Pro-inflammatory fatty acid profile and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomisation analysis
Full text
Original Research Pro-inflammatory fatty acid profile and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomisation analysis Sebastian May-Wilson a,1 , Amit Sud a,1 , Philip J. Law a,1 , Kimmo Palin b,c , Sari Tuupanen b,c , Alexandra Gylfe b,c , Ulrika A. Ha ¨nninen b,c , Tatiana Cajuso b,c , Tomas Tanskanen b,c , Johanna Kondelin b,c , Eevi Kaasinen b,c , Antti-Pekka Sarin d , Johan G. Eriksson g,h,i , Harri Rissanen g , Paul Knekt g , Eero Pukkala j,k , Pekka Jousilahti g , Veikko Salomaa g , Samuli Ripatti d,e,f , Aarno Palotie d,l,m,n , Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo o , Anna Lepisto ¨ o , Jan Bo ¨hm p , Jukka-Pekka Mecklin q , Nada A. Al-Tassan r , Claire Palles s , Susan M. Farrington t , Maria N. Timofeeva t , Brian F. Meyer r , Salma M. Wakil r , Harry Campbell u , Christopher G. Smith v , Shelley Idziaszczyk v , Timothy S. Maughan w , David Fisher x , Rachel Kerr y , David Kerr z , Michael N. Passarelli aa , Jane C. Figueiredo ab,ac , Daniel D. Buchanan ad,ae , Aung K. Win ae , John L. Hopper ae , Mark A. Jenkins ae , Noralane M. Lindor af , Polly A. Newcomb ag , Steven Gallinger ah , David Conti ai , Fred Schumacher ai , Graham Casey aj , Lauri A. Aaltonen b,c , Jeremy P. Cheadle v , Ian P. Tomlinson s , Malcolm G. Dunlop t , Richard S. Houlston a, * a Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK b Genome-Scale Biology Research Program, Research Programs Unit, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland c Department of Medical and Clinical Genetics, Medicum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland d Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland e Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK f Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland g National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, 00271, Finland h Folkha ¨lsan Research Centre, Helsinki, 00250, Finland i Unit of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, 00014, Finland *Corresponding author: Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, London, SM2 5NG, UK. Fax: þ44 (0) 722 4365. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.S. Houlston). 1 These authors contributed equally to this work. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.034 0959-8049/ª2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.ejcancer.com European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238
j Finnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, 00130, Finland k School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, 33014, Finland l Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA m Program in Medical and Population Genetics, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA n Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA o Abdominal Center, Department of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, 00029, Finland p Department of Pathology, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, 40620, Finland q Department of Surgery, Jyva ¨skyla ¨Central Hospital, University of Eastern Finland, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, 40620, Finland r Department of Genetics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, 12713, Saudi Arabia s Molecular & Population Genetics Laboratory, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK t Colon Cancer Genetics Group, University of Edinburgh and MRC Human Genetics Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK u Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK v Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK w CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK x MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Aviation House, London, WC2B 6NH, UK y Oxford Cancer Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK z Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK aa Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA ab Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA ac Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ad Colorectal Oncogenomics Group, Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia ae Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia af Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA ag Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA ah Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada ai Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA aj Center for Public Health Genomics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA Received 16 December 2016; received in revised form 20 July 2017; accepted 22 July 2017 Available online 19 August 2017 KEYWORDS Mendelian randomisation; Colorectal