Article | Open | Published:

Identification of nine new susceptibility loci for endometrial cancer

Nature Communicationsvolume 9, Article number: 3166 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Endometrial cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer of the female reproductive tract in developed countries. Through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), we have previously identified eight risk loci for endometrial cancer. Here, we present an expanded meta-analysis of 12,906 endometrial cancer cases and 108,979 controls (including new genotype data for 5624 cases) and identify nine novel genome-wide significant loci, including a locus on 12q24.12 previously identified by meta-GWAS of endometrial and colorectal cancer. At five loci, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analyses identify candidate causal genes; risk alleles at two of these loci associate with decreased expression of genes, which encode negative regulators of oncogenic signal transduction proteins (SH2B3 (12q24.12) and NF1 (17q11.2)). In summary, this study has doubled the number of known endometrial cancer risk loci and revealed candidate causal genes for future study.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer accounts for ~7% of new cancer cases in women1 and is the most common invasive gynecological cancer in developed countries (http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home). Risk of endometrial cancer is approximately double for women who have a first degree relative with endometrial cancer2,3. Rare high-risk pathogenic variants in mismatch-repair genes, PTEN, and DNA polymerase genes4 explain a small proportion of endometrial cancers, and the eight previously published common endometrial cancer-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) studies5,6,7,8 together explain <5% of the familial relative risk (FRR).

Here, we conduct a meta-GWAS including 12,906 endometrial cancer cases and 108,979 country-matched controls of European ancestry from 17 studies identified via the Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium (ECAC), the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium (E2C2) and the UK Biobank and report a further nine genome-wide significant endometrial cancer genetic risk regions. One of these risk regions on 12q24.12 was previously identified by meta-GWAS of endometrial and colorectal cancer9. eQTL and gene network analyses reveal candidate causal genes and pathways relevant for endometrial carcinogenesis.

Results

GWAS meta-analysis

Details of genotyping for each study are found in Supplementary Data 1 and individual studies described in the Supplementary Information. Following standard quality control (QC) for each dataset (Supplementary Methods), genotypes were imputed using the 1000 Genomes Project v3 reference panel (combined with the UK10K reference panel for the WHI and UK Biobank studies). SNP-disease associations in each study were tested using logistic regression, adjusting for principal components, and risk estimates were combined using inverse-variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis. We found little evidence of genomic inflation in any dataset (λ1000 = 0.996–1.128) or overall (λ1000 = 1.004) (Supplementary Fig. 1). Using linkage disequalibrium (LD) score regression, we estimate that 93% of the observed test statistic inflation is due to polygenic signal, as opposed to population stratification.

Seven of the eight published genome-wide significant endometrial cancer loci were confirmed with increased significance (Table 1, Fig. 1a), although the effect sizes for some loci were slightly attenuated compared with our previous analysis (comprising 7737 cases and 37,144 controls7, all also included in the current analysis). For example, the most significant SNP in this meta-analysis, rs11263761 intronic in HNF1B, had an odds ratio (OR) = 1.15 (1.12–1.19; P = 3.2 × 10−20), compared with OR = 1.20 (1.15–1.25; P = 2.8 × 10−19) in our previous analysis7. The previously reported associations with intronic AKT1 SNPs (rs2498796 OR = 1.17 (1.07–1.17); P = 3.6 × 10−8)6,10 did not reach genome-wide significance (rs2498796 OR = 1.07 (1.03–1.11) P = 6.3 × 10−5, Bayes false discovery probability (BFDP) 98%) in this meta-analysis, although the risk estimate direction is consistent with our original finding.

Table 1 Meta-analysis results for previously identified genome-wide significant endometrial cancer risk loci
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Manhattan plot of the results of the endometrial cancer meta-analysis of 12,906 cases and 108,979 controls. Genetic variants are plotted according to chromosome and position (x axis) and statistical significance (y axis). The red line marks the 5 × 10−8 GWAS significance threshold. a Endometrial cancer (all histologies). b Endometrial cancer (all histologies) excluding variants within 500 kb of previously published endometrial cancer variants. c Endometrioid histology endometrial cancer excluding variants within 500 kb of previously published endometrial cancer variants. d Non-endometrioid histology endometrial cancer

Excluding the 500 kb, either side of the risk loci previously reported at genome-wide significance for endometrial cancer alone, we found 125 SNPs with P < 5 × 10−8. Using approximate conditional association testing with GCTA software11, these were resolved into nine independent risk loci; eight newly reported regions, plus the 12q24.12 locus previously identified by a joint endometrial-colorectal cancer analysis9 (Table 2, Fig. 1b, Fig. 2a–i). The BFDP was ≤4% for all nine novel loci. The analysis was repeated with the restricted set of 8758 cases with endometrioid cancer, the most common histology (Fig. 1c); this identified one additional variant at 7p14.3 reaching genome-wide significance (rs9639594; Supplementary Data 2). However, given the sparse LD at this region and the fact that this is a single, imputed variant, further investigation of this region is required to confirm its association with endometrial cancer risk. No SNP reached genome-wide significance in an analysis restricted to the 1230 non-endometrioid cases (Fig. 1d) or in separate analyses of carcinosarcomas, serous, clear cell or mucinous carcinomas, for which statistical power is very limited (Supplementary Data 2, Supplementary Fig. 2).

Table 2 Meta-analysis results for newly identified genome-wide significant endometrial cancer risk loci
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Regional association plots for the nine novel endometrial cancer loci. –log10(p) from the fixed-effects meta-analysis is on the left y axis, recombination rate (cM/Mb) is on the right y axis (plotted as blue lines). The color of the circles shows the level of linkage disequilibrium between each variant and the most significantly associated variant (purple diamond) (r2 from the 1000 Genomes 2014 EUR reference panel—see key). Genes in the region are shown beneath each plot. a 1p34.3, b 2p16.1, c 9p21.3, d 11p13, e 12p12.1, f 12q24.11, g 12q24.21, h 17q11.2, i 17q21.32

For these nine newly reported endometrial cancer loci, a statistically significant difference in risk estimates by histological subgroup was observed only for the 2p16.1 locus; the risk was higher for non-endometrioid than for endometrioid cancer (rs148261157 OR = 1.64 (1.32–2.04) and OR = 1.25 (1.14–1.38), respectively, case-only Pf = 0.003, Table 2). There was no evidence of secondary signals at any of these nine loci after conditioning on the most significant variant. There was no significant between-study heterogeneity (minimum Cochran Q-test Phet = 0.04, maximum I2 = 41%, Supplementary Fig. 3), and random-effects meta-analyses produced very similar results (Supplementary Data 2). Twenty-five additional independent loci showed moderately significant (P < 1 × 10−6) associations, nine with endometrial cancer overall, nine specifically with endometrioid histology, and seven with non-endometrioid histology (Supplementary Data 2).

