Back to all available

Multi-omics evidence reveals a causal role of endoplasmic reticulum stress in cancer development

bioinformatics
molecular-biology
oncology
pathology
medical-genetics

Abstract

Endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERS) plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of various diseases, but its causal involvement and therapeutic potential in cancer remain unclear. In this study, we integrated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from 18 common cancers with quantitative trait loci (cis-eQTL, cis-mQTL, and cis-pQTL) to explore the causal effects of ERS-related genes on cancer. A total of 1,350 ERS-related genes were retrieved from the GeneCards database. Mendelian randomization and Bayesian colocalization analyses were conducted to assess causality and shared genetic variants across mRNA expression, DNA methylation, and protein expression levels. External datasets were used for expression validation and diagnostic efficacy assessment. To provide experimental evidence, immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was performed to verify the expression and localization of key ERS-related genes in tumor and adjacent normal tissues. Functional enrichment, cellular localization, and drug sensitivity analyses were further applied to reveal potential biological mechanisms. We identified nine ERS-related genes and 15 methylation sites with potential causal relationships to specific cancer types. Both external validation and IHC analysis consistently confirmed the associations of CBY1, CASP8, PLOD1, and several methylation sites (cg09907170, cg09395195, cg08129017, and cg14808739) with their corresponding cancers. This comprehensive multi-omics and experimental validation study provides robust evidence supporting a causal role of ERS in cancer development and offers new insights into its molecular regulation and therapeutic potential.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].