scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Karen A. Pooley

Bio: Karen A. Pooley is an academic researcher from University of Cambridge. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Single-nucleotide polymorphism. The author has an hindex of 41, co-authored 65 publications receiving 9116 citations. Previous affiliations of Karen A. Pooley include Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute & Cancer Research UK.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Douglas F. Easton1, Karen A. Pooley1, Alison M. Dunning1, Paul D.P. Pharoah1, Deborah J. Thompson1, Dennis G. Ballinger, Jeffery P. Struewing2, Jonathan J. Morrison1, Helen I. Field1, Robert Luben1, Nicholas J. Wareham1, Shahana Ahmed1, Catherine S. Healey1, Richard Bowman, Kerstin B. Meyer1, Christopher A. Haiman3, Laurence K. Kolonel, Brian E. Henderson3, Loic Le Marchand, Paul Brennan4, Suleeporn Sangrajrang, Valerie Gaborieau4, Fabrice Odefrey4, Chen-Yang Shen5, Pei-Ei Wu5, Hui-Chun Wang5, Diana Eccles6, D. Gareth Evans7, Julian Peto8, Olivia Fletcher9, Nichola Johnson9, Sheila Seal, Michael R. Stratton10, Nazneen Rahman, Georgia Chenevix-Trench11, Georgia Chenevix-Trench12, Stig E. Bojesen13, Børge G. Nordestgaard13, C K Axelsson13, Montserrat Garcia-Closas2, Louise A. Brinton2, Stephen J. Chanock2, Jolanta Lissowska14, Beata Peplonska15, Heli Nevanlinna16, Rainer Fagerholm16, H Eerola16, Daehee Kang17, Keun-Young Yoo17, Dong-Young Noh17, Sei Hyun Ahn18, David J. Hunter19, Susan E. Hankinson19, David G. Cox19, Per Hall20, Sara Wedrén20, Jianjun Liu21, Yen-Ling Low21, Natalia Bogdanova22, Peter Schu¨rmann22, Do¨rk Do¨rk22, Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar23, Catharina E. Jacobi23, Peter Devilee23, Jan G. M. Klijn24, Alice J. Sigurdson2, Michele M. Doody2, Bruce H. Alexander25, Jinghui Zhang2, Angela Cox26, Ian W. Brock26, Gordon MacPherson26, Malcolm W.R. Reed26, Fergus J. Couch27, Ellen L. Goode27, Janet E. Olson27, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer24, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer28, Ans M.W. van den Ouweland24, André G. Uitterlinden24, Fernando Rivadeneira24, Roger L. Milne29, Gloria Ribas29, Anna González-Neira29, Javier Benitez29, John L. Hopper30, Margaret R. E. McCredie31, Margaret R. E. McCredie32, Margaret R. E. McCredie12, Melissa C. Southey30, Melissa C. Southey12, Graham G. Giles33, Chris Schroen30, Christina Justenhoven34, Christina Justenhoven35, Hiltrud Brauch34, Hiltrud Brauch35, Ute Hamann36, Yon-Dschun Ko, Amanda B. Spurdle11, Jonathan Beesley11, Xiaoqing Chen11, _ kConFab37, Arto Mannermaa37, Veli-Matti Kosma37, Vesa Kataja37, Jaana M. Hartikainen37, Nicholas E. Day1, David Cox, Bruce A.J. Ponder1 
28 Jun 2007-Nature
TL;DR: To identify further susceptibility alleles, a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls was conducted, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms were tested for confirmation.
Abstract: Breast cancer exhibits familial aggregation, consistent with variation in genetic susceptibility to the disease. Known susceptibility genes account for less than 25% of the familial risk of breast cancer, and the residual genetic variance is likely to be due to variants conferring more moderate risks. To identify further susceptibility alleles, we conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were tested for confirmation in 21,860 cases and 22,578 controls from 22 studies. We used 227,876 SNPs that were estimated to correlate with 77% of known common SNPs in Europeans at r2.0.5. SNPs in five novel independent loci exhibited strong and consistent evidence of association with breast cancer (P,1027). Four of these contain plausible causative genes (FGFR2, TNRC9, MAP3K1 and LSP1). At the second stage, 1,792 SNPs were significant at the P,0.05 level compared with an estimated 1,343 that would be expected by chance, indicating that many additional common susceptibility alleles may be identifiable by this approach.

2,288 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Angela Cox1, Alison M. Dunning2, Montserrat Garcia-Closas3, Sabapathy P. Balasubramanian1, Malcolm W.R. Reed1, Karen A. Pooley2, Serena Scollen2, Caroline Baynes2, Bruce A.J. Ponder2, Stephen J. Chanock3, Jolanta Lissowska4, Louise A. Brinton3, Beata Peplonska5, Melissa C. Southey6, John L. Hopper6, Margaret R. E. McCredie7, Graham G. Giles8, Olivia Fletcher9, Nichola Johnson9, Isabel dos Santos Silva9, Lorna Gibson9, Stig E. Bojesen10, Børge G. Nordestgaard10, C K Axelsson10, Diana Torres11, Ute Hamann11, Christina Justenhoven12, Christina Justenhoven13, Hiltrud Brauch12, Hiltrud Brauch13, Jenny Chang-Claude11, Silke Kropp11, Angela Risch11, Shan Wang-Gohrke14, Peter Schürmann15, Natalia Bogdanova15, Thilo Dörk15, Rainer Fagerholm16, Kirsimari Aaltonen16, Carl Blomqvist16, Heli Nevanlinna16, Sheila Seal, Anthony Renwick, Michael R. Stratton, Nazneen Rahman, Suleeporn Sangrajrang, David J. Hughes17, Fabrice Odefrey17, Paul Brennan17, Amanda B. Spurdle18, Georgia Chenevix-Trench18, Jonathan Beesley18, Arto Mannermaa19, Jaana M. Hartikainen19, Vesa Kataja19, Veli-Matti Kosma19, Fergus J. Couch20, Janet E. Olson20, Ellen L. Goode20, Annegien Broeks21, Marjanka K. Schmidt21, Frans B. L. Hogervorst21, Laura J. van't Veer21, Daehee Kang22, Keun-Young Yoo22, Dong Young Noh22, Sei Hyun Ahn23, Sara Wedrén24, Per Hall24, Yen-Ling Low25, Jianjun Liu25, Roger L. Milne26, Gloria Ribas26, Anna González-Neira26, Javier Benitez26, Alice J. Sigurdson3, Alice J. Sigurdson27, Denise L. Stredrick3, Denise L. Stredrick27, Bruce H. Alexander3, Bruce H. Alexander27, Jeffery P. Struewing3, Jeffery P. Struewing27, Paul D.P. Pharoah2, Douglas F. Easton2 
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with small effects on risk can be identified, given sufficiently powerful studies, as well as the need for further studies to confirm putative genetic associations with breast cancer.
Abstract: The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) has been established to conduct combined case-control analyses with augmented statistical power to try to confirm putative genetic associations with breast cancer. We genotyped nine SNPs for which there was some prior evidence of an association with breast cancer: CASP8 D302H (rs1045485), IGFBP3 -202 C --> A (rs2854744), SOD2 V16A (rs1799725), TGFB1 L10P (rs1982073), ATM S49C (rs1800054), ADH1B 3' UTR A --> G (rs1042026), CDKN1A S31R (rs1801270), ICAM5 V301I (rs1056538) and NUMA1 A794G (rs3750913). We included data from 9-15 studies, comprising 11,391-18,290 cases and 14,753-22,670 controls. We found evidence of an association with breast cancer for CASP8 D302H (with odds ratios (OR) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval (c.i.): 0.85-0.94) and 0.74 (95% c.i.: 0.62-0.87) for heterozygotes and rare homozygotes, respectively, compared with common homozygotes; P(trend) = 1.1 x 10(-7)) and weaker evidence for TGFB1 L10P (OR = 1.07 (95% c.i.: 1.02-1.13) and 1.16 (95% c.i.: 1.08-1.25), respectively; P(trend) = 2.8 x 10(-5)). These results demonstrate that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with small effects on risk can be identified, given sufficiently powerful studies.

567 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Stig E. Bojesen1, Stig E. Bojesen2, Karen A. Pooley3, Sharon E. Johnatty4  +452 moreInstitutions (129)
TL;DR: Using the Illumina custom genotyping array iCOGs, SNPs at the TERT locus in breast, ovarian and BRCA1 mutation carrier cancer cases and controls and leukocyte telomere measurements are analyzed to find associations cluster into three independent peaks.
Abstract: TERT-locus SNPs and leukocyte telomere measures are reportedly associated with risks of multiple cancers. Using the Illumina custom genotyping array iCOG, we analyzed similar to 480 SNPs at the TERT locus in breast (n = 103,991), ovarian (n = 39,774) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (n = 11,705) cancer cases and controls. Leukocyte telomere measurements were also available for 53,724 participants. Most associations cluster into three independent peaks. The minor allele at the peak 1 SNP rs2736108 associates with longer telomeres (P = 5.8 x 10(-7)), lower risks for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (P = 1.0 x 10(-8)) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.1 x 10(-5)) breast cancers and altered promoter assay signal. The minor allele at the peak 2 SNP rs7705526 associates with longer telomeres (P = 2.3 x 10(-14)), higher risk of low-malignant-potential ovarian cancer (P = 1.3 x 10(-15)) and greater promoter activity. The minor alleles at the peak 3 SNPs rs10069690 and rs2242652 increase ER-negative (P = 1.2 x 10(-12)) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.6 x 10-14) breast and invasive ovarian (P = 1.3 x 10(-11)) cancer risks but not via altered telomere length. The cancer risk alleles of rs2242652 and rs10069690, respectively, increase silencing and generate a truncated TERT splice variant.