Overlap with published GWAS associations

Using a 100:1 likelihood ratio, “credible causal risk” variants (ccrSNPs) were compiled for each of the nine new endometrial cancer risk loci (Supplementary Data 3). These included 239 variants located in non-coding regions, 2 missense variants (rs2278868 SKAP1 Gly161Ser and rs3184504 SH2B3 Trp262Arg), and 1 synonymous variant (rs1129506 EVI2A Ser23Ser). Comparing to the NHGRI-EBI catalog of published GWAS, 37 SNPs previously associated with a cancer, hormonal trait, or anthropometric trait fall within 500 kb of any one of the novel endometrial cancer SNPs. However, the only overlap from the set of ccrSNPs with other traits was the colorectal and endometrial cancer susceptibility SNP rs3184504 in SH2B3 (Supplementary Data 4).

eQTL analyses

LD score regression analyses using eQTL results from GTEx12 showed that endometrial cancer heritability exhibited the strongest evidence for enrichment for variants associated with genes specifically expressed in vaginal and uterine tissue, in line with prior assumptions, although none of the tissue-specific enrichments were significant (weighted regression with jackknife standard errors) after Bonferroni correction, adjusting for the number of tissues tested (Supplementary Fig. 4). eQTL analyses were performed using data from a variety of tissue sources (Supplementary Methods), including endometrial tumor and adjacent normal endometrium tissue from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)13, normal cycling endometrium14 and, in view of the GTEx enrichment results, vaginal and uterine tissue. Additionally, we assessed eQTLs from whole blood15, which provided substantially increased power over solid tissue analyses due to increased sample size. eQTLs were detected at five of the nine novel loci (Supplementary Data 3, Supplementary Data 5, Supplementary Figs. 513, Table 2).

Gene network analysis

Network analysis was performed using candidate causal genes identified in this study, in addition to candidate causal genes identified in previous studies6,7,8 (Supplementary Data 6). One major network was identified, containing 18 of the 25 candidate causal genes (Supplementary Fig. 14). Network hubs included CCND1, CTNNB1, and P53, which are encoded by genes that are somatically mutated in endometrial cancer13. Analysis of the network revealed significant enrichment (Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted P < 0.05, hypergeometric test) in relevant pathways such as endometrial cancer signaling, adipogenesis, Wnt/β-catenin signaling, estrogen-mediated S-phase entry, P53 signaling, and PI3K/AKT signaling (Supplementary Data 7).

Functional annotation of ccrSNPs

Next, ccrSNPs were mapped to epigenomic features from endometrial cancer cell lines (Supplementary Data 3, Supplementary Figs. 513). Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-seq) was used to map histone modifications indicative of promoters or enhancers (H3K4Me1, H3K4Me3, and H3K27Ac) in two endometrial cancer cell lines (Ishikawa and JHUEM-14). Mapping of DNaseI hypersensitivity sites (indicative of open chromatin) and ChIP-seq data for transcription factor binding sites from Ishikawa cells were accessed from ENCODE16. We also included mapping of H3K427Ac histone modifications for uterus and vagina from ENCODE. Overall, 73% of ccrSNPs overlapped at least one epigenomic feature, including at least one ccrSNP per novel risk region. This overlap was significantly greater than the overlap observed for these epigenomic features with ccrSNPs related to, for example, endometriosis17 (51%; Fisher’s exact P = 8.7 × 10−8) or schizophrenia18 (40%; Fisher’s exact P < 2.2 × 10−16). These findings indicate the relevance of the selected cell and tissue types for informing endometrial cancer biology and a role for the assessed epigenomic features in regulatory processes related to the ccrSNPs. Overlaps between ccrSNPs and epigenomic features increased significantly after stimulation with estrogen (50% versus 38% for unstimulated features; Fisher’s exact P = 5.6 × 10−3), emphasizing the importance of estrogen in endometrial cancer etiology.

Mendelian randomization analyses

This expanded meta-analysis allowed us to strengthen our previous Mendelian randomization findings19,20 that higher body mass index (BMI) (P = 1.7 × 10−11, two-sample inverse-variance weighted Mendelian randomization (MR) test), but not waist:hip ratio (P = 0.71), is causal for endometrial cancer (Table 3) and that the protective effect of later menarche on endometrial cancer risk (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.77–0.87 per year of delayed menarche, P = 2.2 × 10−9) is partially mediated by the known relationship between lower BMI and later menarche, with a more modest protective effect of later menarche after adjusting for genetically predicted BMI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82–0.94, P = 3.8 × 10−4). The association between genetically predicted age at natural menopause and endometrial cancer did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.06, P = 0.060). In contrast to the reported effects for breast and prostate cancer21,22, we found no evidence that genetically predicted adult height is associated with endometrial cancer (P = 0.90).

Table 3 Effects of genetically predicted anthropometric and reproductive traits on risk of endometrial cancer

Genetic correlation analyses

Cross-trait LD score regression of 224 non-cancer traits available via the LD Hub interface23, identified significant genetic correlations between endometrial cancer and 14 traits. All of these are either a measure of obesity or are strongly and significantly (correlation-corrected jackknife P < 10−12) genetically correlated with BMI (i.e., age of menarche, type 2 diabetes, and years of schooling) (Supplementary Data 8), in line with the established relationship between obesity and endometrial cancer risk.

Discussion

In the largest GWAS meta-analysis assessing endometrial cancer risk, we discovered nine new genetic risk regions. We also confirmed the association of genetic variants with endometrial cancer risk at seven of the eight previously published genetic risk regions for this disease5,6,7,8. Using this larger GWAS-meta dataset, we were also able to confirm the previously published Mendelian randomization studies finding that higher BMI is causal for endometrial cancer risk20, and the protective effect of later age of menarche on endometrial cancer risk19. Genetic correlation analyses also indicated a relationship between endometrial cancer and obesity-related traits.

Candidate causal genes identified through eQTLs included CDCA8 (1p34.3), a putative ovarian cancer oncogene24, which encodes an essential regulator of mitosis and cell division25; RCN1 (11p13), encoding a calcium-binding protein that binds oncoproteins such as JAK226 and MYC27; WT1-AS (11p13), a long non-coding RNA that regulates the WT1 oncogene28,29; SH2B3 (12p24.11) encoding a negative regulator of the oncogenic KIT and JAK2 signal transduction proteins30; and tumor suppressor gene NF1 (17q11.2) encoding a negative regulator of RAS-mediated signal transduction31, which acquires putative driver mutations in TCGA endometrial tumors (http://www.cbioportal.org/study?id=ucec_tcga). Notably, the highly significant eQTL associations between ccrSNPs and expression of SH2B3 (linear regression P ≥ 5.62 × 10−20) and NF1 (P ≥ 1.32 × 10−56) in blood revealed risk alleles to be associated with decreased gene expression for both loci, consistent with the role of these genes in tumor development.

Intersections of ccrSNPs with epigenomic marks mapped in endometrial cancer cell lines, uterine tissue, and vaginal tissue found more endometrial cancer ccrSNPs overlapped with these features than ccrSNPs for endometriosis17 or schizophrenia18. These findings highlight the relevance of these tissues for functional studies of endometrial cancer biology. Given the established role of estrogen in endometrial carcinogenesis32, it is perhaps not surprising that endometrial cancer ccrSNPs exhibited greater overlap with epigenomic features present after estrogen stimulation. However, this finding provides evidence that functional studies of endometrial cancer should be performed under these conditions.