cancer; Risk; Plasma fatty acids; Fatty acids Abstract Background: While dietary fat has been established as a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), associations between fatty acids (FAs) and CRC have been inconsistent. Using Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to evaluate associations between polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated (MUFA) and saturated FAs (SFAs) and CRC risk. Methods: We analysed genotype data on 9254 CRC cases and 18,386 controls of European ancestry. Externally weighted polygenic risk scores were generated and used to evaluate associations with CRC per one standard deviation increase in genetically defined plasma FA levels. Results: Risk reduction was observed for oleic and palmitoleic MUFAs (OR OA Z0.77, 95% CI: 0.65e0.92, PZ3.9 10 3 ;OR POA Z0.36, 95% CI: 0.15e0.84, PZ0.018). PUFAs linoleic and arachidonic acid had negative and positive associations with CRC respectively (OR LA Z0.95, 95% CI: 0.93e0.98, PZ3.7 10 4 ;OR AA Z1.05, 95% CI: 1.02e1.07, PZ1.7 10 4 ).The SFA stearic acid was associated with increased CRC risk (OR SA Z1.17, 95% CI: 1.01e1.35, PZ0.041). Conclusion: Results from our analysis are broadly consistent with a pro-inflammatory FA profile having a detrimental effect in terms of CRC risk. ª2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238 229
1. Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers and a major cause of cancer-related mortality in economically developed countries [1]. Geographical differences in CRC incidence between countries and migration studies have established the importance of lifestyle and diet as major determinants for CRC risk [2]. Worldwide CRC is currently diagnosed in over one million individuals annually; however, its incidence is set to increase with adoption of western lifestyles in developing countries [3]. Given the importance of diet as a risk factor for CRC, its modification offers the prospect of impacting significantly on disease incidence through public health initiatives. Dietary fat has been widely implicated as a risk factor for cancer, and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies have tended to associate CRC risk with a higher consumption of red and processed meat [4]. The association between fat intake on cancer risk however, is likely to depend not only on the quantity, but also on the specific type of fatty acid (FA). Animal models and ecological studies have tended to implicate animal fat [5], saturated fatty acid (SFA) and certain omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (u-6 PUFAs) with an increased risk, and u-3 PUFA intake with a reduced risk [6e8]. Evidence for a causal relationship with intake of specific types of fat from epidemiological studies has however largely been inconclusive. Reasons for inconsistencies in observational studies include the inherent problem of eliciting accurate measurements of long-term diet, confounding and reverse causation [9]. Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis represents an adjunct to the conventional epidemiological observational study for examining associations between an exposure with a disease. The MR strategy makes use of allelic variants that are randomly assigned during meiosis and are robustly associated with traits of interest, as instrumental variables (IVs). Using genetically defined IVs as proxies of modifiable exposure avoids confounding by environmental factors, is not subject to reverse causality and can inform on life-long exposure [10,11]. Since studies have shown that FA intake influences plasma levels of FAs in theory MR makes an attractive strategy to link dietary FA to CRC risk [12,13]. We have therefore sought to identify associations between genetically predicted plasma PUFA, MUFAs and SFA levels and CRC risk. Specifically: (1) the u-6 PUFAs, linoleic acid (LA), arachidonic acid (AA) and dihomo-g-linolenic acid (DGLA); (2) the u-3 PUFAs, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); (3) the MUFAs, oleic acid (OA) and palmitoleic acid (POA); and (4) the SFAs, palmitic acid (PA), arachidic acid and stearic acid (SA). 2. Methods 2.1. Colorectal cancer datasets We investigated the relationship between genetic risk scores for levels of MUFAs, PUFAs, and SFAs and CRC risk adopting a two-sample MR strategy using data from seven reported genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of CRC (Table 1). Briefly, these GWAS were based on individuals with European ancestry: CCFR1, CCFR2, COIN, FINLAND, UK1, Scotland1 and VQ58 [14]. Each study was approved by respective institutional ethics review board and performed/conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. 2.2. Genotyping data Comprehensive details of the genotyping and quality control of the seven GWAS have been previously reported [14]. Briefly, we excluded single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a minor allele frequency of <1%, low call rate <95%, those SNPs violating HardyeWeinberg equilibrium, and individuals with nonEuropean ancestry as assessed using data from HapMap v2 [15]. IMPUTEv2 software [16] was used to recover untyped SNP genotypes using a merged reference panel consisting of Sequencing Initiative Suomi (for the FINLAND data) or UK10K (for the remaining data) and 1000 Genomes Project data [17,18]. Poorly imputed SNPs, defined by an INFO score of <0.9, were excluded. Summary statistics from the seven GWAS were used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for FArelated SNPs. 2.3. Gene variants used to construct genetic risk scores Genetic risk scores for IVs for each plasma FA were developed from SNPs previously identified by The Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium. We considered SNPs associated at genome-wide significance (i.e. P5.0 10 8 ) in individuals with European Ancestry. To avoid co-linearity between SNPs for each FA we imposed a threshold r 2 value of 0.01 for linkage disequilibrium (LD) including only the SNPs with the strongest effect on the trait in genetic risk scores (Table 2,[19e22]). For each identified SNP, we recovered the chromosome positions, the risk alleles, association estimates and standard errors. For each SNP, the allele that was associated with increased FA level was considered the effect allele. 2.4. Statistical analysis The association between the plasma level of each FA and CRC was examined using MR on summary S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238230
Table 1 Summary of the seven colorectal cancer genome-wide association studies. Series Study setting Study centre Genotyping platform No. cases No. controls CCFR1 Colon Cancer Family Registry University of Southern California Illumina 1M, 1M Duo 1290 1055 CCFR2 Colon Cancer Family Registry University of Southern California Illumina 1M, Omni express 796 2236 COIN COIN trial: Multicentre study of cetuximab and other therapies in metastatic CRC. Controls were unselected blood donors Cardiff University Affymetrix Axiom 2244 2162 FINLAND Finnish Colorectal Cancer Predisposition Study Helsinki University Illumina 610K/Illumina HumanOmni2.5M 1172 8266 UK1 CORGI (colorectal Tumour Gene Identification Consortium) Oxford University Illumina Hap550 940 965 Scotland1 COGS (Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility Study) Edinburgh University Illumina Hap300/240S 1012 1012 VQ58 Cases: VICTOR, post-treatment stages of a phase III, randomised trial of rofecoxib (VIOXX) in patients after potentially curative therapy. QUASAR2, multi-centre study of capecitabine bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment. 1958 Birth cohort controls Oxford University Illumina Hap300/370, Illumina 1M 1800 2690 Table 2 Effect sizes for plasma fatty acid content (per standard deviation increase in levels) for genome-wide significant (P<510 8 ) instrumental variables reported by CHARGE consortium. FA subtype Fatty acid SNP ID Chr Position (bp) a Allele bStdErr P-value Variance explained b SFA Arachidic acid (20:0) rs680379 20 12917400 A/G 0.098 0.01 5.81 10 13 e Palmitic acid (PA) (16:0) rs2391388 1 95485825 C/A 0.18 0.03 2.72 10 11 0.21e0.98% Stearic acid (SA) (18:0) rs6675668 1 95515637 G/T 0.17 0.02 2.16 10 18 0.37e1.39% rs11119805 1 211918244 T/A 0.17 0.03 2.8 10 09 <0.01e0.72 rs102275 11 61557803 T/C 0.18 0.02 1.33 10 20 0.33e1.34% u-3 PUFA Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (22:6n-3) rs2236212 6 10995015 G/C 0.11 0.01 1.26 10 15 0.7% Docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) (22:5n-3) rs780094 2 27741237 T/C 0.02 0.003 9.04 10 09 e rs3734398 6 10982973 C/T 0.04 0.003 9.71 10 43 8.6% rs174547 11 61570783 T/C 0.07 0.003 3.79 10 154 2.8% Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5n-3) rs3798713 6 11008622 C/G 0.035 0.005 1.93 10 12 0.4% u-6 PUFA Arachidonic acid (AA) (20:4n-6) rs174547 11 61570783 T/C 1.69 0.03 3.30 10 971 3.7e37.6% rs16966952 16 15135943 G/A 0.2 0.03 2.43 10 10 0.1e0.6% Dihomo-g-linolenic acid (DGLA) (20:3n-6) rs174547 11 61570783 C/T 0.36 0.01 2.63 10 151 8.7e11.1% rs16966952 16 15135943 G/A 0.22 0.02 7.55 10 65 2.0e4.5% Linoleic acid (LA) (18:2n-6) rs10740118 10 65101207 G/C 0.25 0.04 8.08 10 09 0.2e0.7% rs174547 11 61570783 C/T 1.47 0.04 4.98 10 274 7.6e18.1% rs16966952 16 15135943 A/G 0.35 0.04 1.23 10 15 0.5e2.5% u-7 MUFA Palmitoleic acid (POA) (16:1n-7) rs780093 2 27742603 T/C 0.02 0.003 9.80 10 10 0.23e0.93% rs6722456 2 134529091 G/A 0.05 0.009 4.12 10 08 <0.01e0.57 rs603424 10 102075479 G/A 0.03 0.004 5.69 10 15 0.28e1.57% rs11190604 10 102302457 G/A 0.02 0.004 5.69 10 09 0.02e0.71% rs102275 11 61557803 C/T 0.02 0.003 6.60 10 13 0.15e1.03% u-9 MUFA Oleic acid (OA) (18:1n-9) rs102275 11 61557803 C/T 0.23 0.02 2.19 10 32 0.32e2.14% FA, fatty acid; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; bp, base pair; SFA, saturated fatty acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; StdErr, standard error. Effect allele influencing each FA trait is marked in bold. a hg19 NCBI build. b Taken from CHARGE consortium, as a percentage of total serum fatty acids, calculated by (b 2 *2*MAF*(1-MAF))/Var(Y) where bis the regression coefficient, MAF is the minor allele frequency and Var(Y) is the variance in levels of the fatty acid. IVs obtained from Refs. [19,20,22]. S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238 231
statistics as per Burgess (2015) [23]. The ratio estimate ðbbÞof all SNPs associated with each fatty acid, combined, on CRC was calculated as follows: bbZPkXkYks2 Yk PkX2 ks2 Yk : where X k corresponds to the association of SNP k(as log of the OR per risk allele) with the fatty acid trait Y, Y k is the association between SNP kand CRC risk (as log of the OR) with standard error sYk. The estimate for ðbbÞrepresents the causal increase in the log odds of the CRC, per unit change in fatty acids. The standard error of the combined ratio estimate is given by: sebbZffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 PkX2 ks2 Yk s: A meta-analysis of statistics for each specific FA generated for each CRC cohort was combined under fixed-effects models to derive the summary ORs and confidence intervals (CIs). To assess the impact of between study heterogeneity, we also derived ORs under a random-effects model. A central tenet in MR is the absence of pleiotropy (i.e. a gene influencing multiple traits) between the SNPs influencing CRC risk and FA levels. This would be revealed as deviation from a linear relationship between SNPs and their effect size for any FA and CRC risk. To examine for violation of the standard IV assumptions in our analysis, we performed inverse variant weighted (IVW) and MR-Egger regression tests [24]. We considered a significance level of P0.05 as being satisfactory to derive a conclusion. While ordinarily it would be appropriate to impose a Bonferronicorrected threshold, this assumes an independence of IVs across all FA traits, which is not the case in the present analysis. All statistical analyses were undertaken using R version 3.1 software [25]. 2.5. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis To examine the relationship between SNP genotype and expression of FA metabolism genes, we performed expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analysis using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the genotype tissue expression (GTEx)project [26,27]. 3. Results The FA-associated genetic variants and their GWASreported characteristics that were used to derive IVs for FAs are detailed in Table 2. A reduced risk of CRC was observed for genetic variants associated with increases in the MUFAs studied (Table 3). In all but one of the seven cohorts increased levels of OA were associated with reduced CRC risk (Fig. 1). In the meta-analysis of these seven cohorts the OR OA was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65e0.92, PZ3.9 10 3 ) with little evidence of between-study heterogeneity (P het Z0.23, I 2 Z26%). Similarly, increased levels of POA were associated with reduced CRC risk with an OR POA of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15e0.84, PZ0.018, P het Z0.08, I 2 Z47%; Fig. 1). The u-6 PUFAs LA and AA both showed association with CRC risk, but in different directions. Specifically, LA was associated with reduced risk (OR LA Z0.95, 95% CI: 0.93e0.98, PZ3.7 10 4 , P het Z0.03, I 2 Z57%; Fig. 1) and AA with an increased risk (OR AA Z1.05, 95% CI: 1.02e1.07, PZ1.7 10 4 , P het Z0.03, I 2 Z56%). The association between one standard deviation increase in each of the other PUFAs defined by their respective IVs and CRC risk were null (Supplementary Fig. 1). Of the three SFAs studied, increased SA was nominally associated with CRC risk (OR SA Z1.17, 95% CI: 1.01e1.35, PZ0.041, P het Z0.04, I 2 Z55%). To formally assess the impact of heterogeneity on study findings we derived ORs under a random-effects Table 3 Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for one standard deviation increase in genetically predicted plasma fatty acid levels and colorectal cancer risk. Fatty acid Significant associations OR (fixed effects) 95% CI (fixed effects) P-value (fixed effects) OR (random effects) 95% CI (random effects) P-value (random effects) I 2 P het Arachidic acid 0.92 0.61e1.39 0.7 0.93 0.61e1.40 0.71 3% 0.41 Palmitic acid (PA) 0.97 0.78e1.21 0.82 0.97 0.78e1.21 0.82 0% 0.47 Stearic acid (SA) 1.16 1.01e1.35 0.04 1.2 0.95e1.49 0.12 55% 0.04 Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) 1.32 0.94e1.87 0.11 1.32 0.94e1.87 0.11 0% 0.65 Docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) 1.58 0.99e2.52 0.06 1.63 0.97e2.73 0.06 17% 0.3 Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) 0.39 0.13e1.21 0.1 0.39 0.13e1.21 0.1 0% 0.57 Arachidonic acid (AA) 1.05 1.02e1.07 1.7 10 4 1.05 1.02e1.09 4.9 10 3 56% 0.03 Dihomo-g-linolenic acid (DGLA) 0.91 0.83e1.00 0.06 0.95 0.80e1.01 0.07 23% 0.26 Linoleic acid (LA) 0.95 0.93e0.98 3.7 10 4 0.95 0.91e0.99 8.9 10 3 57% 0.03 Oleic acid (OA) 0.77 0.65e0.92 3.9 10 3 0.76 0.62e0.94 9.7 10 3 26% 0.23 Palmitoleic acid (POA) 0.36 0.15e0.84 0.018 0.32 0.10e1.07 0.06 47% 0.08 P het ,P-value for heterogeneity; I 2 , proportion of the total variation due to heterogeneity; SFA, saturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid. S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238232
model. Associations between AA, LA and OA and CRC risk remained significant (Table 3). We assessed the impact of possible classical pleiotropism on MR estimates using both IVW and MREgger regression tests. There was no evidence for violation of the standard IV assumptions used for MR analysis, such as a dependence on confounders (Table 4). In the present analysis, we used the SNP rs102275 in combination with other SNPs to generate a polygenic risk score for SA, OA and POA, whereas rs174547, which is in LD with rs102275 (r 2 Z1.0 and D0Z1.0), was used for DPA, AA, DGLA and LA. Both SNPs annotate the FADS2 gene. FADS2 is a rate-limiting enzyme in the desaturation of LA to AA, and a-linolenic acid into DHA and EPA (Fig. 2). These FAs are precursors for prostaglandins and leukotrienes, which are key mediators of the inflammatory response. In an eQTL analysis rs174547 and rs102275 genotype were shown to be strongly correlated with FADS2 expression across a range of different tissue types, including blood (PZ3.98 10 29 ), normal colon (PZ1.65 10 10 )andCRC(PZ2.07 10 5 ) (Supplementary Table 1). Fig. 1. Meta-analysis odds ratios (OR) for colorectal cancer per unit increase in genetic risk score (standard deviation of trait) for significant fatty acid associations. (a) Oleic acid; (b) arachidonic acid; (c) stearic acid; (d) linoleic acid; (e) palmitoleic acid; I 2 : proportion of the total variation due to heterogeneity. Boxes: OR point estimate; its area is proportional to the weight of the study. Diamond: overall summary estimate, with confidence intervals given by its width. Vertical line: null value (OR Z1.0). S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238 233
4. Discussion While dietary fat intake has been associated with the CRC risk, teasing out specific FA associations and their mechanistic basis has proven to be challenging. A number of observational studies have reported associations between serum levels of specific FAs with CRC [28,29], supporting our findings. A major strength of the MR strategy to identify causal associations is that it is not influenced by recall bias and confounding that can affect traditional observational studies. Nevertheless, a key assumption in MR is that the variants used to generate genetic scores are associated with the exposure being queried. Herein, we only made use of SNPs associated with each FA at genome-wide significance from hypothesis-free GWAS. Furthermore, we only used data from individuals of European descent so as to limit bias from population stratification. Another central assumption in MR is that variants are associated with CRC only through the exposure and are not confounded by pleiotropy, which would be revealed by a positive correlation between increasing effect sizes in the IVs and CRC risk. While we did not observe such relationship, we acknowledge that IVs for a number of the FAs were solely based on only one or two SNPs, preventing assessment by IVW and MR-Egger analysis. One strategy to overcome this and fully investigate any pleiotropy would be to measure FA serum levels in correlation with CRC risk. In this analysis, the same SNP (rs102275, or correlated SNP rs174547) was used to make causal deductions between multiple FAs and CRC risk. Therefore, SNPs have been used each time assuming that the exposure individually accounts for the disease association. The genetic variant association with CRC risk is consequently double-counted, in that the effect is attributed to different FA exposures [30]. With such vertical pleiotropism, single locus MR analyses cannot robustly decipher which FA is primarily driving the relationship with CRC risk. Such considerations have not been addressed in previous studies of the relationship between PUFAs and prostate cancer [31] or between branched-chain amino acids and diabetes [32]. While we did not demonstrate a causal association between other FAs including several PUFAs, SFAs and CRC risk, we acknowledge that our power to demonstrate a relationship was limited. For example, with respect to EPA: assuming the variance explained by the alleles is 0.04%, based on epidemiological observational study data, and a relative risk of 1.04 we had <10% power to demonstrate a relationship [33]. Accepting these caveats we have provided support for differing effects of OA, and u-6 PUFAs LA and AA on CRC risk. Our findings broadly accord with the findings from many of the published ecological and epidemiological observational studies. Notably, increased levels of AA contribute as a risk factor to CRC development [34,35], while increased intake of olive oil, which is high in OA, is associated with decreased risk [36]. A number of epidemiological studies have provided evidence that a Mediterranean diet, with a higher olive oil intake, is associated with reduced CRC risk [36e38]. In the eQTL analysis, both rs102275 and rs174547 show evidence of cis-regulatory effects on FADS2 expression. Intriguingly, rs174547 has previously been reported to have opposing effects on FADS2 and FADS1 expression in CRC [39]. Collectively, these data provide for relationship between diet, genotype, FA metabolism and CRC risk through modulation of an inflammatory response. Even so, a biological basis for associations between specific FAs and CRC risk remain to be established. It is however, predicted a priori that within any FA class, different members have different actions and effects. With Table 4 IVW and MR-Egger test results for combined fatty acid instrumental variables. Fatty acid subtype Fatty acid IVW MR-Egger Slope Estimate (95% CI) P-value Estimate (95% CI) P-value SFA Stearic acid (SA) 0.1 (0.33 to 0.64) 0.30 Intercept 0.68 (4.79 to 3.43) 0.28 Slope 4.10 (19.86 to 28.06) 0.27 u-3 PUFA Docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) 0.46 (2.32 to 3.23) 0.55 Intercept 0.09 (0.56 to 0.39) 0.26 Slope 2.01 (7.9 to 11.61) 0.23 Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) 0.59 (7.99 to 9.16) 0.54 Intercept 0.11 (N/A) e Slope 2.2 (N/A) e u-6 PUFA Arachidonic acid (AA) 0.04 (0.2 to 0.33) 0.29 Intercept 0.04 (N/A) e Slope 0.02 (N/A) e Dihomo-g-linolenic acid (DGLA) 0.09 (2.48 to 2.29) 0.70 Intercept 0.25 (N/A) e Slope 0.90 (N/A) e Linoleic acid (LA) 0.05 (0.17 to 0.07) 0.22 Intercept 0.02 (0.64 to 0.67) 0.77 Slope 0.07 (0.81 to 0.68) 0.46 MUFA Palmitoleic acid (POA) 1.03 (2.64 to 0.58) 0.15 Intercept 0.11 (0.27 to 0.05) 0.12 Slope 3.13 (3.16 to 9.41) 0.21 CI, confidence interval; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; SFA, saturated fatty acid; IVW, inverse variant weighted. *FA traits with two IVs, preventing calculation of CIs and P-value. S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238234
respect to u-6, evidence supports the inflammatory effects for AA through COX-2 production of inflammatory mediators [40] including prostaglandin E2, which affect CRC carcinogenesis [41e43]. This implies that diets high in AA, such as meat or eggs, may lead to more inflammatory compounds, which in turn may increase CRC risk. While increasing dietary LA, an essential FA, might potentially enrich tissues with AA due to their metabolic link [44],a geneeenvironment interaction may exist to influence colon FA content [45]. There is however, contradictory evidence from studies that have associated LA with both an increased [46] and decreased risk of CRC, possibly by altering u-6 to u-3 FA ratios [47] or alternatively production of reactive oxygen species [48]. The ability of aspirin to irreversibly inhibit COX-1 and COX-2 and therefore lower pro-inflammatory signals independent of genotype and diet, has thus proved an attractive option for CRC chemoprevention [49]. Fig. 2. Pathway of fatty acids. Shown are the various fatty acids analysed, and the enzymes involved in their metabolism. COX: cyclooxygenase, LOX: 5-lipoxygenase. S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238 235
