1. Introduction
Obesity, or excess adiposity and having a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30, is a preventable and treatable condition, with lifestyle and environmental modifications, which has tripled since 1975 and now affects approximately 13% of the world population [1]. Obesity has been linked to tumorigenesis and cancer progression in various organs and a reduction in life expectancy by up to 14 years [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Mortality is increased up to 10% when obesity is present with colorectal cancer (CRC), whereas the risk of CRC is reduced up to 21% with a decrease in BMI and changes in lifestyle [8,9].
The risk of developing CRC increases with age, and 50–80% of CRC can be attributed to epigenetic changes due to lifestyle and BMI [10,11,12,13,14], with increased BMI as a risk factor in the proliferation of CRC [15,16,17,18,19]. CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths occurring in 2021 [20]. For personalized medicine, it is clinically imperative to understand the impact of obesity on epigenetic changes to prevent the progression of CRC.
DNA methylation (DNAm) is an epigenetic regulation of gene function that is implicated in the formation of CRC [21,22,23,24] and is impacted by obesity [25,26,27,28] and age [29,30,31,32]. DNAm occurs when a methyl group attaches to a cytosine nucleotide, usually within a CpG dinucleotide (CpG), inhibiting the expression of the nucleotide, thereby potentially altering the expression of the gene itself [33]. Differentially methylated regions (DMRs) represent groups of methylated cytosines within close range in various tissue types and developmental stages [34]. DMRs located in the promoter region (first exon of a gene) were linked to gene silencing [35,36,37,38,39], and the position of DMRs related to the transcription start site (TSS) could impact transcription and gene function [40].
Hypomethylation (a reduction in methylated CpG) was associated with increased expression of gene function, whereas hypermethylation with decreased expression may potentially lead to chronic diseases including cancer, especially if methylation occurs in the promoter region of a gene [37,41,42,43,44,45]. Hypermethylated tumor suppressor genes (TSG) could lead to dysfunctional gene division or apoptosis, leading to abnormal cell growth; whereas hypomethylation with oncogenes causes cells to divide abnormally faster [46]. Hypermethylation and reduction in TSG function of SRGAP2C (Slit-Robo Rho GTPase-activating protein 2C) [47,48,49] and ZBTB46 (zinc finger and born-to-bind domain containing 46) [50,51,52] were associated with tumorigenesis and cancer metastasis. Conversely, hypomethylation and upregulated oncogene functions of HIST1H3I (Histone linker 1 with Histone H3.1), HIST1H3D (Histone linker 1 with Histone H3.D) [53,54,55,56], NFATC4 (Nuclear factor of activated T-cells cytoplasmic 4) [57,58,59,60] and HOXB8 (Homeobox B8) [61,62,63] were associated with adiposity and colon cancer.
Significant research is being conducted on methylation of CpG and DMR in colon cancer [64,65,66], yet there is little consensus on what constitutes a significant methylation threshold that could potentially translate to clinical significance. Whether the methylation threshold is purely statistical using p values, or if it is a differential change measured in a percent difference, has not yet been sufficiently documented or validated. Many studies focus on single-gene associations with methylated CpG or DMR, some taking clinical data into context [67,68]. The genomic region of DMR and the impact on gene expression has also been studied, showing that DMRs on promoter regions adversely affect gene function [38,39]. With advanced sequencing technology and machine-learning-based analytics [69,70,71], we conducted this study to examine DMRs in association with obesity as a significant contributing factor for colon cancer prevention.
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has established a need for increasing precision in cancer prevention [72]. Precision medicine takes individual differences in lifestyle, environment, and biology into account, requiring complex interactive analysis and predictive analytics, as well as standardized coding [73,74,75]. Therefore, we accessed data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to evaluate the association of obesity in human colon tissue to locate DMR-associated genes of interest to examine the associations of obesity with colon cancer [76]. We then applied groundbreaking machine-learning-based predictive analysis to locate DMRs, integrating BMI and age into the validation models, to enhance the accuracy of prediction.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Demographic and Methylation Data
We obtained methylation data files from TCGA Colon Cancer project (COAD) version 1.23.0 (
2.2. DMR Bioinformatics Analysis
CpG site analysis and DMR identification were completed using additional R packages limma (v. 3.34.9, February 2018) and bumphunter (v. 1.20.0, November 2012). Limma involves a matrix-type schema to analyze intra-sample variability (n = 240) per individual CpG site (n ≈ 485,000), and Bayesian corrected p values were provided between groups [85]. Bumphunter includes linear regression and permutation testing to determine clusters of DMR with significant CpG sites [86,87]. DMR with >2 CpG sites, excluding sex chromosomes and having ≥5% proportional change between groups of obese and non-obese cancer were annotated to protein-coding genes. A 3–10% difference in DNAm level between groups was noted as significant [88,89,90,91].
Gene annotation was conducted using data from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) v86 August 2018 (
2.3. Predictive Analysis
Generalized regression (GR) was performed using JMP Pro v. 14 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). as a machine-learning tool to determine a predictive model from the genes identified in the obese and non-obese cancer groups. To create the predictive model for GR, variables were recoded into dichotomous values based on median distribution across the variable. The model created a prediction profile for associations between the parameters of interest and the strength of the parameters within the predictive model. Unlike logistic regression (LR), which assumed that all variables share a linear association, GR performed analysis on each independent variable to determine associations with the dependent variable and created a model that applied the nonlinear association to each variable in the prediction [96,97,98], which was then compared to the (LR) model for validation [99,100].
The final GR model was derived based on several criteria, including Akaike information criterion (AICc), misclassification rate and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For internal validity of the predictive model, an AUC as close to 1 (100%) is desired. Sensitivity refers to the number of actual cases with the finding of a positive result, whereas specificity is the number of actual cases without the finding of a negative result. AUC is a method to plot the sensitivity and specificity of test results to determine the accuracy of true positives versus false negatives [101]. Misclassification rate is precision of the model by calculating the number of errors by the total number of observations. Ideally, this number should be low. AICc is an estimate of the fitness of the model and should also be a low number.
To establish a GR model, 10 genes with the highest differential methylation, both hypomethylated and hypermethylated, were analyzed using interaction profilers and regression algorithms. The prediction validation was developed using a GR adaptive elastic net and Leave One Out (LOO) methodology with an 85% training/15% validation proportion created for machine-learning-based iterations. Interactions between factors were examined using interaction profiler plots between parameters of genes or with age, with steps of iterations to eliminate parameters from the model that had no significance or altered the significance of other parameters and prediction accuracy. Elastic net models presented a higher sensitivity and specificity than lasso [102,103,104], and LOO methodology was used to eliminate insignificant parameters in the model and is suitable for analysis with smaller sample sizes [105,106].
3. Results
Demographic factors among control and two cancer groups of obese and non-obese were compared (Table 1). BMI was different between obese cancer and two other groups (p < 0.0001), and cancer groups were younger in age (p < 0.05), with obese cancer being 9.7 years younger and non-obese cancer being 7.7 years younger than the control group on average. There were no differences among three groups on gender and racial distributions.
3.1. Significant DMRs and Associated Genes between Groups
DMR analysis was performed to determine the number of protein-coding genes of significance between groups, using a 5%, 10% and 15% methylation change between groups (Table 2), which shows a complete list of DMRs with the highest methylation differences for three between-groups pairs. DMR coordinates and gene functions are provided in the supplementary tables (Tables S1 (hypomethylated) and S2 (hypermethylated). To test the hypothetical association between obesity and CRC, gene ontology was performed with a list of 518 genes comprising a 5% methylation change in both hypermethylated (n = 178) and hypomethylated (n = 340) genes between the obese and non-obese cancer groups. A 5% methylation difference was used due to the need for a sufficient list of genes for ontological analysis between the obese and non-obese cancer groups. No novel pathways with statistical significance were discovered between the obese and non-obese cancer groups; therefore, further ontological analysis was not conducted.
Table 3 shows 10 DMRs with the highest hypomethylation difference between obese and non-obese cancer groups, and Table 4 shows the 10 DMRs with the highest hypermethylation between the two groups. Genes with functions linked to adiposity or glucose metabolism, cancer-related functions, and both adiposity and cancer-related functions were noted. Genes noted in Supplemental Tables S1 (hypomethylated) and S2 (hypermethylated) were used to derive the final GR model.
3.2. Significant Predictors
The most significant predictors associated with obesity between the two cancer groups were age ≥ 76 (p = 0.004); HIST1H3I, a hypomethylated oncogene (p = 0.002); NFATC4, a hypermethylated oncogene (p = 0.027); SRGAP2C, a hypermethylated tumor suppression gene (p = 0.025); and ZBTB46, a hypomethylated TSG interacting with age (p = 0.024), which was the only gene to have significant interaction with age in our prediction model. Variable importance analysis using independent uniform inputs shows that the order of variable importance is age (total effect (TE): 0.374), HIST1H3I (TE: 0.299), ZBTB46 (TE: 0.295), SRGAP2C (TE: 0.184), NFATC4 (TE: 0.156), HOXB8 (TE: 0.098) and HIST1H3D (TE: 0.024). Genes and interactions left in the model without significance were left to protect the integrity of the model itself, as the removal of these predictors caused model instability (see Supplemental Figure S1).
HIST1H3I is an oncogene located on chromosome 6 that encodes a nuclear protein responsible for nucleosome structure and histone modification. It has been shown to have a high affinity for tumorigenesis, has been identified as a potential biomarker for CRC, and has been isolated in adipocytes [53,54,107]. Our data (see Figure 1a) show the promoter region DMR of HIST1H3I to have 17% hypomethylation between obese and non-obese cancer, and GR analysis showed no interaction between HIST1H3I and age in the prediction model. Mean values appear to increase from control group due to outliers in the data samples, but GR is based on median values, which are not represented by outliers.
TSG such as ZBTB46, a zinc finger/BTB domain protein gene on chromosome 20, represses the oncogene PRDM1 and has similar functions to autoimmune regulators [50,51,52]. Although located on an intron, the DMR affecting ZBTB46 showed a 36% reduction in methylation between obese and non-obese cancer groups (see Figure 1b), and GR analysis showed significant interaction with age (p = 0.024).
SRGAP2C is a SLIT-ROBO GTPase-activating tumor-suppressing gene located on chromosome 1. Changes in expression may contribute to cancer metastasis, and the SRGAP2 protein is reduced or absent in many tumor samples [47,48,49]. The promoter-region DMR on SRGAP2C showed significant hypermethylation between all three groups (see Figure 1c), with the lowest at 14% proportional change between the obese and non-obese cancer group, and it revealed a marginal interaction with age in the GR model.
NFATC4, an oncogene located on chromosome 14, encodes a protein from the nuclear factor of an activated T-cell family, which is a DNA-binding complex, is expressed in many cancer tissues, and has been shown to enhance tumorigenesis. With obesity, NFATC4 is known to initiate inflammatory processes, and it is associated with increased cell death in older patients [57,58,59,60]. The significant DMR for NFATC4, located on an intron, had 15% hypermethylation between obese and non-obese cancer (see Figure 1d), and NFATC4 had a marginal interaction with age in the GR model. A large number of outliers appears to minimize the mean value differential for NFATC4, but these outliers are not factored into the GR model.
HOXB8 located on chromosome 17 is a known oncogene that is associated with colorectal cancer. It is downregulated in colon cancer, but downregulation has been associated with favorable prognosis in renal cancer [61,62,63,108]. HOXB8 has promoter-region DMR with a 20% hypomethylation between groups (see Figure 1e), and a marginal interaction with age in the prediction model.
HIST1H3D, similar to HIST1H3I, is a known oncogene also located on chromosome 6, functioning as a chromatin compactor. It is upregulated in cancer, and a reduction in its expression causes chromatin structure closing [55,56,109]. Figure 1f shows the HIST1H3D promoter-region DMR having a 14% hypomethylation between obese and non-obese cancer, with no significant age interaction in the GR model.
The prediction model shown in Table 5 presents comparable misclassification rates, with 29% for validation, 27% for LOO and 29% in the LR models, with equal precisions. AICc in the validation model was 71 compared to 76 in the LR model, revealing a fitter validation model. Figure 2 shows that the AUC for LR (a) was 74%, revealing similar internal validity to our GR model with 74% AUC for validation (b) and 76% for LOO (c). GR models provide higher quality predictions than LR models in locating possible obesity-associated colon cancer biomarkers.
4. Discussion
Generalized regression is a powerful machine learning tool to capture associations between variables, rather than assuming that one causes the other. GR eliminates variables that have no effect on the final model, allowing the remaining variables to have a greater effect on the overall model. Using GR, we reduced the pool of colon cancer obesity-impacted DMR-associated genes to six (6) and determined that age was an associated variable when considered independently, also when interacting with several genes, most notably ZBTB46 (p = 0.024). We further determined that neither gender nor ethnicity were significant factors, and this is one of only a few studies to use GR in a methylation study that also used a differential methylation value of DMR.
Of the list of top 10 genes containing the DMR with the largest methylation difference, HOXB8 was the only gene with a statistically significant hypomethylated DMR in the obese to non-obese group (p = 0.026). As an oncogene, increased expression is associated with colorectal cancer. Two genes had statistically significant DMR hypermethylation in the obese to non-obese group: ZNF426 (p = 0.049), a zinc finger protein-coding gene involved in transcriptional regulation; and TUBB3 (p = 0.043), a beta-tubulin protein family coding gene that plays a role in axon guidance. When used in the GR model, only HOXB8 had borderline significance, which caused model instability when it was removed.
One limitation of this study was the use of methylation data from solid tumor tissue, rendering it difficult to generalize for biomarker analysis; however, it provides significant information about the genomic mechanisms impacted by obesity that may be targeted by precision medicine for colon cancer patients. Further study needs to be conducted to compare methylation changes in both solid tissue and body fluid samples, to determine whether DNAm occurs systemically or is isolated to the cancer tissue, and further study needs to be conducted to determine the level that DNAm impacts the function of the gene, whether at an individual CpG site or a DMR, such that future studies can all start from a leveled analysis point. The use of a single cohort cancer database is another limitation of this study, which will be reduced in a follow-up study by using multiple cohorts as well as survival analysis to validate these findings.
Using machine-learning-based tools and grouping colon cancer cases based on BMI, we have identified genes associated with obesity, related to lifestyle that may modified, potentially impacting colon cancer through methylation. HIST1H3I, ZBTB46, SRGAP2C and HIST1H3D are all potential novel biomarkers identified through our analysis method, and using GR, multiple genes impacted by DMR can be identified with cofactors from patient lifestyle. DNAm analysis and interpretation are becoming easier and less expensive to perform and can provide insights into disease processes never considered feasible during treatment processes in the past. Combining DNAm with GR provides precision-medicine-based healthcare the tools necessary to focus on patient-centered treatment for cancer and chronic diseases.
Conceptualization and study design, J.J.M. and S.-Y.P.K.S.; acquisition and search of the literature, J.J.M., Z.-F.C. and S.-Y.P.K.S.; analysis and interpretation of data, J.J.M., J.G. and S.-Y.P.K.S.; writing—initial draft, J.J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
The IRB of Augusta University has determined that the research conducted here is not human subjects research, on 22 August 2021 (Project 1790087-1).
Not applicable.
Shaoyong Su from the Georgia Prevention Institute for his support in methylation analysis. The results published here are in whole or part based upon data generated by the TCGA Research Network:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Methylated genes from the generalized regression model. Notes. Genes with age interaction show mean values by age as trendlines; genes without interaction with age show overall mean trendline. Hypomethylation and hypermethylation percent indicates change between obese and non-obese groups. Genes are ordered (a–f) based on total effect from generalized regression model; ## indicates p < 0.05 for cancer group to control; ** indicates p < 0.05 between obese and non-obese cancer.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) for logistic and generalized regression with adaptive elastic net. (a) represents logistic regression, (b) is adaptive elastic net with validation column, and (c) is adaptive elastic net with leave-one-out validation.
Demographic characteristics of the sample cases.
| Cancer | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD |
Control |
Non-Obese |
Obese |
| BMI, Kg/m2 | 25.5 ± 2.7 |
24.9 ± 3.1 * |
36.1 ± 2.8 * |
| Age, years | 81.7 ± 13.7 |
74.0 ± 15.1 * |
72.0 ± 12.0 * |
| Gender Female (%) | 9 (60) | 67 (43.5) | 37 (52) |
| Race White (%) | 13 (87) | 116 (75) | 49 (69) |
| Black (%) | 2 (13) | 30 (19) | 21 (30) |
| Other (%) | 0 | 8 (6) | 1 (1) |
Notes. BMI: Body Mass Index; * indicates p < 0.05.
Summary of differentially methylated regions (DMR) with unique protein-coding genes per group comparison.
| Groups | Non-Obese Cancer/Control | Obese Cancer/Control | Obese Cancer/Non-Obese Cancer | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Differential Methylation | Hyper | Hypo | Hyper | Hypo | Hyper | Hypo |
| 5% | 4270 | 3744 | 4203 | 4073 | 178 | 340 |
| 10% | 2967 | 1644 | 2876 | 1909 | 25 | 48 |
| 15% | 2248 | 637 | 2173 | 828 | 6 | 10 |
Notes. Hypo refers to hypomethylated; Hyper refers to hypermethylated.
Genes associated with top hypomethylated differentially methylated regions (DMR) between obese and non-obese cancer groups.
| DMR | Dis to TSS | DNAm | Gene Function | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene | # CpG | Region | Non-Obese | Obese | ||
| HIST3H2A ‡ | 25 | Promoter | 860 | 8.61 | 6.80 | DNA repair, MMR |
| HIST3H2BB ‡ | 25 | Promoter | 701 | 8.61 | 6.80 | DNA repair, MMR |
| HOXB8 † | 18 | Promoter | −279 | 14.47 | 11.48 | Oncogene |
| HIST1H3I ‡ | 11 | Promoter | −24 | 17.43 | 14.47 | Oncogene |
| TUBB2A ‡ | 3 | Intron | −593 | 9.93 | 8.26 | GTP binding |
| TMCO1 ‡ | 13 | Promoter | 210 | 5.49 | 4.59 | Calcium homeostasis |
| PRAC2 † | 4 | Promoter | 109 | 10.32 | 8.63 | Oncogene |
| AMOTL2 ‡ | 4 | Intron | −10,235 | 15.79 | 13.38 | Inhibits Wnt pathway |
| ARL4D ^ | 13 | Promoter | 107 | 8.03 | 6.82 | Suppresses adipogenesis |
| HIST1H3D ‡ | 13 | Promoter | 59 | 12.02 | 10.26 | Oncogene |
Notes: # CpG—number of methylated CpG sites; Dis to TSS—distance (in base pairs) to transcription start site from DMR start; DNAm—mean methylation percent; ^ represents genes that can be annotated to adiposity or glucose-related functions, † to cancer-related functions, and ‡ to both cancer and adipose/glucose-related functions.
