Genetic variants in IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and adiponectin genes and colon cancer risk in African Americans and Whites.

PURPOSE: Evaluating genetic susceptibility may clarify effects of known environmental factors and also identify individuals at high risk. We evaluated the association of four insulin-related pathway gene polymorphisms in insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I) (CA)( n ) repeat, insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF-II) (rs680), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) (rs2854744), and adiponectin (APM1 rs1501299) with colon cancer risk, as well as relationships with circulating IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and C-peptide in a population-based study. METHODS: Participants were African Americans (231 cases and 306 controls) and Whites (297 cases, 530 controls). Consenting subjects provided blood specimens and lifestyle/diet information. Genotyping for all genes except IGF-I was performed by the 5'-exonuclease (Taqman) assay. The IGF-I (CA)(n) repeat was assayed by PCR and fragment analysis. Circulating proteins were measured by enzyme immunoassays. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by logistic regression. RESULTS: The IGF-I (CA)( 19 ) repeat was higher in White controls (50 %) than African American controls (31 %). Whites homozygous for the IGF-I (CA)(19) repeat had a nearly twofold increase in risk of colon cancer (OR = 1.77; 95 % CI = 1.15-2.73), but not African Americans (OR = 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.51). We observed an inverse association between the IGF-II Apa1 A-variant and colon cancer risk (OR = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.28-0.88) in Whites only. Carrying the IGFBP-3 variant alleles was associated with lower IGFBP-3 protein levels, a difference most pronounced in Whites (p-trend <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support an association between insulin pathway-related genes and elevated colon cancer risk in Whites but not in African Americans.

RCN4GSC Workshop Report: Managing Data at the Interface of Biodiversity and (Meta)Genomics, March 2011.

Building on the planning efforts of the RCN4GSC project, a workshop was convened in San Diego to bring together experts from genomics and metagenomics, biodiversity, ecology, and bioinformatics with the charge to identify potential for positive interactions and progress, especially building on successes at establishing data standards by the GSC and by the biodiversity and ecological communities. Until recently, the contribution of microbial life to the biomass and biodiversity of the biosphere was largely overlooked (because it was resistant to systematic study). Now, emerging genomic and metagenomic tools are making investigation possible. Initial research findings suggest that major advances are in the offing. Although different research communities share some overlapping concepts and traditions, they differ significantly in sampling approaches, vocabularies and workflows. Likewise, their definitions of 'fitness for use' for data differ significantly, as this concept stems from the specific research questions of most importance in the different fields. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that there is much to be gained from greater coordination and integration. As a first step toward interoperability of the information systems used by the different communities, participants agreed to conduct a case study on two of the leading data standards from the two formerly disparate fields: (a) GSC's standard checklists for genomics and metagenomics and (b) TDWG's Darwin Core standard, used primarily in taxonomy and systematic biology.