Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe

10 p.

Mechanisms of E2F2-mediated transcriptional repression

In this work we wanted to study the mechanism of E2F2-mediated repression. Our hypothesis is that E2F2 activates the expression of one or more E2F members of the “repressor” subset of the family through the E2F motifs present in their promoters, and those repressor E2F(s) would subsequently repress the target promoters. To address this hypothesis, we focused on E2F7. E2F7 is a repressor that lacks the Rb binding domain, and associates with DNA through E2F binding sites (de Bruin et al., 2003). Furthermore, E2F7 itself is also regulated by E2F motifs on its own promoter, and it has been shown to repress DNA metabolism and replication genes in late S-phase (de Bruin et al., 2003; Westendorp et al., 2012). E2F7, together with E2F8 has been found to form heterodimers, being critical on cell proliferation and development, and both seem to have similar functions (Li et al., 2008). Preliminary results from Zubiaga’s group have indicated that E2F2 activates E2F7 transcription in U2OS cells, suggesting that E2F2’s repressor function could be mediated by E2F7. For this purpose, we focused on studying E2F7’s role on the target genes previously known to be repressed by E2F2: Chk1 and Mcm5. The specific aims for this work were the following: - Confirm that E2F2 induces E2F7 in HEK-293T cells - Assess whether E2F7 acts as a transcriptional repressor on E2F sites - Evaluate the role of E2F7 on E2F2-mediated transcriptional repression of Chk1 and Mcm5.

A colorectal cancer genome-wide association study in a Spanish cohort identifies two variants associated with colorectal cancer risk at 1p33 and 8p12

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease of complex aetiology, with much of the expected inherited risk being due to several common low risk variants. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) have identified 20 CRC risk variants. Nevertheless, these have only been able to explain part of the missing heritability. Moreover, these signals have only been inspected in populations of Northern European origin. Results: Thus, we followed the same approach in a Spanish cohort of 881 cases and 667 controls. Sixty-four variants at 24 loci were found to be associated with CRC at p-values <10-5. We therefore evaluated the 24 loci in another Spanish replication cohort (1481 cases and 1850 controls). Two of these SNPs, rs12080929 at 1p33 (P-replication=0.042; P-pooled=5.523x10(-03); OR (CI95%)=0.866(0.782-0.959)) and rs11987193 at 8p12 (P-replication=0.039; P-pooled=6.985x10(-5); OR (CI95%)=0.786(0.705-0.878)) were replicated in the second Phase, although they did not reach genome-wide statistical significance. Conclusions: We have performed the first CRC GWAS in a Southern European population and by these means we were able to identify two new susceptibility variants at 1p33 and 8p12 loci. These two SNPs are located near the SLC5A9 and DUSP4 loci, respectively, which could be good functional candidates for the association signals. We therefore believe that these two markers constitute good candidates for CRC susceptibility loci and should be further evaluated in other larger datasets. Moreover, we highlight that were these two SNPs true susceptibility variants, they would constitute a decrease in the CRC missing heritability fraction.