Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37132247›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2023

Genetically predicted 486 blood metabolites in relation to risk of colorectal cancer: A Mendelian randomization study.

Zhangjun Yun, Ziwei Guo, Xiao Li, Yang Shen, Mengdie Nan, Qing Dong, Li Hou

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhangjun YunDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3422-9140
Ziwei GuoDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-147X
Xiao LiDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.
Yang ShenDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.
Mengdie NanDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.
Qing DongDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.
Li HouDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (BUCM), Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2921-0821
Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetabolic disorders are a hallmark feature of cancer. However, the evidence for the causality of circulating metabolites to promote or prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) is still lacking. We performed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to assess the causality from genetically proxied 486 blood metabolites to CRC.

methodsGenome-wide association study (GWAS) data for exposures were extracted from 7824 Europeans GWAS on metabolite levels. GWAS data for CRC from the GWAS catalog database GCST012879 were used for the preliminary analysis. The random inverse variance weighted (IVW) is the primary analysis for causality analysis while MR-Egger and weighted median as complementary analyses. Cochran Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, MR-PRESSO, Radial MR, and leave-one-out analysis were used for sensitivity analyses. For significant associations, additional independent CRC GWAS data GCST012880 were used for replication analysis and meta-analysis. For the final identification of metabolites, Steiger test, linkage disequilibrium score regression, and colocalization analysis were performed for further evaluation. Multivariable MR was performed to assess the direct effect of metabolites on CRC.

resultsThe results of this study indicated significant associations between six metabolites pyruvate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.77, p = 0.002), 1,6-anhydroglucose (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.11-1.59, p = 0.002), nonadecanoate (19:0) (OR: 0.40, 95% C I:0.4-0.68, p = 0.0008), 1-linoleoylglycerophosphoethanolamine (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p = 0.001), 2-hydroxystearate (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.67, p = 0.0007), gamma-glutamylthreonine (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.02-4.50, p = 0.040) and CRC. MVMR analysis revealed that genetically predicted pyruvate, 1-linoleoylglycerophosphoethanolamine and gamma-glutamylthreonine can directly influence CRC independently of other metabolites.

conclusionThe current work provides evidence to support the causality of the six circulating metabolites on CRC and a new perspective on the exploration of the biological mechanisms of CRC by combining genomics and metabolomics. These findings contribute to the screening, prevention and treatment of CRC.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsGenome-Wide Association StudyDatabases, FactualHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePyruvic AcidPyruvic Acidblood metabolitescausalitycolocalization analysiscolorectal cancerMendelian randomization

Identifiers

PMID37132247
PMCPMC10315807
OpenAlexW4367834847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.