Using LD score regression, we estimated that ~28% of the approximately twofold FRR of endometrial cancer could be explained by variants, which can be reliably imputed from OncoArray genotypes. The common endometrial cancer variants identified to date together explain up to 6.8% of the FRR, including 2.7% contributed by the nine additional variants reported here; this may be an overestimate, given that the ORs for the new loci likely include some upwards bias (the so-called winner’s curse). In summary, we have doubled the number of endometrial cancer risk loci, explaining around one quarter (6.9%/28%) of the portion of the FRR attributable to common, readily-imputable SNPs. Furthermore, eQTL analyses have identified candidate causal genes and pathways related to tumor development for follow-up studies that will provide further insight into endometrial cancer biology.

Methods

Study samples

Analyses were based on 13 studies of endometrial cancer, of which four studies contributed case samples to more than one genotyping project. Data were also included from the E2C2 consortium of 45 separate studies. All participants were of European ancestry. Data from the E2C2 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and from the ANECS, SEARCH, NSECG GWASs and the iCOGS project have been previously published, and are described in de Vivo et al.33 and Cheng et al.6, respectively.

The OncoArray study

The “OncoArray” genotyping chip34 contains 533,631 variants, around half of which were selected to provide a “GWAS backbone,” with the remaining variants selected on the basis of prior evidence of association with cancer or a cancer-related trait. The OncoArray chip was used to genotype 5061 endometrial cancer cases from ten studies in Australia, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, UK, and USA. Genotyping was carried out at two sites: the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR; nine studies) and The University of Melbourne (one study). Details of the genotype calling are given in Amos et al.34

SNP-wise QC was conducted using genotype data from all consortia participating in the OncoArray experiment34. SNPs with call rate <95% in any of the consortia, SNPs not in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) (P < 10−7 in controls and P < 10−12 in cases) and SNPs with concordance <98% among 5280 duplicate pairs of samples were excluded, leaving 483,972 SNPs. Prior to imputation, SNPs with minor allele frequency (MAF) <1% and call rate <98% in any consortium were also excluded, as were SNPs that could not be linked to the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel or for which the MAF differed significantly from the European reference panel frequency. A further 1128 SNPs were excluded after review of cluster plots, hence 469,364 SNPs were used in the imputation.

The 5061 OncoArray-genotyped endometrial cancer cases were country-matched to controls who had been genotyped in an identical process as part of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium35,36. Samples with call rate <95%, with excessively low or high heterozygosity or with an estimated proportion of European ancestry <80% (based on a principal components analysis of 2318 informative markers and with reference to the HapMap populations) were excluded, as were suspected males and individuals who were XO or XXY.

Duplicates and close relatives were identified from estimated genomic kinship matrices. Pairwise comparisons were made among all samples genotyped as part of the OncoArray, iCOGS, or ANECS/SEARCH/NSECG GWAS genotyping projects. Where pairs of duplicates or close relatives were identified between projects, the sample with the more recent genotyping was retained, hence the numbers of cases included here from the ANECS/SEARCH/NSECG GWASs and iCOGS projects are lower than in the original publications. For case–control pairs from within the same project, the case was preferentially retained, and for case–case or control–control pairs, the sample with the higher call rate was used. Following these exclusions, OncoArray genotypes from 4710 cases and 19,438 controls were included in the analyses.

All OncoArray samples (along with all samples from the ANECS/SEARCH/NSECG GWASs and the iCOGS project) were imputed using the October 2014 (version 3) release of the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel. Samples were phased using SHAPEITv237 and genotypes were imputed using the IMPUTEv238 software for non-overlapping 5-Mb intervals. Analyses were restricted to the ~11.4 million SNPs with MAF >0.5% and r2 > 0.4.

Other studies

The 2695 cases and 2777 controls from the E2C2 consortium were genotyped using the Illumina Human OmniExpress array (2271 cases, 2219 controls from the United States) or the Illumina Human 660W array (424 cases, 558 controls from Poland)33 and both sets were separately imputed to the 1000 Genomes Project v3 reference panel using “minimac2” software, following standard quality control steps38,39.

The 288 cases from six population-based case–control studies within the Women’s Health Initiative were genotyped using five different arrays (Supplementary Data 1) and were each separately imputed using the combined 1000 Genome Project v3 and UK10K reference panels using “minimac2” software39, following standard quality measures and the exclusion of SNPs with a MAF <1%. Five controls for each case were selected randomly, matched on study.

Data were also included from the first phase of UK Biobank genotyping, comprising 636 Cancer Registry-confirmed endometrial cancer cases (as of October 2016) and 62,853 cancer-free female controls. Samples were genotyped using Affymetrix UK BiLEVE Axiom array and Affymetrix UK Biobank Axiom® array and imputed to the combined 1000 Genome Project v3 and UK10K reference panels using SHAPEIT340 and IMPUTE341.

No analyses to identify duplicates or relatives between samples from the E2C2, WHI, or UK Biobank studies, and any other study were carried out. However, given the sampling frame of these studies, it is very unlikely that there would have been any meaningful sample overlap.

After QC exclusions, the analysis included 12,906 endometrial cancer cases (3613 of which have not been included in any previous publication) and 108,979 controls. Analyses were also carried out specifically for endometrial cancer of endometrioid histology (8758 cases) and endometrial cancer with non-endometrioid histology (1230 cases). Exploratory analyses for specific non-endometrioid histologies (serous carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, and mucinous carcinoma) included a small number of cases of mixed histotype, where the major component was non-endometrioid. The UK Biobank data did not include information about histology.

All participating studies were approved by research ethics committees from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, University-Clinic Erlangen, Karolinska Institutet, UZ Leuven, The Mayo Clinic, The Hunter New England Health District, The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics Norway, and the UK National Research Ethics Service (04/Q0803/148 and 05/MRE05/1). All participants provided written, informed consent.

Statistical analyses

Per-allele ORs and the s.e. of the logORs were computed using logistic regression for each of the ANECS, SEARCH, NSECG, WHI, and UK Biobank GWASs, for the two E2C2 GWASs and, by country, for the iCOGS and OncoArray studies, giving a total of 17 strata. Case-only analyses were used to assess heterogeneity in SNP effects by histology (endometrioid histology versus non-endometrioid histology). In the OncoArray analysis, potential population stratification was adjusted for using the first nine principal components; these were estimated using data for 33,661 uncorrelated SNPs with MAF >0.05 and pairwise r2 < 0.1 (including 2318 SNPs specifically selected as informative for continental ancestry) using purpose-written software (http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/software/pccalc). Other studies were similarly adjusted for their relevant principal components.

Analyses were carried out using SNPTEST42 for the ANECS, SEARCH, and NSECG GWASs, using ProbABEL43 for the E2C2 GWASs, and using in house software for the iCOGS, OncoArray, WHI, and UK Biobank studies. We assessed residual population stratification by computing the test statistic inflation adjusted to a sample size of 1000 cases and 1000 controls (λ1000s), both overall and with each strata, using 33,278 uncorrelated SNPs (r2 < 0.1). The overall λ1000 was 1.004, with stratum-specific λ1000’s between 0.996 and 1.128 (observed for the smallest strata, the German iCOGS dataset; Supplementary fig. 1).

