Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Common 5p15.33 and 6p21.33 variants influence lung cancer risk

Nature Genetics volume 40, pages 1407–1409 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

We conducted a genome-wide association (GWA) study of lung cancer comparing 511,919 SNP genotypes in 1,952 cases and 1,438 controls. The most significant association was attained at 15q25.1 (rs8042374; P = 7.75 × 10−12), confirming recent observations. Pooling data with two other GWA studies (5,095 cases, 5,200 controls) and with replication in an additional 2,484 cases and 3,036 controls, we identified two newly associated risk loci mapping to 6p21.33 (rs3117582, BAT3-MSH5; Pcombined = 4.97 × 10−10) and 5p15.33 (rs401681, CLPTM1L; Pcombined = 7.90 × 10−9).

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Summary of association results for rs3117582 and rs401681.
Figure 2: LD structure and association results for the two confirmed lung cancer–associated regions.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amos, C.I. et al. Nat. Genet. 40, 616–622 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hung, R.J. et al. Nature 452, 633–637 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thorgeirsson, T.E. et al. Nature 452, 638–642 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Power, C. & Elliott, J. Int. J. Epidemiol. 35, 34–41 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sasaki, T. et al. Genes Dev. 21, 848–861 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu, L. et al. Int. J. Cancer 91, 200–204 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirose, T. et al. Mol. Carcinog. 33, 172–180 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang, Y.C., Hsu, H.S., Chen, T.P. & Chen, J.T. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1075, 179–184 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yamamoto, K., Okamoto, A., Isonishi, S., Ochiai, K. & Ohtake, Y. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 280, 1148–1154 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kang, J., Koo, S., Kwon, K., Park, J. & Kim, J. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 182, 1–11 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, X. & Hemminki, K. Int. J. Cancer 112, 451–457 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Cancer Research UK (A1298/A8780) provided principal funding for this study. Additional funding was provided by HEAL and Sanofi-Aventis and US NIH Grants P50CA70907, R01CA121197 and R01CA133996. We would like to thank all individuals who participated in this study. We are grateful to colleagues at UK Clinical Genetics Centres and the UK National Cancer Research Network.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Timothy Eisen, Christopher I Amos and Richard S Houlston: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, SM2 5NG, Surrey, UK

    Yufei Wang, Peter Broderick, Emily Webb, Jayaram Vijayakrishnan, Athena Matakidou, Mobshra Qureshi & Richard S Houlston

  2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA

    Xifeng Wu, Qiong Dong, Xiangjun Gu, Wei Vivien Chen, Margaret R Spitz & Christopher I Amos

  3. Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 2RE, UK

    Timothy Eisen

Authors
  1. Yufei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Broderick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xifeng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jayaram Vijayakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Athena Matakidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mobshra Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Qiong Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xiangjun Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wei Vivien Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Margaret R Spitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. Timothy Eisen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. Christopher I Amos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  14. Richard S Houlston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.S.H. designed the study, with substantial contributions from C.I.A. and T.E. R.S.H. drafted the manuscript, with substantial contributions from E.W. and C.I.A. T.E., R.S.H. and A.M. oversaw sample and data collection of cases for the UK study. P.B. oversaw the genotyping for the UK study. P.B. managed samples for the UK study. J.V. and M.Q. performed sample preparation for the UK study. Y.W. performed statistical and bioinformatics analyses for the UK study. Y.W. and E.W. performed statistical and bioinformatics analyses for the meta-analysis. M.R.S. oversaw sample and data collection of cases for the Texas study. C.I.A. oversaw the GWA genotyping and analyses for the Texas Study. X.W. managed samples for the Texas study. X.G., W.V.C. and Q.D. performed analyses and curated data for the Texas study. All authors contributed to the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard S Houlston.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Methods (PDF 664 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Meta-analysis results (XLS 96 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Broderick, P., Webb, E. et al. Common 5p15.33 and 6p21.33 variants influence lung cancer risk. Nat Genet 40, 1407–1409 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.273

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.273

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing