Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Nat Genet. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 December 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Published online 2008 November 2. doi:  10.1038/ng.254
PMCID: PMC2748187

Lung cancer susceptibility locus at 5p15.33


We carried out a genome-wide association study of lung cancer (3,259 cases and 4,159 controls), followed by replication in 2,899 cases and 5,573 controls. Two uncorrelated disease markers at 5p15.33, rs402710 and rs2736100 were detected by the genome-wide data (P = 2 × 10-7 and P = 4 × 10-6) and replicated by the independent study series (P = 7 × 10-5 and P = 0.016). The susceptibility region contains two genes, TERT and CLPTM1L, suggesting that one or both may have a role in lung cancer etiology.

We and others have recently reported a susceptibility locus for lung cancer in gene region 15q25, an area that includes a cluster of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor genes1-3. In order to identify further susceptibility gene loci, we genotyped an additional 1,291 cases and 1,561 controls from three further studies (Toronto case-control study, HUNT2/Tromsø cohort study and CARET cohort study) for a total of 3,259 cases of lung cancer and 4,159 controls with genome-wide data (Table 1 and Supplementary Methods online). After exclusion of subjects because of genotyping quality or evidence of non-European ancestry (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Fig. 1 online), we analyzed under a log-additive model 315,194 SNPs for 2,971 lung cancer cases and 3,746 controls, adjusting for age, sex and country (Supplementary Fig. 2 online). Using principal-component analysis (Supplementary Methods) to adjust for population stratification, we found only minor differences in the estimates of risk and significance (Supplementary Table 1 online).

Table 1
Description of the seven studies contributing to the genome-wide and replication analysis

Eight SNPs exceeded the genome-wide significance level of 5 × 10-7 (Supplementary Fig. 2b and Supplementary Table 1). Seven of these are located at 15q25.1, the locus previously reported as being associated with lung cancer1-3, with the most prominent association with rs1051730 (P = 1 × 10-15). The eighth SNP, rs402710, is located at 5p15.33 (P = 2 × 10-7), indicating a potentially new susceptibility locus for lung cancer. Three additional SNPs in the 5p15.33 region showed evidence of association P < 5 × 10-6 (Supplementary Table 1). Two of these, rs31489 and rs401681, were in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs402710 (r2 > 0.680) in the 3,746 controls genotyped on the Illumina platform. In contrast, rs2736100 showed relatively little LD with rs402710 (r2 = 0.026) (Supplementary Fig. 3 online).

We subsequently genotyped rs402710 and rs2736100 using Taqman in an additional 2,899 lung cancer cases and 5,573 controls from four separate studies (Table 1 and Supplementary Methods). These included the EPIC cohort study, the Liverpool case-control study, the Szczecin lung cancer study and, uniquely for rs402710 because of limited DNA availability, additional cases and controls from the CARET cohort study. This independent sample provided evidence for replication of the initial finding for both variants (P = 7 × 10-5 for rs402710 and P = 0.016 for rs2736100). A combined association using all 5,870 cases and 9,319 controls with correction for the 315,194 comparisons in the genome-wide analysis yielded P values of 4 × 10-6 for rs402710 and 0.02 for rs2736100. The estimated allelic odds ratio (OR) in the replication series was more modest than that of the initial GWA series, subject to the `winner's curse'. The more conservative OR in replication series is the preferred estimate.

More detailed information on the association between lung cancer and the SNPs rs402710 and rs2736100 is presented in Figure 1. The risk-associated allele was the more common allele of rs402710 and the less common allele of rs2736100. The association with rs402710 was prominent in never-smokers (P = 0.01), ex-smokers (P = 0.0007) and current smokers (P = 0.0001), and there was no evidence of any heterogeneity by study, histology, age or sex. There was no apparent geographical heterogeneity in the allele frequencies of rs402710. Adjustment for smoking exposure (pack years) had no effect on the observed association with a smoking-adjusted OR per allele of 1.19 (1.12-1.26). We also investigated rs402710 in the context of smoking intensity among controls and did not observe any association between number of cigarettes consumed per day and rs402710 (p = 0.74). The effects observed with rs2736100 were similar, with the associations for the less common (risk) allele being largely comparable to those for rs402710.