Genes associated with top hypermethylated differentially methylated regions (DMR) between obese and non-obese cancer groups.
| DMR | Dis to TSS | DNAm | Gene Function | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene | # CpG | Region | Non-Obese | Obese | ||
| GNPDA2 ^ | 12 | Promoter | 107 | 7.86 | 9.74 | Protein metabolism |
| LSM14A † | 9 | Promoter | 540 | 3.44 | 4.12 | Immune response |
| ZNF426 † | 11 | Promoter | 107 | 21.70 | 25.80 | Transcription regulation |
| NFATC4 ‡ | 8 | Intron | −466 | 9.98 | 11.52 | Oncogene |
| ZNF852 † | 3 | Promoter | 31 | 2.81 | 3.24 | Transcription regulation |
| FAM72B † | 9 | CDS | 3021 | 29.19 | 33.34 | Oncogene |
| SRGAP2C ‡ | 9 | Promoter | 879 | 29.19 | 33.34 | Tumor Suppression Gene |
| TNFAIP2 † | 3 | Promoter | 445 | 14.28 | 16.10 | Mediator of inflammation |
| ZNF747 † | 7 | Promoter | 188 | 7.18 | 8.07 | Transcription regulation |
| TUBB3 ‡ | 3 | Intron | 2448 | 6.36 | 7.14 | Oncogene, immune response |
Notes: # CpG—number of methylated CpG sites; CDS—coding DNA sequence; Dis to TSS—distance (in base pairs) to transcription start site from DMR start; DNAm—mean methylation percent; ^ represents genes that can be annotated to adiposity or glucose-related functions, † to cancer-related functions, and ‡ to both cancer and adipose/glucose-related functions.
Predictors of obesity-associated differentially methylated regions in colon cancer.
| Generalized Regression Adaptive Elastic Net | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic Regression | Leave-One-Out | Validation Column | ||||
| Parameters | Estimate | p (χ2) | Estimate | p (χ2) | Estimate | p (χ2) |
| Intercept | −0.1997 | 0.738 | 0.0114 | 0.984 | −0.2869 | 0.613 |
| Age (≥76) | −2.4211 | 0.004 | −2.3076 | 0.003 | −2.2997 | 0.004 |
| HIST1H3I (hypo, promoter) ‡ | 1.1541 | 0.003 | 1.2026 | 0.001 | 1.1243 | 0.002 |
| NFATC4 (hyper, intron) ‡ | −1.1034 | 0.046 | −1.3256 | 0.006 | −1.1133 | 0.027 |
| SRGAP2C (hyper, promoter) ‡ | −1.2821 | 0.026 | −1.4779 | 0.006 | −1.2355 | 0.025 |
| Age * ZBTB46 | 1.7993 | 0.020 | 1.8545 | 0.008 | 1.7343 | 0.024 |
| Age * NFATC4 | 1.3051 | 0.078 | 1.1752 | 0.078 | 1.3065 | 0.069 |
| Age * HOXB8 | 1.0252 | 0.163 | 1.1410 | 0.084 | 0.9161 | 0.081 |
| Age * SRGAP2C | 1.0565 | 0.153 | 1.1584 | 0.088 | 1.0062 | 0.168 |
| HIST1H3D (hypo, promoter) ‡ | −0.3225 | 0.401 | −0.6169 | 0.089 | −0.3119 | 0.419 |
| ZBTB46 (hypo, intron) † | −0.2551 | 0.637 | −0.2889 | 0.550 | −0.2036 | 0.702 |
| HOXB8 (hypo, promoter) † | −0.0984 | 0.856 | 0.0115 | 0.979 | 0.0000 | 1.000 |
| Misclassification rate | 0.290 | - | 0.277 | - | 0.290 | - |
| AICc | 76.63 | - | - | - | 71.067 | - |
| Area under the curve | 0.741 | - | 0.757 | - | 0.739 | - |
Notes—data not available; AICc—Akaike’s information criterion with corrections; * denotes interaction. † represents genes that can be annotated to cancer-related functions and ‡ to both cancer and adipose/glucose-related functions.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. WHO. Obesity and Overweight. Available online: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 3 January 2021).
2. Almen, M.S.; Nilsson, E.K.; Jacobsson, J.A.; Kalnina, I.; Klovins, J.; Fredriksson, R.; Schioth, H.B. Genome-wide analysis reveals DNA methylation markers that vary with both age and obesity. Gene; 2014; 548, pp. 61-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2014.07.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25010727]
3. Dick, K.J.; Nelson, C.P.; Tsaprouni, L.; Sandling, J.K.; Aïssi, D.; Wahl, S.; Meduri, E.; Morange, P.-E.; Gagnon, F.; Grallert, H. et al. DNA methylation and body-mass index: A genome-wide analysis. Lancet; 2014; 383, pp. 1990-1998. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62674-4]
4. Printz, C. Extreme obesity may shorten life expectancy up to 14 years. Cancer; 2014; 120, 3591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29128] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25410488]
5. Shiao, S.P.K.; Grayson, J.; Yu, C.H.; Wasek, B.; Bottiglieri, T. Gene Environment Interactions and Predictors of Colorectal Cancer in Family-Based, Multi-Ethnic Groups. J. Pers. Med.; 2018; 8, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm8010010]
6. Jones, P.A.; Baylin, S.B. The Epigenomics of Cancer. Cell; 2007; 128, pp. 683-692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.029]
7. Ayers, D.; Boughanem, H.; Macías-González, M. Epigenetic Influences in the Obesity/Colorectal Cancer Axis: A Novel Theragnostic Avenue. J. Oncol.; 2019; 2019, 7406078. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7406078]
8. Luo, J.; Hendryx, M.; Manson, J.E.; Figueiredo, J.C.; LeBlanc, E.S.; Barrington, W.; Rohan, T.E.; Howard, B.V.; Reding, K.; Ho, G.Y. et al. Intentional Weight Loss and Obesity-Related Cancer Risk. JNCI Cancer Spectr.; 2019; 3, pkz054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkz054]
9. Wu, S.; Liu, J.; Wang, X.; Li, M.; Gan, Y.; Tang, Y. Association of obesity and overweight with overall survival in colorectal cancer patients: A meta-analysis of 29 studies. Cancer Causes Control; 2014; 25, pp. 1489-1502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-014-0450-y]
10. Gao, Y.; Cao, Y.; Tan, A.; Liao, C.; Mo, Z.; Gao, F. Glutathione S-transferase M1 polymorphism and sporadic colorectal cancer risk: An updating meta-analysis and HuGE review of 36 case-control studies. Ann. Epidemiol.; 2010; 20, pp. 108-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.10.003]
11. Society, A.C. Cancer Facts and Figures 2022; American Cancer Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022; Volume 500822.
