scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Yon-Dschun Ko

Bio: Yon-Dschun Ko is an academic researcher from National Institutes of Health. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Cancer. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 90 publications receiving 6240 citations. Previous affiliations of Yon-Dschun Ko include University of Cologne & Ruhr University Bochum.


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. Southey12, Melissa C. Southey30, 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
Sofia Khan1, Dario Greco2, Dario Greco1, Kyriaki Michailidou3  +158 moreInstitutions (54)
12 Nov 2014-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: Five miRNA binding site SNPs associated significantly with breast cancer risk are located in the 3′ UTR of CASP8, HDDC3, DROSHA, MUSTN1, and MYCL1, respectively, which belongs to miRNA machinery genes and has a central role in initial miRNA processing.
Abstract: Genetic variations, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in microRNAs (miRNA) or in the miRNA binding sites may affect the miRNA dependent gene expression regulation, which has been implicated in various cancers, including breast cancer, and may alter individual susceptibility to cancer. We investigated associations between miRNA related SNPs and breast cancer risk. First we evaluated 2,196 SNPs in a case-control study combining nine genome wide association studies (GWAS). Second, we further investigated 42 SNPs with suggestive evidence for association using 41,785 cases and 41,880 controls from 41 studies included in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Combining the GWAS and BCAC data within a meta-analysis, we estimated main effects on breast cancer risk as well as risks for estrogen receptor (ER) and age defined subgroups. Five miRNA binding site SNPs associated significantly with breast cancer risk: rs1045494 (odds ratio (OR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-0.96), rs1052532 (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99), rs10719 (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94-0.99), rs4687554 (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99, and rs3134615 (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05) located in the 3' UTR of CASP8, HDDC3, DROSHA, MUSTN1, and MYCL1, respectively. DROSHA belongs to miRNA machinery genes and has a central role in initial miRNA processing. The remaining genes are involved in different molecular functions, including apoptosis and gene expression regulation. Further studies are warranted to elucidate whether the miRNA binding site SNPs are the causative variants for the observed risk effects.

686 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Nasim Mavaddat1, Kyriaki Michailidou1, Kyriaki Michailidou2, Joe Dennis1  +307 moreInstitutions (105)
TL;DR: This PRS, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset is developed and empirically validated and is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.
Abstract: Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

653 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Danila Seidel1, Thomas Zander1, Lukas C. Heukamp2, Martin Peifer1, Marc Bos2, Lynnette Fernandez-Cuesta2, Frauke Leenders2, Xin Lu2, Sascha Ansén2, Masyar Gardizi2, Chau Nguyen2, Chau Nguyen3, Johannes Berg2, Prudence A. Russell, Zoe Wainer4, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus2, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus5, Toni-Maree Rogers, Benjamin Solomon, William Pao6, Scott L. Carter7, Gad Getz7, D. Neil Hayes8, Matthew D. Wilkerson8, Erik Thunnissen9, William D. Travis10, Sven Perner11, Gavin M. Wright4, Elisabeth Brambilla, Reinhard Buettner2, Juergen Wolf2, Roman K. Thomas1, Franziska Gabler1, Ines Wilkening1, Christian Mueller2, Ilona Dahmen2, Roopika Menon11, Katharina Koenig2, Kerstin Albus2, Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse2, Jana Fassunke2, Katja Schmitz2, Helen Kuenstlinger2, Michaela Angelika Kleine2, Elke Binot2, Silvia Querings1, Janine Altmueller2, Ingelore Boessmann2, Peter Nuemberg2, Peter M. Schneider2, Magdalena Bogus2, Alex Soltermann12, Holger Moch12, Odd Terje Brustugun13, Steinar Solberg13, Marius Lund-Iversen13, Åslaug Helland13, Thomas Muley14, Hans Hoffmann14, Philipp A. Schnabel14, Yuan Chen15, Harry J.M. Groen16, Wim Timens, Hannie Sietsma, Joachim H. Clement15, Walter Weder12, Joerg Saenger, Erich Stoelben, Corinna Ludwig, Walburga Engel-Riedel, Egbert F. Smit, Danille A. M. Heideman9, Peter J.F. Snijders9, Lucia Nogova2, Martin L. Sos1, Christian Mattonet2, Karin Toepelt2, Matthias Scheffler2, Eray Goekkurt2, Eray Goekkurt17, Rainer Kappes2, Stefan Krueger2, Kato Kambartel2, Dirk Behringer2, Wolfgang Schulte2, Wolfgang Galetke2, Winfried Randerath2, Matthias Heldwein2, Andreas Schlesinger2, Monika Serke2, Khosro Hekmat2, Konrad Frank2, Roland Schnell2, Marcel Reiser2, Ali-Nuri Huenerlituerkoglu2, Stephan Schmitz2, Lisa Meffert2, Yon-Dschun Ko2, Markus Litt-Lampe2, Ulrich Gerigk2, Rainer Fricke, Benjamin Besse, Christian Brambilla18, Sylvie Lantuejoul18, Philippe Lorimier, Denis Moro-Sibilot18, Federico Cappuzzo, C. Ligorio19, Stefania Damiani19, John K. Field20, Russell Hyde20, Pierre Validire, Philippe Girard, Lucia Anna Muscarella, Vito Michele Fazio, Michael Hallek2, Jean-Charles Soria21, Viktor Achter2, Ulrich Lang2 
TL;DR: Support is provided for broad implementation of genome-based diagnosis of lung cancer by demonstrating the correlation between lung tumor subtype and its predominant mutations, and the benefit of genetic testing and targeted therapy in these patients.
Abstract: We characterized genome alterations in 1255 clinically annotated lung tumors of all histological subgroups to identify genetically defined and clinically relevant subtypes. More than 55% of all cases had at least one oncogenic genome alteration potentially amenable to specific therapeutic intervention, including several personalized treatment approaches that are already in clinical evaluation. Marked differences in the pattern of genomic alterations existed between and within histological subtypes, thus challenging the original histomorphological diagnosis. Immunohistochemical studies confirmed many of these reassigned subtypes. The reassignment eliminated almost all cases of large cell carcinomas, some of which had therapeutically relevant alterations. Prospective testing of our genomics-based diagnostic algorithm in 5145 lung cancer patients enabled a genome-based diagnosis in 3863 (75%) patients, confirmed the feasibility of rational reassignments of large cell lung cancer, and led to improvement in overall survival in patients with EGFR-mutant or ALK-rearranged cancers. Thus, our findings provide support for broad implementation of genome-based diagnosis of lung cancer.

449 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
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: It is concluded that multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys should be considered as a legitimate method for answering the question of why people do not respond to survey questions.
Abstract: 25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.

3,216 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