Figure 1
Forest plot representing lung cancer risk and the two variants in the 5p region (rs402710 and rs2736100). Apart from the odds ratios for heterozygous and homozygous effect (*), odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are derived from the per-allele model. ...

Several lines of evidence suggest that the associations observed with rs402710 and rs2736100 are independent. We found little LD between rs402710 and rs2736100 using all available controls. After incorporation of either one of these SNPs into the logistic regression, the association with the other remained significant, and there was no change in the risk estimate (OR per allele for rs402710 = 1.17 (P = 2 × 10-8) with adjustment for rs2736100 and OR per allele for rs2736100 = 1.11 (P = 0.0004) with adjustment for rs402710). Second, when cases and controls were compared for the number of risk alleles for rs402710 and rs2736100, there was an increasing trend with increasing number of risk alleles (P = 2 × 10-13) reaching an OR of 1.65 (1.34-2.02) for those who were homozygous for both risk variants (Supplementary Table 2 online). Finally, when we imputed genotypes (Supplementary Methods) at 5p15.33 in the 2,971 cases of lung cancer and 3,746 controls with genome-wide data, we did not identify any SNPs more strongly associated with risk than rs402710 (Supplementary Table 3 online). The top 11 imputed SNPs (P < 0.0001) were genotyped subsequently in the cases and controls of central European ancestry (Supplementary Methods) and comparison of haplotype frequencies from this direct genotyping indicated that the prevalence of two distinct haplotypes differed between cases and controls (Supplementary Table 4 online). One haplotype carried the minor allele of rs402710 and eight additional SNPs in high LD (r2 > 0.644) with rs402710, and the second haplotype tagged the minor allele of both rs2736100 and a second SNP rs2736098. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that rs402710 and rs2736100, although only weakly associated with each other, are in LD with one or more causal variants in this region.

The 5p15.33 locus contains two known genes: the TERT (human telomerase reverse transcriptase) gene and the CLPTM1L (alias CRR9; cleft lip and palate transmembrane 1 like) gene. There is no clear evidence to suggest that rs2736100 or rs402710 are themselves causative alleles. The rs2736100 variant is located in intron 1 of TERT, and rs402710 is located in a region of high LD that includes the proximal and putative promoter regions of TERT, as well as the entire coding region of the CLPTM1L gene (Supplementary Fig. 3). Current knowledge of the role of these genes would seem to implicate TERT as the more plausible candidate. TERT is the reverse transcriptase component of telomerase4, making it essential for telomerase enzyme production and maintenance of telomeres5. The telomerase enzyme is responsible for telomere regeneration, and up to 90% of human tumor samples, including lung cancer6, show telomerase activity, indicating that regeneration of telomeres is a vital step for most forms of carcinogenesis7. TERT expression is actively present in germ cells, although is found in very low levels for most types of normal cells8. Activation of the TERT promoter seems to be a key step in synthesis of the TERT protein and resulting telomerase activity9. Such activity may be measured with the telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) and has been associated with both lung cancer progression and prognosis6,10,11. Inhibitors of TERT are clearly of much interest for potential chemo-prevention and treatment of cancer, although their development has so far been unsuccessful6. DNA resequencing has shown that there is little common genetic variation in the TERT coding region which, along with its high conservation between species, implies that the gene itself is under strong evolutionary restraint12. Rare mutations in the TERT coding sequence have been implicated in dyskeratosis congenita13, an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by bone marrow abnormalities, but also pulmonary fibrosis and increased risk of some cancers14.