12. Yu, M.; Hazelton, W.D.; Luebeck, G.E.; Grady, W.M. Epigenetic aging: More than just a clock when it comes to cancer. Cancer Res.; 2019; 80, pp. 367-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-0924]
13. Zheng, C.; Li, L.; Xu, R. Association of Epigenetic Clock with Consensus Molecular Subtypes and Overall Survival of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev.; 2019; 28, pp. 1720-1724. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0208] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31375479]
14. Islami, F.; Goding Sauer, A.; Miller, K.D.; Siegel, R.L.; Fedewa, S.A.; Jacobs, E.J.; Mc Cullough, M.L.; Patel, A.V.; Ma, J.; Soerjomataram, I. et al. Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States. CA Cancer J. Clin.; 2018; 68, pp. 31-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21440] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29160902]
15. Andreasson, A.; Hagstrom, H.; Skoldberg, F.; Onnerhag, K.; Carlsson, A.C.; Schmidt, P.T.; Forsberg, A.M. The prediction of colorectal cancer using anthropometric measures: A Swedish population-based cohort study with 22 years of follow-up. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J.; 2019; 7, pp. 1250-1260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050640619854278] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31700638]
16. Bjorge, T.; Haggstrom, C.; Ghaderi, S.; Nagel, G.; Manjer, J.; Tretli, S.; Ulmer, H.; Harlid, S.; Rosendahl, A.H.; Lang, A. et al. BMI and weight changes and risk of obesity-related cancers: A pooled European cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol.; 2019; 48, pp. 1872-1885. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz188] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31566221]
17. Garcia, H.; Song, M. Early-life obesity and adulthood colorectal cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Rev. Panam. De Salud Publica Pan Am. J. Public Health; 2019; 43, e3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2019.3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093227]
18. Naber, S.K.; Kundu, S.; Kuntz, K.M.; Dotson, W.D.; Williams, M.S.; Zauber, A.G.; Calonge, N.; Zallen, D.T.; Ganiats, T.G.; Webber, E.M. et al. Cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk—current status and future potential. JNCI Cancer Spectr.; 2019; 4, pkz086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkz086]
19. Anania, G.; Resta, G.; Marino, S.; Fabbri, N.; Scagliarini, L.; Marchitelli, I.; Fiorica, F.; Cavallesco, G. Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Approach. J. Gastrointest. Cancer; 2018; 50, pp. 458-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12029-018-0100-9]
20. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Goding Sauer, A.; Fedewa, S.A.; Butterly, L.F.; Anderson, J.C.; Cercek, A.; Smith, R.A.; Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin.; 2020; 70, pp. 145-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21601]
21. Ahn, J.B.; Chung, W.B.; Maeda, O.; Shin, S.J.; Kim, H.S.; Chung, H.C.; Kim, N.K.; Issa, J.P. DNA methylation predicts recurrence from resected stage III proximal colon cancer. Cancer; 2011; 117, pp. 1847-1854. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25737]
22. Beaulieu, J.-F. Colorectal Cancer: Methods and Protocols; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1765, 348.
23. Berger, S.L.; Kouzarides, T.; Shiekhattar, R.; Shilatifard, A. An operational definition of epigenetics. Genes Dev.; 2009; 23, pp. 781-783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.1787609]
24. Borchiellini, M.; Ummarino, S.; Di Ruscio, A. The Bright and Dark Side of DNA Methylation: A Matter of Balance. Cells; 2019; 8, 1243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells8101243] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31614870]
25. Ajonijebu, D.C.; Abboussi, O.; Russell, V.A.; Mabandla, M.V.; Daniels, W.M.U. Epigenetics: A link between addiction and social environment. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. CMLS; 2017; 74, pp. 2735-2747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00018-017-2493-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28255755]
26. Andersen, V.; Holst, R.; Vogel, U. Systematic review: Diet-gene interactions and the risk of colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharm.; 2013; 37, pp. 383-391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.12180] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23216531]
27. Crujeiras, A.B.; Morcillo, S.; Diaz-Lagares, A.; Sandoval, J.; Castellano-Castillo, D.; Torres, E.; Hervas, D.; Moran, S.; Esteller, M.; Macias-Gonzalez, M. et al. Identification of an episignature of human colorectal cancer associated with obesity by genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. Int. J. Obes.; 2019; 43, pp. 176-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0065-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29717273]
28. Carr, P.R.; Amitay, E.L.; Jansen, L.; Alwers, E.; Roth, W.; Herpel, E.; Kloor, M.; Schneider, M.; Blaker, H.; Chang-Claude, J. et al. Association of BMI and major molecular pathological markers of colorectal cancer in men and women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2020; 111, pp. 562-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz315] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31897467]
29. Ehrlich, M. DNA hypermethylation in disease: Mechanisms and clinical relevance. Epigenetics; 2019; 14, pp. 1141-1163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2019.1638701] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31284823]
30. Zhou, M.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Q.; Yan, C.; Jiang, P.; Lan, Y.; Wang, J.; Tang, R.; He, M.; Lei, G. et al. Age-related gene expression and DNA methylation changes in rhesus macaque. Genomics; 2020; 112, pp. 5147-5156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2020.09.021]
31. Tharakan, R.; Ubaida-Mohien, C.; Moore, A.Z.; Hernandez, D.; Tanaka, T.; Ferrucci, L. Blood DNA Methylation and Aging: A Cross-Sectional Analysis and Longitudinal Validation in the InCHIANTI Study. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.; 2020; 75, pp. 2051-2055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa052]
32. Harris, C.J.; Davis, B.A.; Zweig, J.A.; Nevonen, K.A.; Quinn, J.F.; Carbone, L.; Gray, N.E. Age-Associated DNA Methylation Patterns Are Shared Between the Hippocampus and Peripheral Blood Cells. Front. Genet.; 2020; 11, 111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00111]
