAS data from 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of East Asian and European ancestry. Our stepwise conditional analyses revealed 238 independent association signals of CRC risk, each with a set of credible causal variants (CCVs), of which 28 signals had a single CCV. Our cis-eQTL/mQTL and colocalization analyses using colorectal tissue-specific transcriptome and methylome data separately from 1299 and 321 individuals, along with functional genomic investigation, uncovered 136 putative CRC susceptibility genes, including 56 genes not previously reported. Analyses of single-cell RNA-seq data from colorectal tissues revealed 17 putative CRC susceptibility genes with distinct expression patterns in specific cell types. Analyses of whole exome sequencing data provided additional support for several target genes identified in this study as CRC susceptibility genes. Enrichment analyses of the 136 genes uncover pathways not previously linked to CRC risk. Our study substantially expanded association signals for CRC and provided additional insight into the biological mechanisms underlying CRC development.

(1) Introduction: The global rise of gastrointestinal diseases, including colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases, highlights the need to understand their causes. Diet is a common risk factor and a crucial regulator of gene expression, with alterations observed in both conditions. This study aims to elucidate the specific biological mechanisms through which diet influences the risk of bowel diseases. (2) Methods: We analyzed data from 436 participants from the BarcUVa-Seq population-based cross-sectional study utilizing gene expression profiles (RNA-Seq) from frozen colonic mucosal biopsies and dietary information from a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Dietary variables were evaluated based on two dietary patterns and as individual variables. Differential expression gene (DEG) analysis was performed for each dietary factor using edgeR. Protein–protein interaction (PPI) analysis was conducted with STRINGdb v11 for food groups with more than 10 statistically significant DEGs, followed by Reactome-based enrichment analysis for the resulting networks. (3) Results: Our findings reveal that food intake, specifically the consumption of blue fish, alcohol, and potatoes, significantly influences gene expression in the colon of individuals without tumor pathology, particularly in pathways related to DNA repair, immune system function, and protein glycosylation. (4) Discussion: These results demonstrate how these dietary components may influence human metabolic processes and affect the risk of bowel diseases.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: APP report grants from Metabiota Inc outside the submitted work. J.S. and Columbia University declare partial ownership of SK Analytics. No other authors have competing interests to declare., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)