The other gene in this region, CLPTM1L, named for its similarity to a gene implicated in susceptibility to cleft lip palate, was identified through screening for cisplatin (CDDP) resistance-related genes and was found to be upregulated in CDDP-resistant ovarian tumor cell lines and to induce apoptosis in CDDP-sensitive cells15. The CLPTM1L gene is well conserved and expressed in various tissues, including lung tissue. On the basis of these properties, it could be hypothesized that CLPTM1L induces apoptosis of lung cells under genotoxic exposures such as tobacco carcinogen-related stress.

In summary, we have identified a new susceptibility locus for lung cancer that comprises two potential candidate genes: TERT, an essential component of telomerase production and of carcinogenesis, and CLPTM1L, which may induce apoptosis. The nature of the causative alleles remains unclear. Further studies to identify the causal genetic variants and elucidate their function will aid our understanding of the etiology of lung cancer.

Supplementary Material



P. Brennan and M. Lathrop designed the study. J.D.M., R.J.H., V.G., M.B.E., A.B. and H. Blanche coordinated the preparation and inclusion of all biological samples. J.D.M., S.H. and V.G. undertook the statistical analysis. Bioinformatics analysis was undertaken by F.M., M.F. and S.H. D.Z., D.L. and I.G. coordinated the genotyping of the central Europe samples. A.M. and R.J.H. coordinated the genotyping of the Toronto samples. J.D.M., D.Z., M.D., A.C., T.A. and H.E.K. coordinated the genotyping of the other studies. All other coauthors coordinated the initial recruitment and management of the studies. M. Lathrop obtained financial support for genotyping of the central Europe study; P. Brennan, R.J.H. and H.E.K. obtained financial support for genotyping of the other studies. P. Brennan and J.D.M. drafted the manuscript with substantial contributions from R.J.H. and M. Lathrop. All authors contributed to the final paper. The authors thank all of the participants who took part in this research and the funders and support and technical staff who made this study possible. Support for the central Europe, HUNT2/Tromsø and CARET genome-wide studies and follow-up genotyping was provided by Institut National du Cancer, France. Support for the HUNT2/Tromsø genome-wide study was also provided by the European Community (Integrated Project DNA repair, grant no. LSHG-CT-2005-512113), the Norwegian Cancer Association and the Functional Genomics Programme of Research Council of Norway. Funding for the Toronto genome-wide study was provided by the Ontario Institute of Cancer Research. Funding for the Szczecin/Poland replication study was provided by European Community program "Marie-Curie Host Fellowships for the Transfer of Knowledge," grant no. MTKD-CT-2004-510114. Additional funding for study coordination, genotyping of replication studies and statistical analysis was provided by the US National Cancer Institute (R01 CA092039).


Note: Supplementary information is available on the Nature Genetics website.


1. Hung RJ, et al. Nature. 2008;452:633–637. [PubMed]
2. Amos CI, et al. Nat. Genet. 2008;40:616–622. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Thorgeirsson T, et al. Nature. 2008;452:638–642. [PubMed]
4. Weinrich SL, et al. Nat. Genet. 1997;17:498–502. [PubMed]
5. Greider CW, et al. Cell. 1985;43:405–413. [PubMed]
6. Lantuéjoul S, et al. Int. J. Cancer. 2007;120:1835–1841. [PubMed]
7. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Cell. 2000;100:57–70. [PubMed]
8. Greider CW, et al. Nature. 1989;337:331–337. [PubMed]
9. Janknecht R. FEBS Lett. 2004;564:9–13. [PubMed]
10. Mavrogiannou E, et al. Clin. Chem. 2007;53:53–61. [PubMed]
11. Wu TC, et al. Lung Cancer. 2003;41:163–169. [PubMed]
12. Savage SA, et al. Hum. Mutat. 2005;26:343–350. [PubMed]
13. Armanios M, et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:15960–15964. [PubMed]
14. Garcia CK, et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:7406–7416. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Yamamoto K, et al. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2001;280:1148–1154. [PubMed]