33. Cheng, X.; Hashimoto, H.; Horton, J.R.; Zhang, X. Chapter 2—Mechanisms of DNA Methylation, Methyl-CpG Recognition, and Demethylation in Mammals. Handbook of Epigenetics; Tollefsbol, T. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 9-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375709-8.00002-2]
34. Neidhart, M. DNA Methylation and Complex Human Disease; Academic Press: Oxford, MA, USA, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420194-1.00035-X]
35. Brenet, F.; Moh, M.; Funk, P.; Feierstein, E.; Viale, A.; Socci, N.; Scandura, J. DNA Methylation of the First Exon Is Tightly Linked to Transcriptional Silencing. PLoS ONE; 2011; 6, e14524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014524]
36. Dorman, J.S.; Schmella, M.J.; Wesmiller, S.W. Primer in Genetics and Genomics, Article 1: DNA, Genes, and Chromosomes. Biol. Res. Nurs.; 2016; 19, pp. 7-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1099800416678321] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895219]
37. Du, X.; Han, L.; Guo, A.Y.; Zhao, Z. Features of methylation and gene expression in the promoter-associated CpG islands using human methylome data. Comp. Funct. Genom.; 2012; 2012, 598987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/598987] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22474411]
38. Poduval, D.B.; Ognedal, E.; Sichmanova, Z.; Valen, E.; Iversen, G.T.; Minsaas, L.; Lønning, P.E.; Knappskog, S. Assessment of tumor suppressor promoter methylation in healthy individuals. Clin. Epigenet.; 2020; 12, 131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-020-00920-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32859265]
39. Quan, Y.; Liang, F.; Wu, D.; Yao, X.; Hu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wu, A.; Tang, D.; Huang, B. et al. Blood Cell DNA Methylation of Aging-Related Ubiquitination Gene DZIP3 Can Predict the Onset of Early Stage Colorectal Cancer. Front. Oncol.; 2020; 10, 544330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.544330]
40. Jones, P.A.; Takai, D. The role of DNA methylation in mammalian epigenetics. Science; 2001; 293, pp. 1068-1070. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1063852]
41. Ng, J.M.; Yu, J. Promoter hypermethylation of tumour suppressor genes as potential biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2015; 16, pp. 2472-2496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms16022472]
42. Ross, J.P.; Rand, K.N.; Molloy, P.L. Hypomethylation of repeated DNA sequences in cancer. Epigenomics; 2010; 2, pp. 245-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2217/epi.10.2]
43. Suzuki, M.M.; Bird, A. DNA methylation landscapes: Provocative insights from epigenomics. Nat. Rev. Genet.; 2008; 9, pp. 465-476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg2341]
44. Yin, A.; Etcheverry, A.; He, Y.; Aubry, M.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.; Zhang, L.M.; Mao, X.; Chen, W.; Liu, B.; Zhang, W. et al. Integrative analysis of novel hypomethylation and gene expression signatures in glioblastomas. Oncotarget; 2017; 8, pp. 89607-89619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19171]
45. Costello, J.F.; Plass, C. Methylation Matters. J. Med. Genet.; 2001; 38, pp. 285-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmg.38.5.285]
46. Society, A.C. Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/genetics/genes-and-cancer/oncogenes-tumor-suppressor-genes.html (accessed on 3 January 2021).
47. Charrier, C.; Joshi, K.; Coutinho-Budd, J.; Kim, J.E.; Lambert, N.; de Marchena, J.; Jin, W.L.; Vanderhaeghen, P.; Ghosh, A.; Sassa, T. et al. Inhibition of SRGAP2 function by its human-specific paralogs induces neoteny during spine maturation. Cell; 2012; 149, pp. 923-935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.034] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22559944]
48. NCBI. SRGAP2C: SLIT-ROBO Rho GTPase Activating Protein 2C [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 653464. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/653464 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
49. Schmidt, E.R.E.; Kupferman, J.V.; Stackmann, M.; Polleux, F. The human-specific paralogs SRGAP2B and SRGAP2C differentially modulate SRGAP2A-dependent synaptic development. Sci. Rep.; 2019; 9, 18692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54887-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31822692]
50. Chen, W.Y.; Zeng, T.; Wen, Y.C.; Yeh, H.L.; Jiang, K.C.; Chen, W.H.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, J.; Liu, Y.N. Androgen deprivation-induced ZBTB46-PTGS1 signaling promotes neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer. Cancer. Lett.; 2019; 440, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2018.10.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30312731]
51. NCBI. ZBTB46: Zinc Finger and BTB Domain Containing 46 [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 140685. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/140685 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
52. Satpathy, A.T.; Brown, R.A.; Gomulia, E.; Briseño, C.G.; Mumbach, M.R.; Pan, Z.; Murphy, K.M.; Natkunam, Y.; Chang, H.Y.; Kim, J. Expression of the transcription factor ZBTB46 distinguishes human histiocytic disorders of classical dendritic cell origin. Mod. Pathol.; 2018; 31, pp. 1479-1486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-018-0052-4]
53. Kim, J.; Daniel, J.; Espejo, A.; Lake, A.; Krishna, M.; Xia, L.; Zhang, Y.; Bedford, M.T. Tudor, MBT and chromo domains gauge the degree of lysine methylation. EMBO Rep.; 2006; 7, pp. 397-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400625] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16415788]
54. NCBI. HIST1H3I: H3 Clustered Histone 11 [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 8354. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/8354 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
55. Tagami, H.; Ray-Gallet, D.; Almouzni, G.; Nakatani, Y. Histone H3.1 and H3.3 complexes mediate nucleosome assembly pathways dependent or independent of DNA synthesis. Cell; 2004; 116, pp. 51-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(03)01064-X]
56. NCBI. HIST1H3D: H3 Clustered Histone 4 [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 8351. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/8351 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