The estimated ORs from the different studies were combined in a fixed-effects inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis using the “meta” software44. For each variant, results from any strata for which the imputation information score was <0.4, the MAF <0.005 or the OR >3 or <0.333 were excluded. Following the meta-analysis, SNPs with valid results in fewer than two of the strata, or with between-strata heterogeneity P < 5 × 10−8 were also excluded, leaving 11.7 million SNPs. A random-effects meta-analysis was also carried out.

Using the conventional 5 × 10−8 genome-wide significance threshold, all SNPs lying within ± 500 kb of a significant SNP were initially considered as part of that locus. Approximate conditional analysis in the GCTA program11,45 with an LD reference panel of 4000 OncoArray-genotyped control subjects were then used to look for additional independently associated SNPs within each locus. Only uncorrelated (r2 < 0.05) secondary signals were included. The only locus with evidence of significant signals after conditioning on the most strongly associated SNP was the previously published 8q24 locus6 (Table 1). For each locus, the set of credible causal risk SNPs (ccrSNPs) was defined as those variants within ± 500 kb of the most significant SNP and for which the likelihood from the association analysis was no less than one hundredth the likelihood of the most significant SNP (i.e., odds of <1 : 100). A BFDP for each significant SNP was estimated on the basis of a maximum plausible OR of 1.5 and a prior probability of association of 0.000146.

The proportion of the FRR of endometrial cancer due to the identified variants was estimated using a log-additive model, where pj, βj, and τj are the MAF, logOR, and se(logOR), respectively for variant j, and λ = 2 is the reported FRR of endometrial cancer. The effect estimates used were those estimated in the current study, both for the new loci and for the loci replicated from previous studies.

$${{{\rm{Proportion}}\,{\rm{FRR}}}} = \frac{1}{{\ln \left( \lambda \right)}}\mathop {\sum}\limits_j {p_j( {1 - p_j} ) ( {\beta _j^2 - \tau _j^2} )}.$$

The proportion of the endometrial cancer FRR that can be explained by all SNPs is given by the frailty-scale heritability, hf2, divided by 2ln(λ). This was estimated using LD score regression47, based on the full set of meta-analysis summary estimates, restricted to those SNPs present on the HapMap v3 dataset with MAF >1% and imputation quality R2 > 0.9 in the OncoArray imputation using the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 reference panel. The frailty-scale heritability (as opposed to the observed-scale heritability) was obtained by replacing the total sample, N, for each study with an effective sample size Nj for SNP j, which effectively weights each SNP according to its frequency and the variance of the effect estimate, i.e.,

$$N_j{\mathrm{ = }}\frac{1}{{2p_j\left( {1 - p_j} \right)\tau _j^2}}.$$

Cross-trait LD score regression via the LD Hub interface (28 September 2017, v1.4.1) was used to estimate the genetic correlations between endometrial cancer and 224 traits from 24 categories23.

The casual effects of five anthropometric or reproductive factors on the risks of endometrial cancer were estimated using two-sample summary statistic inverse-variance weighted MR analyses48. Instrumental variables for each factor consisted of the most recent set of published GWAS-significant SNPs for that trait; 77 SNPs for body mass index (BMI)49, 47 SNPs for waist:hip ratio50, 814 SNPs for adult height51,52, 54 SNPs for age at natural menopause53, and 368 SNPs for age at menarche19. A multivariable MR adjusting for the effects of the 368 menarche SNPs on BMI (a potential mediator) was used to estimate the direct effect of menarche on endometrial cancer, not via BMI54.

Cell culture

Ishikawa and JHUEM-14 cells were a gift from Prof PM Pollock (Queensland University of Technology). Cell lines were authenticated using STR profiling and confirmed to be negative for mycoplasma contamination. Ishikawa cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM; Life Technologies #1195-065) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and antibiotics (100 IU/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin). JHUEM-14 cells were cultured in DMEM/F12 medium (Life Technologies #11320-033) with 10% FBS and antibiotics.

Cell fixing and chromatin shearing

Ishikawa and JHUEM-14 cells were plated on to 10-cm tissue culture dishes in phenol red-free DMEM (Sigma-Aldrich #D1145) supplemented with l-glutamine, sodium pyruvate, and 10% charcoal-dextran-stripped FBS. Three days later, media were replaced and cells incubated with fresh medium containing either 10 nM estradiol or DMSO (vehicle control) for 3 h. Cells were washed twice with PBS and fixed at room temperature in 1% formaldehyde in PBS. After 10 min, cells were placed on ice and washed twice with ice-cold PBS. The reaction was quenched with 10 mM DTT in 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 9.4) and cells removed from the dish with a cell scraper. Cells were incubated at 30 °C for 15 min, then spun for 5 min at 2000×g. Cells were washed sequentially with ice-cold PBS, buffer I (0.25% Triton X-100, 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA, 10 mM HEPES, pH 6.5) and buffer II (200 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA, 10 mM HEPES, pH 6.5) and centrifuged for 5 min at 2000×g at 4 °C. Cells were resuspended in 300–750 μl of lysis buffer (1% SDS, 10 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.1, with complete protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma-Aldrich #11836145001)). Ishikawa cells were sonicated for eight cycles (10 s) and JHUEM-14 cells for 20 cycles using the highest power setting of a Branson Digital Sonifier SLPt. After chromatin shearing was confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis, samples were centrifuged for 10 min at 4 °C.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing

Samples were diluted 10-fold in 1% Triton X-100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris.HCl (pH 8.1), and 150 mM NaCl with complete protease inhibitor cocktail. Magna ChIP protein A/G magnetic beads (EMD Millipore #16-663) were added to 500 μl of diluted chromatin and incubated with 5 μg of antibody overnight at 4 °C. Antibodies to H3K4Me1 (Abcam #ab8895), H3K4Me3 (Abcam #ab8580), and H3K27Ac (Abcam #ab4729) were used (Supplementary Table 1). The next day supernatant was removed and the beads washed three times with the following ice-cold buffers: RIPA 150 (0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.10, 150 mM NaC1, 0.1% sodium deoxycholate), RIPA 500 (0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.10, 500 mM NaC1, 0.1% sodium deoxycholate), LiCl RIPA (500 mM LiCl, 1% NP-40, 1% deoxycholate, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.1)), and TE buffer. Chromatin was then eluted by incubating beads overnight at 60 °C with 100 μl of elution buffer (1% SDS, 100 mM NaHCO3) and 0.5 mg/ml proteinase K. The next day beads were incubated at 95 °C for 10 min and supernatant removed. Chromatin was purified using the QIAquick Spin kit (QIAGEN) and eluted from columns using 50 μl of QIAGEN EB buffer. DNA was quantified using a Qubit dsDNA HS Assay kit (ThermoFisher Scientific).

Samples from two biological replicates for each treatment were sent to the Australian Genome Research Facility (Melbourne, Australia) for library preparation and sequencing (Illumina HiSeq 2500) with 50 bp reads. Mapping and analysis of ChIP-seq reads were performed using the ENCODE analysis pipeline, histone ChIP-seq Unary Control (GRCh37), with DNAnexus software tools (https://dnanexus.com). Replicated peaks across biological replicates were used for downstream analyses.

eQTL analyses

Summary eQTL results for non-cancer tissue were obtained using uterine (N = 70) and vaginal (N = 79) tissue-specific data generated by the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx)12, an endometrium eQTL dataset (N = 123) provided by Fung et al.14, and a blood eQTL dataset (males and females; N = 5311)15.

Data from endometrial cancer tumors and adjacent normal endometrial tissue were accessed from The Cancer Genome Atlas13. Patient germ line SNP genotypes (Affymetrix 6.0 arrays) and tissue expression RNA-seq data were downloaded through the controlled access portal, while epidemiological and tumor tissue copy-number data were downloaded through the public access portal. RNA-seq data were aligned and expression quantified to reads per kilobase per million (RPKM) as described in Painter et al.10 and quality control performed on the germ line SNP genotypes as per Carvajal-Carmona et al.55 Complete genotype, RNA-seq, and copy-number data were available for 277 genetically European patients (218 with endometrioid histology, 29 with adjacent normal tissue).

Germ line genotypes underwent further quality control before imputation to the 1000 Genomes Phase 3v5 reference panel by Eagle v2.356, using the Michigan Imputation Server57. Briefly, subjects were removed for genotype missingness >10% and SNPs were removed for missingness >10%, MAF <5%, and HWE P-value <5 × 10−8. SNPs were also removed if they were indels or non-biallelic variants, were ambiguous SNPs with a MAF >40%, were not matched to the reference panel, had a MAF difference with the reference panel of >20%, or were duplicates.

Genes with a median expression level of 0 RPKM across samples were removed, and the RPKM values of each gene were log2-transformed and samples were quantile normalized. The expression of the genes located within a 2-Mb window surrounding the ccrSNP at each of the newly identified risk loci were extracted from the expression dataset.

The associations between ccrSNPs and gene expression in all endometrial cancer tumor tissues, endometrioid endometrial cancer tissues only, and adjacent normal endometrial tissue, were evaluated using linear regression models using the MatrixEQTL program in R58, adjusting for sequencing platform. Tumor tissue expression was also adjusted for copy-number variation, as previously described in Li et al.59 A false discovery rate of <20% was used to report eQTL results from all datasets, except for the endometrium eQTL dataset where we used a P-value <0.01.

Candidate causal gene network analysis

Candidate causal genes identified in our previous studies and from the eQTL results in the current study (Supplementary Table 6) were analyzed using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (QIAGEN; accessed on 23 March 2018 and available at www.qiagen.com/ingenuity) to define gene networks and enrichment of genes in canonical signaling pathways.

Data availability

OncoArray germ line genotype data for the ECAC studies and E2C2 germ line genotype data have been deposited through the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP; accession number phs000893.v1.p1). Meta-GWAS summary statistics are available from the authors by request. Genotype data for non-cancer controls were provided by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) by application to the BCAC Data Access Coordination Committee (http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/). ChIP-seq data are available from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) under accession number GSE113818.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

  • 03 September 2018

    This Article was originally published without the accompanying Peer Review File. This file is now available in the HTML version of the Article; the PDF was correct from the time of publication.

References

  1. 1.

    Ferlay, J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 136, E359–E386 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Win, A. K., Reece, J. C. & Ryan, S. Family history and risk of endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 125, 89–98 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Johnatty, S. E. et al. Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch syndrome: implications for genetic counselling. Gynecol. Oncol. 147, 381–387 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Spurdle, A. B., Bowman, M. A., Shamsani, J. & Kirk, J. Endometrial cancer gene panels: clinical diagnostic vs research germline DNA testing. Mod. Pathol. 30, 1048–1068 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Chen, M. M. et al. GWAS meta-analysis of 16852 women identifies new susceptibility locus for endometrial cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet. 25, 2612–2620 (2016).

  6. 6.

    Cheng, T. H. et al. Five endometrial cancer risk loci identified through genome-wide association analysis. Nat. Genet. 48, 667–674 (2016).

  7. 7.

    Painter, J. N. et al. Fine-mapping of the HNF1B multicancer locus identifies candidate variants that mediate endometrial cancer risk. Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 1478–1492 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Thompson, D. J. et al. CYP19A1 fine-mapping and Mendelian randomization: estradiol is causal for endometrial cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 23, 77–91 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Cheng, T. H. et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies common susceptibility polymorphisms for colorectal and endometrial cancer near SH2B3 and TSHZ1. Sci. Rep. 5, 17369 (2015).

  10. 10.

    Painter, J. N. et al. A common variant at the 14q32 endometrial cancer risk locus activates AKT1 through YY1 binding. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 1159–1169 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Yang, J., Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E. & Visscher, P. M. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88, 76–82 (2011).

  12. 12.

    GTEx Consortium. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat. Genet. 45, 580–585 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497, 67–73 (2013).

  14. 14.

    Fung, J. N. et al. The genetic regulation of transcription in human endometrial tissue. Hum. Reprod. 32, 893–904 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Westra, H. J. et al. Systematic identification of trans eQTLs as putative drivers of known disease associations. Nat. Genet. 45, 1238–1243 (2013).

  16. 16.

    ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Sapkota, Y. et al. Meta-analysis identifies five novel loci associated with endometriosis highlighting key genes involved in hormone metabolism. Nat. Commun. 8, 15539 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature 511, 421–427 (2014).

  19. 19.

    Day, F. R. et al. Genomic analyses identify hundreds of variants associated with age at menarche and support a role for puberty timing in cancer risk. Nat. Genet. 49, 834–841 (2017).

  20. 20.

    Painter, J. N. et al. Genetic risk score mendelian randomization shows that obesity measured as body mass index, but not waist:hip ratio, is causal for endometrial cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 25, 1503–1510 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Zhang, B. et al. Height and breast cancer risk: evidence from prospective studies and Mendelian randomization. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107, djv219 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Khankari, N. K. et al. Association between adult height and risk of colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer: results from meta-analyses of prospective studies and mendelian randomization analyses. PLoS Med. 13, e1002118 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Zheng, J. et al. LD Hub: a centralized database and web interface to perform LD score regression that maximizes the potential of summary level GWAS data for SNP heritability and genetic correlation analysis. Bioinformatics 33, 272–279 (2017).

  24. 24.

    Wrzeszczynski, K. O. et al. Identification of tumor suppressors and oncogenes from genomic and epigenetic features in ovarian cancer. PLoS ONE 6, e28503 (2011).

  25. 25.

    Ruchaud, S., Carmena, M. & Earnshaw, W. C. Chromosomal passengers: conducting cell division. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 798–812 (2007).

  26. 26.

    So, J. et al. Integrative analysis of kinase networks in TRAIL-induced apoptosis provides a source of potential targets for combination therapy. Sci. Signal. 8, rs3 (2015).

  27. 27.

