Correction: Telomere length and genetics are independent colorectal tumour risk factors in an evaluation of biomarkers in normal bowel

Since the publication of this paper, the authors noticed that James E. East was assigned to the incorrect affiliation. The affiliation information is provided correctly, above.

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is one of the most common forms of malignancy (Ferlay et al, 2013). It is considered a complex disease, with both inherited and environmental factors involved in predisposition (Houlston and Peto, 2004). Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far identified over 30 common polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CRC and adenoma risk in the general population Tomlinson et al, 2007Tomlinson et al, , 2008Tomlinson et al, , 2011Houlston et al, 2008Houlston et al, , 2010Tenesa et al, 2008;Dunlop et al, 2012;Whiffin et al, 2014).
Screening for benign polyps and their removal by colonoscopy can reduce CRC risk . Many European countries now offer population screening programmes, based primarily on faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) (Robertson and Imperiale, 2015). Despite the effectiveness of these programmes, the burden of screening is likely to increase considerably and CRC will continue to be a major killer. It would therefore be useful to improve screening by targeting it to those at highest risk. Individualised risk prediction is generally infeasible outside the Mendelian CRC syndromes (Dunlop et al, 2013). It remains possible, however, that risk prediction is still clinically useful when applied to population-level screening because of nthe following reasons: (i) the unknown and/or unmeasurable risks are distributed among large numbers of individuals and (ii) population stratification by prior risk is an improvement on the current screening that is targeted solely by age.
Another potentially useful measure of disease risk is the intermediate molecular phenotype, since this can hypothetically capture both known and unknown factors that act through a common mechanism. For example, there are at least 7 CRC SNPs with putative effects on bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signalling, and a measure of BMP pathway activity might, therefore, capture the effects on BMP signalling of the following: (i) these SNPs, (ii) other unknown SNPs, (iii) rare variants in the same pathway, and (iv) unknown environmental factors. Other intermediate phenotypes with potential effects on CRC risk include telomere length (TL) (von Zglinicki, 2002) and DNA methylation (Ehrlich, 2002). These phenotypes have usually been assessed in a more convenient sample such as peripheral blood, rather than in the bowel itself. While many biomarkers have been postulated to predict CRC risk (Ishihara et al 2008), most of these are not established risk factors and there exist relatively few previous studies of intermediate molecular markers (Alexander et al, 2017).
The polygenic risk score (PRS) -a quantitative score of susceptibility caused by common genetic variants (Dudbridge, 2013) -is another measure of CRC risk that may be clinically useful (Machiela et al, 2011). The predictive value of the CRC PRS has been assessed in previous studies (Dunlop et al, 2013;Frampton et al, 2016). However, these have only considered carcinoma risk and none included polyps or performed a prospective assessment.
In this study, we have searched for associations between a set of candidate intermediate molecular markers and case:control status in individuals undergoing colonoscopic screening for colorectal tumours. We have also assessed a PRS based on the major CRC predisposition SNPs. Our results have potential importance and clinical applicability for risk prediction models that can be used to modulate population screening for CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients and samples. Colorectal biopsies were obtained from 317 individuals of white UK origin undergoing colonoscopy in Oxford. Indications for colonoscopy included: family history of CRC (N ¼ 15); symptoms compatible with CRC (N ¼ 164); follow-up for previous polyps/CRC (N ¼ 97); FOBT-positive UK National Bowel Cancer Screening patients (N ¼ 91), and rectal prolapse or diverticulitis (N ¼ 16). B3 mm 3 biopsies of normal bowel epithelium were taken from up to three sites (rectum, distal colon and proximal colon), together with 10 ml peripheral blood. Personal and family histories of bowel disease and the basic demographic data were recorded. Participants were placed into one of the following three categories: (1) polyp cases-individuals with personal history of adenomatous and/or serrated polyps; (2) CRC cases-individuals with personal history of carcinoma; and (3) controls-individuals with no polyps or CRC in the present or past. Individuals not fulfilling these criteria or with other pathologies, such as inflammatory bowel disease, were excluded (Table 1). Ethical approval was obtained from the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee A (REC 10/H0604/72). All patients provided informed consent, according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
DNA/RNA extraction. Each biopsy was submerged in RNAlater (Life Technologies). DNA and RNA were extracted with the AllPrep DNA-RNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Manchester, UK). Where multiple biopsies had been taken from the same patient, each individual biopsy was analysed, except that for assays in which a single DNA-based measure per patient was required, where an aliquot of DNA from each available location was pooled in equal proportions. For RNA samples, an aliquot was DNase-treated and reverse transcribed into cDNA. We estimated the typical ratio of epithelium-to-mesenchyme in biopsies to be 1:1.
Two-stage design. Participants were recruited in two stages: Phase 1 (54 cases and 47 controls was collected between November 2012 and July 2013 based on the indications described above for colonoscopy; replication Phase 2, comprising 157 cases and 59 controls, was collected between July 2013 and March 2014 based on the same criteria. Phase 1 was analysed for all DNA and RNA markers (Supplementary Methods). In Phase 2, all patients were analysed for all the DNA-based markers, and a subset of 103 cases and all controls were analysed for the expression of genes that had evidence in Phase 1 of an association with case:control status at a nominal P ¼ 0.05.
Telomere length assays. We assessed telomere length (TL) in blood and bowel DNA in 262 patients using a modification of Cawthoń's method (Cawthon, 2009;Jones et al, 2012). DNA samples were run in duplicate on a CFX96 system (Bio-Rad, Watford, UK). A curve was established relating the quantity of a standard DNA to DCt for the telomere repeat and a single-copy gene (gamma haemoglobin). This provided the expected Ct value (ECt) for the telomere repeat. Corrected Ct (CorrDCt) was calculated by subtracting ECt from observed (OCt), providing a relative measure of telomere length. CorrDCt was always 40 and the higher the CorrDCt, the longer the telomere.
Molecular pathway activity assessment. Using real-time, quantitative PCR (qPCR), eight molecular pathways were investigated, which were either related to CRC development or reflecting cellular processes linked to tumourigenesis (Supplementary Table 1). To assess these, we identified 33 genes as pathway end points. Gene expression assays were conducted on an ABI900HT real-time instrument (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), using TaqMan (ThermoScientific, Waltham, MA, USA) molecular probes. As per the recommendations in the current qPCR guidelines, we optimised the normalisation procedure by choosing the best-suited set of housekeeping genes. Given that a literature search did not yield did not yield any unambiguous results, we tested 11 endogenous genes (Supplementary Table 1). The optimal set for normalisation was identified using qBase þ . Normalisation was then carried out, using a DDCt method for relative quantification.
SNP genotyping and polygenic risk scores. KASPar genotyping technology (LCGenomics) was used to generate a 25 SNP genotype profile of each of 310 patients (Supplementary Table 2). PRSs were calculated for the 293 patients with X22 successfully genotyped SNPs according to: where b is the Ln(odds ratio) for each risk allele and N is the number of risk alleles. The missing data points were substituted by the population mean.
Statistical analyses. These were performed with Stata-v.11 (StataCorp LP, TX, USA) and R (http://www.r-project.org/). For gene expression analysis, individual genes were assessed for associations with case:control status using linear regression fitted with generalised estimated equations (GEE). The activity of each pathway was then generated by carrying out principal component analysis on all gene expression variables for that pathway, and taking the first principal component as a summary pathway value. For DNA phenotypes (TL and methylation), logistic regression was fitted, adjusting by age, sex, phase and experimental batch, where appropriate. Where possible, differences between cases and controls were also evaluated separately for each of the three locations in the large bowel. False discovery rate (FDR) corrections were performed using the Benjamini & Hochberg method (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995) and significance was assumed at FDR-corrected q ¼ 0.05. Results are reported below as a metaanalysis of the two Phases, unless otherwise specified. Given the absence of evidence of heterogeneity between Phases, all variables associated with case:control status at nominal P ¼ 0.05 were then included in a reverse stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis, and variables associated with case:control status at P ¼ 0.05 were retained in the final model. Case-only analyses used multivariate logistic regression models including age, sex and phase.