522 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Shahana Ahmed1, Gilles Thomas2, Maya Ghoussaini1, Catherine S. Healey1, Manjeet K. Humphreys1, Radka Platte1, Jonathan J. Morrison1, Melanie Maranian1, Karen A. Pooley1, Robert Luben1, Diana Eccles3, D. Gareth Evans4, Olivia Fletcher, Nichola Johnson, Isabel dos Santos Silva, Julian Peto, Michael R. Stratton5, Nazneen Rahman, Kevin B. Jacobs2, Kevin B. Jacobs6, Ross L. Prentice7, Garnet L. Anderson7, Aleksandar Rajkovic8, J. David Curb9, Regina G. Ziegler2, Christine D. Berg2, Saundra S. Buys10, Catherine A. McCarty11, Heather Spencer Feigelson12, Eugenia E. Calle12, Michael J. Thun12, W. Ryan Diver12, Stig E. Bojesen13, Børge G. Nordestgaard13, Henrik Flyger13, Thilo Dörk14, Peter Schürmann14, Peter Hillemanns14, Johann H. Karstens14, Natalia Bogdanova14, Natalia Antonenkova, Iosif V. Zalutsky, Marina Bermisheva14, S. A. Fedorova15, Elza Khusnutdinova, Daehee Kang16, Keun-Young Yoo16, Dong Young Noh16, Sei Hyun Ahn16, Peter Devilee17, Christi J. van Asperen17, R.A.E.M. Tollenaar17, Caroline Seynaeve18, Montserrat Garcia-Closas2, Jolanta Lissowska19, Louise A. Brinton2, Beata Peplonska20, Heli Nevanlinna21, Tuomas Heikkinen21, Kristiina Aittomäki21, Carl Blomqvist21, John L. Hopper22, Melissa C. Southey22, Letitia D. Smith23, Amanda B. Spurdle23, Marjanka K. Schmidt24, Annegien Broeks24, Richard van Hien24, Sten Cornelissen24, Roger L. Milne25, Gloria Ribas25, Anna González-Neira25, Javier Benitez25, Rita K. Schmutzler26, Barbara Burwinkel27, Barbara Burwinkel28, Claus R. Bartram27, Alfons Meindl29, Hiltrud Brauch30, Hiltrud Brauch31, Christina Justenhoven31, Christina Justenhoven30, Ute Hamann28, Jenny Chang-Claude28, Rebecca Hein28, Shan Wang-Gohrke32, Annika Lindblom33, Sara Margolin33, Arto Mannermaa34, Veli-Matti Kosma34, Vesa Kataja34, Janet E. Olson35, Xianshu Wang35, Zachary S. Fredericksen35, Graham G. Giles22, Graham G. Giles36, Gianluca Severi36, Gianluca Severi22, Laura Baglietto36, Laura Baglietto22, Dallas R. English22, Dallas R. English25, Susan E. Hankinson37, David G. Cox37, Peter Kraft37, Lars J. Vatten38, Kristian Hveem38, Merethe Kumle, Alice J. Sigurdson2, Michele M. Doody2, Parveen Bhatti2, Bruce H. Alexander39, Maartje J. Hooning18, Ans M.W. van den Ouweland18, Rogier A. Oldenburg18, Mieke Schutte18, Per Hall33, Kamila Czene33, Jianjun Liu40, Yuqing Li40, Angela Cox41, Graeme Elliott41, Ian W. Brock41, Malcolm W.R. Reed41, Chen-Yang Shen42, Chen-Yang Shen43, Jyh Cherng Yu44, Giu Cheng Hsu44, Shou Tung Chen, Hoda Anton-Culver45, Argyrios Ziogas45, Irene L. Andrulis46, Julia A. Knight46, Jonathan Beesley23, Ellen L. Goode35, Fergus J. Couch35, Georgia Chenevix-Trench23, Robert N. Hoover2, Bruce A.J. Ponder1, Bruce A.J. Ponder47, David J. Hunter37, Paul D.P. Pharoah1, Alison M. Dunning1, Stephen J. Chanock2, Douglas F. Easton1 
TL;DR: Strong evidence is found for additional susceptibility loci on 3p and 17q and potential causative genes include SLC4A7 and NEK10 on3p and COX11 on 17q.
Abstract: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified seven breast cancer susceptibility loci, but these explain only a small fraction of the familial risk of the disease. Five of these loci were identified through a two-stage GWAS involving 390 familial cases and 364 controls in the first stage, and 3,990 cases and 3,916 controls in the second stage. To identify additional loci, we tested over 800 promising associations from this GWAS in a further two stages involving 37,012 cases and 40,069 controls from 33 studies in the CGEMS collaboration and Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We found strong evidence for additional susceptibility loci on 3p (rs4973768: per-allele OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.08-1.13, P = 4.1 x 10(-23)) and 17q (rs6504950: per-allele OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.92-0.97, P = 1.4 x 10(-8)). Potential causative genes include SLC4A7 and NEK10 on 3p and COX11 on 17q.

480 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking. METHODS We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity. RESULTS Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling.

407 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
08 Oct 2009-Nature
TL;DR: This paper examined potential sources of missing heritability and proposed research strategies, including and extending beyond current genome-wide association approaches, to illuminate the genetics of complex diseases and enhance its potential to enable effective disease prevention or treatment.
Abstract: Genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of genetic variants associated with complex human diseases and traits, and have provided valuable insights into their genetic architecture. Most variants identified so far confer relatively small increments in risk, and explain only a small proportion of familial clustering, leading many to question how the remaining, 'missing' heritability can be explained. Here we examine potential sources of missing heritability and propose research strategies, including and extending beyond current genome-wide association approaches, to illuminate the genetics of complex diseases and enhance its potential to enable effective disease prevention or treatment.

7,797 citations

01 Feb 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes generated as part of the NIH Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium, profiled for histone modification patterns, DNA accessibility, DNA methylation and RNA expression.
Abstract: The reference human genome sequence set the stage for studies of genetic variation and its association with human disease, but epigenomic studies lack a similar reference. To address this need, the NIH Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium generated the largest collection so far of human epigenomes for primary cells and tissues. Here we describe the integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes generated as part of the programme, profiled for histone modification patterns, DNA accessibility, DNA methylation and RNA expression. We establish global maps of regulatory elements, define regulatory modules of coordinated activity, and their likely activators and repressors. We show that disease- and trait-associated genetic variants are enriched in tissue-specific epigenomic marks, revealing biologically relevant cell types for diverse human traits, and providing a resource for interpreting the molecular basis of human disease. Our results demonstrate the central role of epigenomic information for understanding gene regulation, cellular differentiation and human disease.