    Agrawal, P., Yu, K., Salomon, A. R. & Sedivy, J. M. Proteomic profiling of Myc-associated proteins. Cell Cycle 9, 4908–4921 (2010).

  28. 28.

    McCarty, G. & Loeb, D. M. Hypoxia-sensitive epigenetic regulation of an antisense-oriented lncRNA controls WT1 expression in myeloid leukemia cells. PLoS ONE 10, e0119837 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Moorwood, K. et al. Antisense WT1 transcription parallels sense mRNA and protein expression in fetal kidney and can elevate protein levels in vitro. J. Pathol. 185, 352–359 (1998).

  30. 30.

    Devalliere, J. & Charreau, B. The adaptor Lnk (SH2B3): an emerging regulator in vascular cells and a link between immune and inflammatory signaling. Biochem. Pharmacol. 82, 1391–1402 (2011).

  31. 31.

    Rad, E. & Tee, A. R. Neurofibromatosis type 1: fundamental insights into cell signalling and cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 52, 39–46 (2016).

  32. 32.

    Setiawan, V. W. et al. Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors? J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2607–2618 (2013).

  33. 33.

    De Vivo, I. et al. Genome-wide association study of endometrial cancer in E2C2. Hum. Genet. 133, 211–224 (2014).

  34. 34.

    Amos, C. I. et al. The OncoArray Consortium: a network for understanding the genetic architecture of common cancers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 26, 126–135 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Michailidou, K. et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 551, 92–94 (2017).

  36. 36.

    Milne, R. L. et al. Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 49, 1767–1778 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Delaneau, O., Marchini, J., 1000 Genomes Project Consortium & 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. Integrating sequence and array data to create an improved 1000 Genomes Project haplotype reference panel. Nat. Commun. 5, 3934 (2014).

  38. 38.

    Howie, B., Fuchsberger, C., Stephens, M., Marchini, J. & Abecasis, G. R. Fast and accurate genotype imputation in genome-wide association studies through pre-phasing. Nat. Genet. 44, 955–959 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Fuchsberger, C., Abecasis, G. R. & Hinds, D. A. minimac2: faster genotype imputation. Bioinformatics 31, 782–784 (2015).

  40. 40.

    O’Connell, J. et al. Haplotype estimation for biobank-scale data sets. Nat. Genet. 48, 817–820 (2016).

  41. 41.

    Bycroft, C. et al. Genome-wide genetic data on ~500,000 UK Biobank participants. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/20/166298 (2017).

  42. 42.

    Marchini, J. & Howie, B. Genotype imputation for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 499–511 (2010).

  43. 43.

    Aulchenko, Y. S., Struchalin, M. V. & van Duijn, C. M. ProbABEL package for genome-wide association analysis of imputed data. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 134 (2010).

  44. 44.

    Liu, J. Z. et al. Meta-analysis and imputation refines the association of 15q25 with smoking quantity. Nat. Genet. 42, 436–440 (2010).

  45. 45.

    Yang, J. et al. Conditional and joint multiple-SNP analysis of GWAS summary statistics identifies additional variants influencing complex traits. Nat. Genet. 44, 369–375 (2012).

  46. 46.

    Wakefield, J. A Bayesian measure of the probability of false discovery in genetic epidemiology studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 208–227 (2007).

  47. 47.

    Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 291–295 (2015).

  48. 48.

    Burgess, S., Dudbridge, F. & Thompson, S. G. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat. Med. 35, 1880–1906 (2016).

  49. 49.

    Locke, A. E. et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature 518, 197–206 (2015).

  50. 50.

    Shungin, D. et al. New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution. Nature 518, 187–196 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Wood, A. R. et al. Defining the role of common variation in the genomic and biological architecture of adult human height. Nat. Genet. 46, 1173–1186 (2014).

  52. 52.

    Marouli, E. et al. Rare and low-frequency coding variants alter human adult height. Nature 542, 186–190 (2017).

  53. 53.

    Day, F. R. et al. Large-scale genomic analyses link reproductive aging to hypothalamic signaling, breast cancer susceptibility and BRCA1-mediated DNA repair. Nat. Genet. 47, 1294–1303 (2015).

  54. 54.

    Burgess, S. et al. Dissecting causal pathways using Mendelian randomization with summarized genetic data: application to age at menarche and risk of breast cancer. Genetics 207, 481–487 (2017).

  55. 55.

    Carvajal-Carmona, L. G. et al. Candidate locus analysis of the TERT-CLPTM1L cancer risk region on chromosome 5p15 identifies multiple independent variants associated with endometrial cancer risk. Hum. Genet. 134, 231–245 (2015).

  56. 56.

    Loh, P. R. et al. Reference-based phasing using the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. Nat. Genet. 48, 1443–1448 (2016).

  57. 57.

    Das, S. et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat. Genet. 48, 1284–1287 (2016).

  58. 58.

    Shabalin, A. A. Matrix eQTL: ultra fast eQTL analysis via large matrix operations. Bioinformatics 28, 1353–1358 (2012).

  59. 59.

    Li, Q. et al. Integrative eQTL-based analyses reveal the biology of breast cancer risk loci. Cell 152, 633–641 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the many individuals who participated in this study and the numerous institutions and their staff who supported recruitment, detailed in full in the Supplementary Information. The iCOGS and OncoArray endometrial cancer analysis were supported by NHMRC project grants (ID#1031333 and ID#1109286) to A.B.S., D.F.E., A.M.D., D.J.T., and I.T. A.B.S. (APP1061779), P.M.W., and T.A.O’.M. (APP1111246) are supported by the NHMRC Fellowship scheme. A.M.D. was supported by the Joseph Mitchell Trust. I.T. is supported by Cancer Research UK and the Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Center. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. OncoArray genotyping of ECAC cases was performed with the generous assistance of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). We particularly thank the efforts of Cathy Phelan. The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project was funded through grants from the US National Institutes of Health (CA1X01HG007491-01 (Christopher I. Amos), U19-CA148112 (Thomas A. Sellers), R01-CA149429 (Catherine M. Phelan), and R01-CA058598 (Marc T. Goodman)); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-86727 (Linda E. Kelemen)); and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (Andrew Berchuck). CIDR genotyping for the Oncoarray was conducted under contract 268201200008I. OncoArray genotyping of the BCAC controls was funded by Genome Canada Grant GPH-129344, NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563.

ANECS recruitment was supported by project grants from the NHMRC (ID#339435), The Cancer Council Queensland (ID#4196615), and Cancer Council Tasmania (ID#403031 and ID#457636). SEARCH recruitment was funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124). Stage 1 and stage 2 case genotyping was supported by the NHMRC (ID#552402, ID#1031333). Control data were generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), and a full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the data is available from the WTCCC website. We acknowledge use of DNA from the British 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the Medical Research Council grant G0000934 and the Wellcome Trust grant 068545/Z/02—funding for this project was provided by the Wellcome Trust under award 085475. NSECG was supported by the EU FP7 CHIBCHA grant, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics Core Grant 090532/Z/09Z, and CORGI was funded by Cancer Research UK. We thank Nick Martin, Dale Nyholt, and Anjali Henders for access to GWAS data from QIMR Controls. Recruitment of the QIMR controls was supported by the NHMRC. The University of Newcastle, the Gladys M Brawn Senior Research Fellowship scheme, The Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation, the Hunter Medical Research Institute, and the Hunter Area Pathology Service all contributed toward the costs of establishing the Hunter Community Study.

The Bavarian Endometrial Cancer Study (BECS) was partly funded by the ELAN fund of the University of Erlangen. The Hannover-Jena Endometrial Cancer Study was partly supported by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The Leuven Endometrium Study (LES) was supported by the Verelst Foundation for endometrial cancer. The Mayo Endometrial Cancer Study (MECS) and Mayo controls (MAY) were supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of United States Public Health Service (R01 CA122443, P30 CA15083, P50 CA136393, and GAME-ON the NCI Cancer Post-GWAS Initiative U19 CA148112), the Fred C and Katherine B Andersen Foundation, the Mayo Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund with support of the Smith family, in memory of Kathryn Sladek Smith. MoMaTEC received financial support from a Helse Vest Grant, the University of Bergen, Melzer Foundation, The Norwegian Cancer Society (Harald Andersens legat), The Research Council of Norway and Haukeland University Hospital. The Newcastle Endometrial Cancer Study (NECS) acknowledges contributions from the University of Newcastle, The NBN Children’s Cancer Research Group, Ms. Jennie Thomas, and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. RENDOCAS was supported through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (numbers: 20110222, 20110483, 20110141 and DF07015), The Swedish Labor Market Insurance (number 100069), and The Swedish Cancer Society (number 11 0439). The Cancer Hormone Replacement Epidemiology in Sweden Study (CAHRES, formerly called The Singapore and Swedish Breast/Endometrial Cancer Study; SASBAC) was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR), the US National Institutes of Health, and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the US National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C). This work was also funded by NCI U19 CA148065-01.

The Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) is supported by the NCI, NIH Grants Number UM1 CA186107, P01 CA087969, R01 CA49449, 1R01 CA134958, and 2R01 CA082838. We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. We assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. We also thank Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Finally, we also acknowledge Pati Soule and Hardeep Ranu for their laboratory assistance. The Connecticut Endometrial Cancer Study was supported by NCI, NIH Grant Number RO1CA98346. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) is supported by NCI, NIH Grant Number NIH RO1 CA105212, RO1 CA 87538, RO1 CA75977, RO3 CA80636, NO1 HD23166, R35 CA39779, KO5 CA92002, and funds from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) is supported by the NCI, NHI Grants Number CA54281, CA128008, and 2R01 CA082838. The California Teachers Study (CTS) is supported by NCI, NIH Grant Number 2R01 CA082838, R01 CA91019, and R01 CA77398, and contract 97-10500 from the California Breast Cancer Research Fund. The Polish Endometrial Cancer Study (PECS) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is supported by the Extramural and the Intramural Research Programs of the NCI.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts, HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN268201600004C. This manuscript was prepared in collaboration with investigators of the WHI, and has been reviewed and/or approved by the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). WHI investigators are listed at https://www.whi.org/researchers/Documents%20%20Write%20a%20Paper/WHI%20Investigator%20Short%20List.pdf.

The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014). The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under applications 5122 and 9797. We gratefully acknowledge the TCGA endometrial cancer consortium for providing samples, tissues, data processing, and making data and results available. Additional funding for individual control groups is detailed in the Supplementary Information.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Amanda B. Spurdle, Deborah J. Thompson.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, 4006, QLD, Australia

    • Tracy A. O’Mara
    • , Dylan M. Glubb
    • , Grant W. Montgomery
    •  & Amanda B. Spurdle
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    • Frederic Amant
    • , Daniela Annibali
    •  & Jeroen Depreeuw
  3. John Hunter Hospital, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia

    • Katie Ashton
    • , John Attia
    • , Elizabeth G. Holliday
    •  & Rodney J. Scott
  4. University of Newcastle, Centre for Information Based Medicine, Callaghan, 2308, NSW, Australia

    • Katie Ashton
    •  & Rodney J. Scott
  5. University of Newcastle, Discipline of Medical Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, Callaghan, 2308, NSW, Australia

    • Katie Ashton
    •  & Rodney J. Scott
  6. University of Newcastle, Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine and Public Health, Callaghan, 2308, NSW, Australia

    • John Attia
    • , Elizabeth G. Holliday
    •  & Mark McEvoy
  7. Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, 98109, WA, USA

    • Paul L. Auer
  8. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Zilber School of Public Health, Milwaukee, 53205, WI, USA

    • Paul L. Auer
  9. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center ER-EMN, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    • Matthias W. Beckmann
    • , Peter A. Fasching
    •  & Alexander Hein
  10. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, 20892, MD, USA

    • Amanda Black
    • , Louise Brinton
    • , Stephen J. Chanock
    • , Montserrat García-Closas
    • , Zhaoming Wang
    • , Nicolas Wentzensen
    •  & Hannah P. Yang
  11. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK

    • Manjeet K. Bolla
    • , Joe Dennis
    • , Kyriaki Michailidou
    • , Paul D. P. Pharoah
    • , Douglas F. Easton
    •  & Deborah J. Thompson
  12. Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, 70376, Germany

    • Hiltrud Brauch
  13. University of Tübingen, Tübingen, 72074, Germany

    • Hiltrud Brauch
  14. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Hiltrud Brauch
    •  & Hermann Brenner
  15. Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Hermann Brenner
  16. Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Hermann Brenner
  17. Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, VIC, Australia

    • Daniel D. Buchanan
    • , Mark Clendenning
    •  & Melissa C. Southey
  18. The University of Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, 3010, VIC, Australia

    • Daniel D. Buchanan
    • , Graham G. Giles
    • , John L. Hopper
    •  & Roger L. Milne
  19. Genetic Medicine and Family Cancer Clinic, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, 3010, VIC, Australia

    • Daniel D. Buchanan
  20. Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Parkville, 3010, VIC, Australia

    • Daniel D. Buchanan
    •  & Mark Clendenning
  21. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Barbara Burwinkel
  22. Molecular Epidemiology Group, C080, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Barbara Burwinkel
  23. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany

    • Jenny Chang-Claude
  24. University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Cancer Epidemiology, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), Hamburg, 20246, Germany

    • Jenny Chang-Claude
  25. Epidemiology Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, 98109, WA, USA

    • Chu Chen
  26. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

    • Maxine M. Chen
    • , Marta Crous-Bous
    • , David J. Hunter
    • , Constance Turman
    • , Peter Kraft
    •  & Immaculata De Vivo
  27. University of Oxford, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK

    • Timothy H. T. Cheng
    • , Maggie Gorman
    • , Angela Jones
    • , Claire Palles
    •  & Ian Tomlinson
  28. University of Sydney, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney, 2145, NSW, Australia

    • Christine L. Clarke
  29. University of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, 87131, NM, USA

    • Linda S. Cook
  30. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, T2N 4N2, AB, Canada

    • Linda S. Cook
    •  & Christine M. Friedenreich
  31. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, MN, USA