57. Li, X.; Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Malovannaya, A.; Xi, Y.; Li, W.; Guerra, R.; Hawke, D.H.; Qin, J.; Chen, J. Proteomic analyses reveal distinct chromatin-associated and soluble transcription factor complexes. Mol. Syst. Biol.; 2015; 11, 775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15252/msb.20145504]
58. NCBI. NFATC4: Nuclear Factor of Activated T Cells 4 [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 4776. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/4776 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
59. Qin, X.; Wang, X.H.; Yang, Z.H.; Ding, L.H.; Xu, X.J.; Cheng, L.; Niu, C.; Sun, H.W.; Zhang, H.; Ye, Q.N. Repression of NFAT3 transcriptional activity by estrogen receptors. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. CMLS; 2008; 65, pp. 2752-2762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00018-008-8273-1]
60. Zhang, X.; Kang, T.; Zhang, L.; Tong, Y.; Ding, W.; Chen, S. NFATc3 mediates the sensitivity of gastric cancer cells to arsenic sulfide. Oncotarget; 2017; 8, pp. 52735-52745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17175]
61. Ding, W.J.; Zhou, M.; Chen, M.M.; Qu, C.Y. HOXB8 promotes tumor metastasis and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition via ZEB2 targets in gastric cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.; 2017; 143, pp. 385-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2283-4]
62. NCBI. HOXB8: Homeobox B8 [Homo sapiens]. Gene ID: 3218. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/3218 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
63. Shen, S.; Pan, J.; Lu, X.; Chi, P. Role of miR-196 and its target gene HoxB8 in the development and proliferation of human colorectal cancer and the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 on their expression. Oncol. Lett.; 2016; 12, pp. 4041-4047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.5210] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895768]
64. Alzahrani, S.M.; Al Doghaither, H.A.; Al-Ghafari, A.B. General insight into cancer: An overview of colorectal cancer (Review). Mol. Clin. Oncol.; 2021; 15, 271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2433] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34790355]
65. Gutierrez, A.; Demond, H.; Brebi, P.; Ili, C.G. Novel Methylation Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer Prognosis. Biomolecules; 2021; 11, 1722. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom11111722] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34827720]
66. Sobhani, I. DNA Methylation Is a Main Key for Bacteria-Related Colon Carcinogenesis. Microorganisms; 2021; 9, 2574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9122574]
67. Maugeri, A.; Barchitta, M.; Magnano San Lio, R.; Favara, G.; La Mastra, C.; La Rosa, M.C.; Agodi, A. The Relationship between Body Mass Index, Obesity, and LINE-1 Methylation: A Cross-Sectional Study on Women from Southern Italy. Dis. Markers; 2021; 2021, 9910878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9910878]
68. Moreno-Ortiz, J.M.; Jiménez-García, J.; Gutiérrez-Angulo, M.; Ayala-Madrigal, M.L.; González-Mercado, A.; González-Villaseñor, C.O.; Flores-López, B.A.; Alvizo-Rodríguez, C.; Hernández-Sandoval, J.A.; Fernández-Galindo, M.A. et al. High frequency of MLH1 promoter methylation mediated by gender and age in colorectal tumors from Mexican patients. Gac. Med. Mex.; 2021; 157, pp. 618-623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24875/GMM.M21000626]
69. Khodadadi, E.; Fahmideh, L.; Khodadadi, E.; Dao, S.; Yousefi, M.; Taghizadeh, S.; Asgharzadeh, M.; Yousefi, B.; Kafil, H.S. Current Advances in DNA Methylation Analysis Methods. BioMed. Res. Int.; 2021; 2021, 8827516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8827516]
70. Baharudin, R.; Ishak, M.; Muhamad Yusof, A.; Saidin, S.; Syafruddin, S.E.; Wan Mohamad Nazarie, W.F.; Lee, L.H.; Ab Mutalib, N.S. Epigenome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling in Colorectal Cancer and Normal Adjacent Colon Using Infinium Human Methylation 450K. Diagnostics; 2022; 12, 198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010198]
71. Paweł, K.; Maria Małgorzata, S. CpG Island Methylator Phenotype-A Hope for the Future or a Road to Nowhere?. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2022; 23, 830. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23020830]
72. Khoury, M.J.; Bowen, M.S.; Clyne, M.; Dotson, W.D.; Gwinn, M.L.; Green, R.F.; Kolor, K.; Rodriguez, J.L.; Wulf, A.; Yu, W. From public health genomics to precision public health: A 20-year journey. Genet. Med. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Genet.; 2018; 20, pp. 574-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.211]
73. Khoury, M.J. No Shortcuts on the Long Road to Evidence-Based Genomic Medicine. JAMA; 2017; 318, pp. 27-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.6315] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28570728]
74. Khoury, M.J. Precision Medicine vs Preventive Medicine. JAMA; 2019; 321, 406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18636] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30694310]
75. Khoury, M.J.; Engelgau, M.; Chambers, D.A.; Mensah, G.A. Beyond Public Health Genomics: Can Big Data and Predictive Analytics Deliver Precision Public Health?. Public Health Genom.; 2018; 21, pp. 244-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000501465] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31315115]
76. Tomczak, K.; Czerwinska, P.; Wiznerowicz, M. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): An immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemp. Oncol.; 2015; 19, pp. A68-A77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5114/wo.2014.47136]
77. Colaprico, A.; Silva, T.C.; Olsen, C.; Garofano, L.; Cava, C.; Garolini, D.; Sabedot, T.S.; Malta, T.M.; Pagnotta, S.M.; Castiglioni, I. et al. TCGAbiolinks: An R/Bioconductor package for integrative analysis of TCGA data. Nucleic Acids Res.; 2016; 44, e71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1507]
78. Liu, Y.; Qiu, P. Integrative analysis of methylation and gene expression data in TCGA. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Workshop on Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics (GENSIPS); Washington, DC, USA, 2–4 December 2012; pp. 1-4.