4,409 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This Review highlights the knowledge gained, defines areas of emerging consensus, and describes the challenges that remain as researchers seek to obtain more complete descriptions of the susceptibility architecture of biomedical traits of interest and to translate the information gathered into improvements in clinical management.
Abstract: The past year has witnessed substantial advances in understanding the genetic basis of many common phenotypes of biomedical importance. These advances have been the result of systematic, well-powered, genome-wide surveys exploring the relationships between common sequence variation and disease predisposition. This approach has revealed over 50 disease-susceptibility loci and has provided insights into the allelic architecture of multifactorial traits. At the same time, much has been learned about the successful prosecution of association studies on such a scale. This Review highlights the knowledge gained, defines areas of emerging consensus, and describes the challenges that remain as researchers seek to obtain more complete descriptions of the susceptibility architecture of biomedical traits of interest and to translate the information gathered into improvements in clinical management.

2,908 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the coding exons of the family of 518 protein kinases were sequenced in 210 cancers of diverse histological types to explore the nature of the information that will be derived from cancer genome sequencing.
Abstract: AACR Centennial Conference: Translational Cancer Medicine-- Nov 4-8, 2007; Singapore PL02-05 All cancers are due to abnormalities in DNA. The availability of the human genome sequence has led to the proposal that resequencing of cancer genomes will reveal the full complement of somatic mutations and hence all the cancer genes. To explore the nature of the information that will be derived from cancer genome sequencing we have sequenced the coding exons of the family of 518 protein kinases, ~1.3Mb DNA per cancer sample, in 210 cancers of diverse histological types. Despite the screen being directed toward the coding regions of a gene family that has previously been strongly implicated in oncogenesis, the results indicate that the majority of somatic mutations detected are “passengers”. There is considerable variation in the number and pattern of these mutations between individual cancers, indicating substantial diversity of processes of molecular evolution between cancers. The imprints of exogenous mutagenic exposures, mutagenic treatment regimes and DNA repair defects can all be seen in the distinctive mutational signatures of individual cancers. This systematic mutation screen and others have previously yielded a number of cancer genes that are frequently mutated in one or more cancer types and which are now anticancer drug targets (for example BRAF , PIK3CA , and EGFR ). However, detailed analyses of the data from our screen additionally suggest that there exist a large number of additional “driver” mutations which are distributed across a substantial number of genes. It therefore appears that cells may be able to utilise mutations in a large repertoire of potential cancer genes to acquire the neoplastic phenotype. However, many of these genes are employed only infrequently. These findings may have implications for future anticancer drug development.

2,737 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
30 May 2018-eLife
TL;DR: MR-Base is a platform that integrates a curated database of complete GWAS results (no restrictions according to statistical significance) with an application programming interface, web app and R packages that automate 2SMR, and includes several sensitivity analyses for assessing the impact of horizontal pleiotropy and other violations of assumptions.
Abstract: Results from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can be used to infer causal relationships between phenotypes, using a strategy known as 2-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) and bypassing the need for individual-level data. However, 2SMR methods are evolving rapidly and GWAS results are often insufficiently curated, undermining efficient implementation of the approach. We therefore developed MR-Base ( http://www.mrbase.org ): a platform that integrates a curated database of complete GWAS results (no restrictions according to statistical significance) with an application programming interface, web app and R packages that automate 2SMR. The software includes several sensitivity analyses for assessing the impact of horizontal pleiotropy and other violations of assumptions. The database currently comprises 11 billion single nucleotide polymorphism-trait associations from 1673 GWAS and is updated on a regular basis. Integrating data with software ensures more rigorous application of hypothesis-driven analyses and allows millions of potential causal relationships to be efficiently evaluated in phenome-wide association studies.

2,520 citations