| 1. |
- Berndt, Sonja I., et al.
(author)
-
Genome-wide association study identifies multiple risk loci for chronic lymphocytic leukemia
- 2013
-
In: Nature Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1061-4036 .- 1546-1718. ; 45:8, s. 868-U202
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have previously identified 13 loci associated with risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). To identify additional CLL susceptibility loci, we conducted the largest meta-analysis for CLL thus far, including four GWAS with a total of 3,100 individuals with CLL (cases) and 7,667 controls. In the meta-analysis, we identified ten independent associated SNPs in nine new loci at 10q23.31 (ACTA2 or FAS (ACTA2/FAS), P = 1.22 x 10(-14)), 18q21.33 (BCL2, P = 7.76 x 10(-11)), 11p15.5 (C11orf21, P = 2.15 x 10(-10)), 4q25 (LEF1, P = 4.24 x 10(-10)), 2q33.1 (CASP10 or CASP8 (CASP10/CASP8), P = 2.50 x 10(-9)), 9p21.3 (CDKN2B-AS1, P = 1.27 x 10(-8)), 18q21.32 (PMAIP1, P = 2.51 x 10(-8)), 15q15.1 (BMF, P = 2.71 x 10(-10)) and 2p22.2 (QPCT, P = 1.68 x 10(-8)), as well as an independent signal at an established locus (2q13, ACOXL, P = 2.08 x 10(-18)). We also found evidence for two additional promising loci below genome-wide significance at 8q22.3 (ODF1, P = 5.40 x 10(-8)) and 5p15.33 (TERT, P = 1.92 x 10(-7)). Although further studies are required, the proximity of several of these loci to genes involved in apoptosis suggests a plausible underlying biological mechanism.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(author)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