RESULTS
Telomere length. After conditioning on age, which co-varied with telomere length as expected, there was an association between longer TLs in the bowel and case status (P meta ¼ 0.003; OR ¼ 2.18; 95% CI ¼ 1.30-3.67; OR Q1vsQ4 ¼ 1.92; 95% CI ¼ Q1vsQ4 ¼ 0.87-4.26). Effects in Phases 1 and 2 were consistent (Figure 1). We found no significant difference in bowel TL between the following patients: (i) with polyps at the recruitment colonoscopy or previously (P ¼ 0.590), (ii) with and without a history of CRC (P ¼ 0.284), (iii) with polyps or CRC (P ¼ 0.211), and (iv) with present or previous CRC (P ¼ 0.664). TL was also independent of family history of colorectal neoplasia (P ¼ 0.201). Within-patient analysis showed no significant variation in bowel TL by location ( Supplementary Figure 1), and this remained true when comparing within-patient TL in biopsies from locations close to the polyp/ CRC, compared with those further away (P ¼ 0.436 for proximal colon, P ¼ 0.591 for distal colon, P ¼ 0.055 for rectum).
Analyses by location showed significantly lower methylation in the proximal colon compared to the distal colon or the rectum (Supplementary Figure 5). Analyses using only the location-specific measurements of methylation did not yield any significant associations (data not shown).
Gene expression analysis. We assayed 273 samples from 100 patients for 33 selected genes from 8 pathways (Supplementary  Table 1). There was an effect of location on gene expression, with 18 out of 33 genes differentially expressed (at qp0.05) between the proximal and distal colon, 21 out of 33 between the proximal colon and rectum, and 16 out of 33 between the distal colon and rectum (Supplementary Figure 6); some genes showed monotonically decreased (ID1, ID3, OLFM4, PLK1) or increased (AXIN2, CCND1, CDK6, E2F1, EPHB2, ID2, KCNH2, KCNMA1, LRIG1, MCM2, PCBP4, SCNN1D, SCNN1G, TFDP1) levels along the proximal colon-distal colon-rectum axis (Supplementary Figure 7). Correlations between the expression of gene pairs are depicted in Supplementary Figure 8. Case:control status was not significantly associated with the expression of any individual gene at a nominal Pp0.05 (Supplementary Table 3). Pathway analysis revealed nominally higher expression of colonocyte differentiation markers in cases (P ¼ 0.010, q ¼ 0.080; Supplementary Table 4).
We then examined bowel location-specific gene expression in cases who had one or more tumours in that location vs controls with no colorectal tumour anywhere. Cases with distal colon tumour(s) had significantly higher SCNN1A expression in that location than controls (P ¼ 0.004; q ¼ 0.032; OR ¼ 4.09; 95% CI ¼ 1.56-10.76, Supplementary Figure 9). This gene showed no evidence of association with status in the other locations and no additional significant associations were found for other genes. With regards to pathway expression by location, colonocyte differentiation and Wnt levels were higher in cases in the proximal colon (q ¼ 0.040 for both). Stem cell markers and ion channels showed varying expression levels depending on the bowel segment (Supplementary Table 4).
Assessment of SNP genotypes, bowel TL and status. In logistic regression analysis conditioning on age, sex and family history, PRS was significantly higher in cases than controls (P ¼ 0.031; OR ¼ 51.1; 95% CI ¼ 1.45-1803; per quartile OR ¼ 1.22; Supplementary Figure 10). PRS was not significantly correlated with bowel TL, methylation or, interestingly, family history (P ¼ 0.134, P ¼ 0.114 and P ¼ 0.640, respectively, full data not shown).
Two of the three telomerase SNPs were significantly associated with bowel TL (for rs10936599, P ¼ 0.161; for rs2736100, P ¼ 0.009; for rs2735940, P ¼ 0.001; non-parametric trend test; Supplementary Figure 11) and also independently with case:control status. No other SNP was associated with case:control status (details not shown).