79. Silva, T.C.; Colaprico, A.; Olsen, C.; D’Angelo, F.; Bontempi, G.; Ceccarelli, M.; Noushmehr, H. TCGA Workflow: Analyze cancer genomics and epigenomics data using Bioconductor packages. F1000 Res.; 2016; 5, 1542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8923.1]
80. Silva, T.C.; Colaprico, A.; Olsen, C.; Malta, T.M.; Bontempi, G.; Ceccarelli, M.; Berman, B.P.; Noushmehr, H. TCGAbiolinksGUI: A graphical user interface to analyze cancer molecular and clinical data. F1000 Res.; 2018; 7, 439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14197.1]
81. Babenko, V.N.; Chadaeva, I.V.; Orlov, Y.L. Genomic landscape of CpG rich elements in human. BMC Evol. Biol.; 2017; 17, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0864-0]
82. Chen, J.J.; Wang, A.Q.; Chen, Q.Q. DNA methylation assay for colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Biol. Med.; 2017; 14, pp. 42-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0082]
83. Morris, T.J.; Beck, S. Analysis pipelines and packages for Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip (450k) data. Methods; 2015; 72, pp. 3-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.08.011]
84. Sandoval, J.; Heyn, H.A.; Moran, S.; Serra-Musach, J.; Pujana, M.A.; Bibikova, M.; Esteller, M. Validation of a DNA methylation microarray for 450,000 CpG sites in the human genome. Epigenetics; 2011; 6, pp. 692-702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4161/epi.6.6.16196]
85. Ritchie, M.E.; Phipson, B.; Wu, D.; Hu, Y.; Law, C.W.; Shi, W.; Smyth, G.K. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic. Acids Res.; 2015; 43, e47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv007]
86. Jaffe, A.E.; Murakami, P.; Lee, H.; Leek, J.T.; Fallin, M.D.; Feinberg, A.P.; Irizarry, R.A. Bump hunting to identify differentially methylated regions in epigenetic epidemiology studies. Int. J. Epidemiol.; 2012; 41, pp. 200-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr238] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22422453]
87. Lent, S.; Xu, H.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Sarnowski, C.; Hivert, M.F.; Dupuis, J. Comparison of novel and existing methods for detecting differentially methylated regions. BMC Genet.; 2018; 19, 84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12863-018-0637-4]
88. Hibler, E.; Huang, L.; Andrade, J.; Spring, B. Impact of a diet and activity health promotion intervention on regional patterns of DNA methylation. Clin. Epigenet.; 2019; 11, 133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-019-0707-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31506096]
89. Huang, G.; Cheng, W.; Xi, F. Integrated genomic and methylation profile analysis to identify candidate tumor marker genes in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncol. Lett.; 2019; 18, pp. 4503-4514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10799] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31611959]
90. Slieker, R.; Bos, S.; Goeman, J.; Bovee, J.; Talens, R.; Breggen, R.; Suchiman, E.; Lameijer, E.; Putter, H.; van den Akker, E. et al. Identification and systematic annotation of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions using Illumina 450k chips. Epigenet. Chromatin; 2013; 6, 26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-8935-6-26]
91. Zhang, B.; Hong, X.; Ji, H.; Tang, W.Y.; Kimmel, M.; Ji, Y.; Pearson, C.; Zuckerman, B.; Surkan, P.J.; Wang, X. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and cord blood DNA methylation: New insight on sex differences and effect modification by maternal folate levels. Epigenetics; 2018; 13, pp. 505-518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2018.1475978]
92. Bamford, S.; Dawson, E.; Forbes, S.; Clements, J.; Pettett, R.; Dogan, A.; Flanagan, A.; Teague, J.; Futreal, P.A.; Stratton, M.R. et al. The COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer) database and website. Br. J. Cancer; 2004; 91, pp. 355-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601894]
93. Forbes, S.A.; Beare, D.; Boutselakis, H.; Bamford, S.; Bindal, N.; Tate, J.; Cole, C.G.; Ward, S.; Dawson, E.; Ponting, L. et al. COSMIC: Somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res.; 2017; 45, pp. D777-D783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1121]
94. Kent, W.J.; Sugnet, C.W.; Furey, T.S.; Roskin, K.M.; Pringle, T.H.; Zahler, A.M.; Haussler, D. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res.; 2002; 12, pp. 996-1006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.229102] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12045153]
95. Huang, D.W.; Sherman, B.T.; Lempicki, R.A. Bioinformatics enrichment tools: Paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res.; 2009; 37, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn923] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033363]
96. Dasgupta, A.; Sun, Y.V.; König, I.R.; Bailey-Wilson, J.E.; Malley, J.D. Brief review of regression-based and machine learning methods in genetic epidemiology: The Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 experience. Genet. Epidemiol.; 2011; 35, pp. S5-S11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gepi.20642] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22128059]
97. Grinberg, N.F.; Orhobor, O.I.; King, R.D. An evaluation of machine-learning for predicting phenotype: Studies in yeast, rice, and wheat. Mach Learn.; 2020; 109, pp. 251-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10994-019-05848-5]
98. Song, L.; Langfelder, P.; Horvath, S. Random generalized linear model: A highly accurate and interpretable ensemble predictor. BMC Bioinform.; 2013; 14, 5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-5]
99. Afzali, M.H.; Sunderland, M.; Stewart, S.; Masse, B.; Seguin, J.; Newton, N.; Teesson, M.; Conrod, P. Machine-learning prediction of adolescent alcohol use: A cross-study, cross-cultural validation. Addiction; 2019; 114, pp. 662-671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14504] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30461117]
100. Ogutu, J.O.; Schulz-Streeck, T.; Piepho, H.P. Genomic selection using regularized linear regression models: Ridge regression, lasso, elastic net and their extensions. BMC Proc.; 2012; 6, S10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-6-S2-S10]
101. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Multimodel Inference:Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociol. Methods Res.; 2004; 33, pp. 261-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644]
102. Chase, E.C.; Boonstra, P.S. Accounting for established predictors with the multistep elastic net. Stat. Med.; 2019; 38, pp. 4534-4544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.8313]
103. Waldmann, P.; Mészáros, G.; Gredler, B.; Fuerst, C.; Sölkner, J. Evaluation of the lasso and the elastic net in genome-wide association studies. Front. Genet.; 2013; 4, 270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00270]
104. Xiao, J.; Ding, R.; Xu, X.; Guan, H.; Feng, X.; Sun, T.; Zhu, S.; Ye, Z. Comparison and development of machine learning tools in the prediction of chronic kidney disease progression. J. Transl. Med.; 2019; 17, 119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1860-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971285]
105. Cui, Z.; Gong, G. The effect of machine learning regression algorithms and sample size on individualized behavioral prediction with functional connectivity features. Neuroimage; 2018; 178, pp. 622-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.001]
106. Kirpich, A.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Wedow, J.M.; Newman, J.R.B.; Michailidis, G.; McIntyre, L.M. Variable selection in omics data: A practical evaluation of small sample sizes. PLoS ONE; 2018; 13, e0197910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197910] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29927942]
107. Wen, H.; Li, Y.; Xi, Y.; Jiang, S.; Stratton, S.; Peng, D.; Tanaka, K.; Ren, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wu, J. et al. ZMYND11 links histone H3.3K36me3 to transcription elongation and tumour suppression. Nature; 2014; 508, pp. 263-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13045] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24590075]
108. Li, S.; Lu, X.; Chi, P.; Pan, J. Identification of HOXB8 and KLK11 expression levels as potential biomarkers to predict the effects of FOLFOX4 chemotherapy. Future Oncol.; 2013; 9, pp. 727-736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fon.13.25]
109. Wang, Z.; Song, J.; Milne, T.A.; Wang, G.G.; Li, H.; Allis, C.D.; Patel, D.J. Pro isomerization in MLL1 PHD3-bromo cassette connects H3K4me readout to CyP33 and HDAC-mediated repression. Cell; 2010; 141, pp. 1183-1194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.05.016] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20541251]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Zhao-Feng, Chen 2
; Grayson, James 3
; Shyang-Yun Pamela Koong Shiao 4
1 College of Nursing, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
2 Bachelor Degree Program in Pet Healthcare, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu 30015, Taiwan, China;
3 Hull College of Business, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA;
4 Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA;