CiteULike: jyuh's Rundle

Design options for molecular epidemiology research within cohort studies.

AG Rundle — 2008-05-18T10:27:01-00:00

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, Vol. 14, No. 8. (August 2005), pp. 1899-1907.

Past discussions of the relative strengths of nested case-control and case-cohort designs have not fully considered cohorts with stored biological samples in which biomarker analyses are planned. Issues related to biomarker analyses can affect an investigator's choice of design and the conduct of these two designs. The key issues identified are effects of analytic batch, long-term storage, and freeze-thaw cycles on biomarkers. In comparison with the nested case-control design, the case-cohort design is less able to handle these challenges. Problems arise because most implementations of the case-cohort design do not allow for simultaneous evaluation of biomarkers in cases and reference group members, and there is no matching. By design, the nested case-control study controls for storage duration and the batching of biological samples from cases and controls is logistically simple. The allowance for matching also means that subjects can be matched on the number of freeze-thaw cycles experienced by the biological sample. However, the matching generates complex data sets that can be more difficult to analyze, and the costly biomarker data generated from the controls has few uses outside of testing the specific hypotheses of the study. In addition, because the same subject can serve as a control and a case, or multiple times as a control, biomarker analyses and sample batching can be more complex than initially anticipated. However, in total, of the two designs, the nested case-control study is better suited for studying biomarkers that can be influenced by analytic batch, long-term storage, and freeze-thaw cycles.

Further development of the case-only design for assessing gene-environment interaction: evaluation of and adjustment for bias.

NM Gatto — 2008-04-29T05:49:33-00:00

International journal of epidemiology, Vol. 33, No. 5. (October 2004), pp. 1014-1024.

BACKGROUND: The case-only study for investigating gene-environment interactions provides increased statistical efficiency over case-control analyses. This design has been criticized for being susceptible to bias arising from non-independence between the genetic and environmental factors in the population. Given that independence is critical to the validity of case-only estimates of interaction, researchers frequently use controls to evaluate whether the independence assumption is tenable, as advised in the literature. Our work investigates to what extent this approach is appropriate and how non-independence can be accounted for in case-only analyses. METHODS: We provide a formula in epidemiological terms that illustrates the relationship between the gene-environment association measured among controls and the gene-environment association in the source population. Using this formula, we conducted sensitivity analyses to describe the circumstances in which controls can be used as proxy for the source population when evaluating gene-environment independence. Lastly, we generated hypothetical cohort data to examine whether multivariable modelling approaches can be used to control for non-independence. RESULTS: Our sensitivity analyses show that controls should not be used to evaluate gene-environment independence in the population, even when the baseline risk of disease is low (i.e. 1%), and the interaction and independent effects are moderate (i.e. risk ratio = 2). When the factors are associated, it is possible to remove bias arising from non-independence using standard statistical multivariable techniques in case-only analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Even when the disease risk is low, evaluation of gene-environment independence in controls does not provide a consistent test for bias in the case-only study. Given that control for non-independence is possible when the source of the non-independence can be conceptualized, the case-only design may still be a useful epidemiological tool for examining gene-environment interactions.

PKD2 Functions as an Epidermal Growth Factor-Activated Plasma Membrane Channel

Rong Ma — 2008-04-21T14:55:40-00:00

Mol. Cell. Biol., Vol. 25, No. 18. (15 September 2005), pp. 8285-8298.

PKD2, or polycystin 2, the product of the gene mutated in type 2 autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, belongs to the transient receptor potential channel superfamily and has been shown to function as a nonselective cation channel in the plasma membrane. However, the mechanism of PKD2 activation remains elusive. We show that PKD2 overexpression increases epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced inward currents in LLC-PK1 kidney epithelial cells, while the knockdown of endogenous PKD2 by RNA interference or the expression of a pathogenic missense variant, PKD2-D511V, blunts the EGF-induced response. Pharmacological experiments indicate that the EGF-induced activation of PKD2 occurs independently of store depletion but requires the activity of phospholipase C (PLC) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K). Pipette infusion of purified phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) suppresses the PKD2-mediated effect on EGF-induced conductance, while pipette infusion of phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3) does not have any effect on this conductance. Overexpression of type Ialpha phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate 5-kinase [PIP(5)Kalpha], which catalyzes the formation of PIP2, suppresses EGF-induced currents. Biochemical experiments show that PKD2 physically interacts with PLC-gamma2 and EGF receptor (EGFR) in transfected HEK293T cells and colocalizes with EGFR and PIP2 in the primary cilium of LLC-PK1 cells. We propose that plasma membrane PKD2 is under negative regulation by PIP2. EGF may reduce the threshold of PKD2 activation by mechanical and other stimuli by releasing it from PIP2-mediated inhibition. 10.1128/MCB.25.18.8285-8298.2005