In conclusion, irrespective of the biological basis of associations between FAs and CRC risk our findings are consistent with the observation that the dietary composition of MUFAs in Mediterranean diets are risk reducing, and that a pro-inflammatory diet are risk increasing [50]. While we may not be at a stage where we can justifiably advise individuals to alter their intake of specific FAs to decrease the risk of developing CRC, it seems the current guidelines to moderate total fat and SFA consumption and increase unsaturated FA intake is likely to be beneficial. Conflict of interest statement None declared. Acknowledgements At the Institute of Cancer Research, this work was supported by Cancer Research UK (C1298/A8362 - Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK). Additional support was provided by the National Cancer Research Network. S. M-W was in receipt of a PhD studentship from The Institute of Cancer Research. A.S. is supported by a clinical fellowship from Cancer Research UK. In Edinburgh the work was supported by Programme Grant funding from Cancer Research UK (C348/A12076). In Oxford additional funding was provided by the Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and the EU FP7 CHIBCHA grant. Core infrastructure support to the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford was provided by grant (090532/Z/09/Z). We are grateful to many colleagues within UK Clinical Genetics Departments (for CORGI) and to many collaborators who participated in the VICTOR and QUASAR2 trials. We also thank colleagues from the UK National Cancer Research Network (for NSCCG). Support from the European Union (FP7/207-2013, grant 258236) and FP7 collaborative project SYSCOL and COST Action in the UK is also acknowledged (BM1206). The COIN and COIN-B trials were funded by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council and were conducted with the support of the National Institute of Health Research Cancer Research Network. COIN and COIN-B translational studies were supported by the Bobby Moore Fund from Cancer Research UK, Tenovus, the Kidani Trust, Cancer Research Wales and the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research Cancer Genetics Biomedical Research Unit (2011e2014). N.A.A., B.F.M. and S.M.W. were funded and supported by KFSHRC. In Finland, this work was supported by grants from the Academy of Finland (Finnish Center of Excellence Program 2012e2017, 250345), the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finnish Cancer Society (K.P.), the European Research Council [ERC; 268648], the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, SYSCOL, the Nordic Information for Action eScience Center (NIASC), the Nordic Center of Excellence financed by NordForsk (project 62721, K.P.) and State Research Funding of Kuopio University Hospital (B1401). We acknowledge the computational resources provided by the ELIXIR node, hosted at the CSCeIT Center for Science, Finland, and funded by the Academy of Finland (grants 271642 and 263164), the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. V.S. was supported by the Finnish Academy (grant number 139635). Sample collection and genotyping in the Finnish Twin Cohort has been supported by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, ENGAGE eEuropean Network for Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology, FP7-HEALTH-F4-2007 (201413), the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [grants AA-12502 and AA-00145 to Richard J Rose and K02AA018755 to Danielle M Dick] and the Academy of Finland (100499, 205585, 265240 and 263278 to J.K.). The work of the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR) was supported by from the National Cancer Institute (UM1 CA167551), National Institutes of Health and through cooperative agreements with the following CCFR centers: Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (U01 CA074778, U01/U24 CA097735), USC Consortium Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (U01/U24 CA074799), Mayo Clinic Cooperative Familial Registry for Colon Cancer Studies (U01/U24 CA074800), Ontario Familial Colorectal Cancer Registry (U01/U24 CA074783), Seattle Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (U01/U24 CA074794), and University of Hawaii Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (U01/U24 CA074806). The CCFR Illumina GWAS was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (U01 CA122839 and R01 CA143237 to G.C.). Additional support was provided from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Control Nos. N01-CN-67009, N01-PC-35142 and Contract No. HHSN2612013000121), the Hawai’i Department of Health (Control Nos. N01-PC-67001, N01-PC-35137, and Contract No. HHSN26120100037C), and the California Department of Public Health (contract HHSN261201000035C) awarded to the University of Southern California. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute, any SEER program or any of the collaborating centres in the CCFR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organisations imply endorsement by the US Government, SEER or the CCFR. We are grateful to all individuals who participated in the various studies. This study made use of genotyping data from the 1958 Birth Cohort, kindly made available by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2. A full list of the investigators who contributed to the S. May-Wilson et al. / European Journal of Cancer 84 (2017) 228e238236