DISCUSSION
In this study, we examined whether intermediate molecular phenotypes derived from the bowel mucosa were associated with case:control status in a series of individuals undergoing colonoscopic screening for colorectal neoplasia. Such molecular markers potentially predict CRC risk and could be used to modulate population screening. Our principal finding was that cases with colorectal polyps or CRC had longer bowel telomeres, independent of other risk factors. There is a controversy about the effects of telomere length on the risk of many cancers, including CRC (Quin et al, 2014;Seguí et al, 2014), but almost all studies have measured telomere length in peripheral blood. Our finding of no correlation between telomere length in the colorectum and blood may help to explain the inconsistent results of previous studies. Despite the assay's speed and simplicity, telomere measurements from the mixed population of cells in peripheral blood may be inappropriate for predicting cancer risk.
SNPs rs2736100 and rs2735940 near TERT and rs10936599 near TERC f have been associated with CRC risk (Houlston et al, 2010;Kinnersley et al, 2012;Yang et al 2015), but associations with normal bowel TL length have not been explored. rs2735940 and rs2736100 were significantly associated with bowel TL and each was also independently associated with case:control status, consistent with previous reports (Hofer et al, 2012).
It has been posited that hypermethylation, resulting from ageing or environmental causes, is a cause of increased cancer risk (Ehrlich, 2002). However, most studies have investigated methylation levels in circulating blood cells. In our study, we found borderline significant differences in global methylation levels between cases and controls. A true association might have been missed due to the fact that our global methylation measure was too general and did not sufficiently capture finer differential methylation patterns in CpG islands and other regions. In addition, the proximal colon had significantly less methylation than the distal colon and rectum, potentially influencing tumourigenic pathways in the different regions of the large bowel (Bufill, 1990).
Gene expression analysis throughout the colorectum detected no significant associations with case:control status for individual genes, and only a nominal association for molecular pathways in the case of colonocyte differentiation markers. Given the nonuniform gene expression patterns observed throughout the bowel for many of the genes analysed (LaPointe et al, 2008), we performed association analyses in each location independently and found that expression of SCNN1A in the distal colon was different between cases and controls. SCNN1A is a potential marker of differentiation and encodes a membrane calcium channel that plays an essential role in maintaining the osmotic gradient in the intestinal epithelium. We were a little surprised, given the importance of variation in the BMP pathway for CRC risk, that we found no evidence of differential activity in this pathway between cases and controls. Many explanations are possible, including limited assay sensitivity, sub-optimal choice of target genes, and spatial and temporal heterogeneity in gene expression.
Our study's conclusions should be interpreted in the light of limitations and potential confounding factors. While the association between status and bowel TL could have been caused by the presence of tumour(s) rather than vice versa, we found no evidence of this, as there were no significant differences between TL in cases with incident CRC or polyps and previous tumours. Moreover, it seems unlikely that polyps could have major effects on sampled normal mucosa that can be more than a metre away in the large bowel, and indeed we did not observe significant intra-patient differences when comparing TL in biopsies close to and distant from a tumour. Second, the fact that both gene expression and global methylation vary throughout the large bowel suggests that location-specific risk models may be more powerful. Our exploratory analyses (details not shown) have demonstrated that because patients frequently have polyp(s) in only one bowel location, location-specific risk models are required with larger sample sets in order to provide adequate statistical power. Third, we caution that, although we deliberately used simple biopsies without the separation of epithelium and mesenchyme, because these represent the sample type most likely to be available in a clinical setting, our measurements were derived from a mixed cellular population, potentially affecting all assays except the PRS. Fourth, the performance of the PRS is likely to be improved in the future by taking into account recently discovered predisposition loci (Zeng et al, 2016, amongst others) and polymorphisms specific to the risks of adenomas, serrated polyps and CRC.  In summary, we have shown the potential value of using intermediate molecular markers, and the independent value of the PRS, for predicting colorectal tumour risk. Our data also show the virtues of using biomarkers derived from the colorectum rather than blood. Bowel cancer screening programmes are increasingly using colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy as a primary modality and rectal biopsies could be obtained safely from participants at limited cost and subjected to molecular analyses that could then be incorporated into algorithms for subsequent screening. While additional studies are required, we suggest that stratification by prior risk could offer a way to improve the cost-effectiveness of population-level large bowel cancer screening populations, whether by prioritising patientsat highest risk or modulating thresholds for further investigation after screening by FIT.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ r The Author(s) named above 2018 Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on British Journal of Cancer website (http://www.nature.com/bjc)