Multi-population GWAS meta-analysis identifies bladder cancer susceptibility loci and highlights genetic regulation of smoking-related risk
Résumé fourni par la source
Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide, caused by genetic and environmental risk factors. Here, we report the findings of a multi-population meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies, including 32,470 individuals with and 1,753,462 without bladder cancer. We identify 70 independent risk loci, of which 43 are novel. Using a 70-marker polygenic risk score (HR = 1.63 per standard deviation), we increase the area under the curve from 0.71 (baseline risk model) to 0.75. Integrative analyses reveal the enrichment of the associated variants within accessible chromatin regions, and of the prioritized genes within pathways for xenobiotic metabolism and smoking behavior. Specifically, we show that the 15q25.1 variant rs71581744-ACCCC/A co-localizes with tissue-specific CHRNA3 expression, modulates mRNA stability, and associates with risk of muscle-invasive bladder cancer among current smokers. Together, these findings substantially expand the known genetic architecture of bladder cancer risk and highlight the germline regulation of smoking behavior as a mechanism driving bladder cancer susceptibility. This study integrates genetic data from diverse populations to identify 70 loci linked to bladder cancer risk, including 43 novel, and uses experimental approaches to uncover how inherited variation influences this risk in the context of smoking.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Multi-population GWAS meta-analysis identifies bladder cancer susceptibility loci and highlights genetic regulation of smoking-related risk
- Date Crossref
- 08/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.