    • Fergus J. Couch
  32. Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Institute for Nucleic Acids (SInFoNiA), Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

    • Angela Cox
  33. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

    • Marta Crous-Bous
    • , Susan E. Hankison
    • , Jennifer Prescott
    •  & Immaculata De Vivo
  34. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171 65, Sweden

    • Kamila Czene
    •  & Per Hall
  35. University of Cambridge, MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK

    • Felix Day
    •  & John R. B. Perry
  36. VIB, Vesalius Research Center, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    • Jeroen Depreeuw
  37. Department of Human Genetics, University of Leuven, Laboratory for Translational Genetics, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    • Jeroen Depreeuw
    •  & Diether Lambrechts
  38. Cancer Research Huntsman Cancer Institute Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 84112, UT, USA

    • Jennifer Anne Doherty
  39. Gynaecology Research Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, 30625, Germany

    • Thilo Dörk
    •  & Peter Hillemanns
  40. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Rochester, 55905, MN, USA

    • Sean C. Dowdy
  41. Department of Gynaecology, Jena University Hospital - Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, 07743, Germany

    • Matthias Dürst
    •  & Ingo Runnebaum
  42. Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    • Arif B. Ekici
  43. Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Los Angeles, 90095, CA, USA

    • Peter A. Fasching
  44. Department of Biostatistics, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, 66160, KS, USA

    • Brooke L. Fridley
  45. Curtin University, School of Public Health, Perth, 6102, WA, Australia

    • Lin Fritschi
  46. University of Queensland, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Brisbane, 4072, QLD, Australia

    • Jenny Fung
    •  & Grant W. Montgomery
  47. Institute of Cancer Research, Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, London, SM2 5NG, UK

    • Montserrat García-Closas
  48. American Cancer Society, Epidemiology Research Program, Atlanta, 30303, GA, USA

    • Mia M. Gaudet
  49. Cancer Epidemiology and Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia

    • Graham G. Giles
    •  & Roger L. Milne
  50. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, 3004, VIC, Australia

    • Graham G. Giles
  51. Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Division of Epidemiology, Rochester, 55905, MN, USA

    • Ellen L. Goode
  52. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, 90033, CA, USA

    • Christopher A. Haiman
    • , Loreall Pooler
    • , V. Wendy Setiawan
    • , Xin Sheng
    • , David VanDen Berg
    •  & Lucy Xia
  53. Department of Oncology, South General Hospital, Stockholm, 118 83, Sweden

    • Per Hall
  54. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, 01003, MA, USA

    • Susan E. Hankison
  55. Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK

    • Catherine S. Healey
    • , Mitul Shah
    • , Jonathan P. Tyrer
    • , Paul D. P. Pharoah
    • , Alison M. Dunning
    •  & Douglas F. Easton
  56. Department of Clinical Genetics, St George’s, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK

    • Shirley Hodgson
  57. Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Centre for Cancer Biomarkers, Bergen, 5020, Norway

    • Erling A. Hoivik
    • , Camilla Krakstad
    • , Jone Trovik
    •  & Henrica M. J. Werner
  58. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, 5021, Norway

    • Erling A. Hoivik
    • , Camilla Krakstad
    • , Jone Trovik
    •  & Henrica M. J. Werner
  59. Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

    • David J. Hunter
    •  & Peter Kraft
  60. Department of Cancer Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Radiumhospitalet, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo, 0379, Norway

    • Vessela N. Kristensen
  61. University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, 0450, Norway

    • Vessela N. Kristensen
  62. Department of Clinical Molecular Biology, University of Oslo, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, 0450, Norway

    • Vessela N. Kristensen
  63. VIB, VIB Center for Cancer Biology, Leuven, 3001, Belgium

    • Diether Lambrechts
  64. Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, 96813, HI, USA

    • Loic Le Marchand
    •  & Herbert Yu
  65. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, 10065, NY, USA

    • Xiaolin Liang
    •  & Irene Orlow
  66. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171 76, Sweden

    • Annika Lindblom
    •  & Emma Tham
  67. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, M. Sklodowska-Curie Cancer Center-Oncology Institute, Warsaw, 02-034, Poland

    • Jolanta Lissowska
  68. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, 37232, TN, USA

    • Jirong Long
    • , Xiao-Ou Shu
    •  & Wei Zheng
  69. Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, 06510, CT, USA

    • Lingeng Lu
    •  & Harvey A. Risch
  70. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, 33612, FL, USA

    • Anthony M. Magliocco
  71. University of Birmingham, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    • Lynn Martin
    •  & Ian Tomlinson
  72. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, 80336, Germany

    • Alfons Meindl
  73. Department of Electron Microscopy/Molecular Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus

    • Kyriaki Michailidou
  74. Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171 76, Sweden

    • Miriam Mints
  75. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, 95817, CA, USA

    • Rami Nassir
  76. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, 222 42, Sweden

    • Håkan Olsson
  77. University of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, Callaghan, 2308, NSW, Australia

    • Geoffrey Otton
    •  & Tony Proietto
  78. Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK

    • Julian Peto
  79. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

    • Timothy R. Rebbeck
  80. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

    • Timothy R. Rebbeck
  81. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women’s Hospital, Gynaecology Research Centre, Parkville, 3052, VIC, Australia

    • Peter A. W. Rogers
  82. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    • Matthias Rübner
  83. Center for Cancer Prevention (CPO-Peimonte), Turin, 10126, Italy

    • Carlotta Sacerdote
  84. Human Genetics Foundation (HuGeF), Turino, 10126, Italy

    • Carlotta Sacerdote
  85. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, 53715, WI, USA

    • Gloria E. Sarto
  86. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, 44106, OH, USA

    • Fredrick Schumacher
  87. John Hunter Hospital, Division of Molecular Medicine, Pathology North, Newcastle, 2308, NSW, Australia

    • Rodney J. Scott
  88. Monash University, Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Clayton, 3168, VIC, Australia

    • Melissa C. Southey
  89. Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK

    • Anthony J. Swerdlow
  90. Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK

    • Anthony J. Swerdlow
  91. Karolinska Institutet, Clinical Genetics, Stockholm, 171 76, Sweden

    • Emma Tham
  92. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, MN, USA

    • Celine Vachon
  93. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    • Adriaan Vanderstichele
  94. Department of Population Health, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, 4006, QLD, Australia

    • Penelope M. Webb
  95. Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, 55905, MN, USA

    • Stacey J. Winham
  96. Department of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Stockholm, 171 77, Sweden

    • Alicja Wolk
  97. Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes, Shanghai, China

    • Yong-Bing Xiang

Authors

  1. Search for Tracy A. O’Mara in:

  2. Search for Dylan M. Glubb in:

  3. Search for Frederic Amant in:

  4. Search for Daniela Annibali in:

  5. Search for Katie Ashton in:

  6. Search for John Attia in:

  7. Search for Paul L. Auer in:

  8. Search for Matthias W. Beckmann in:

  9. Search for Amanda Black in:

  10. Search for Manjeet K. Bolla in:

  11. Search for Hiltrud Brauch in:

  12. Search for Hermann Brenner in:

  13. Search for Louise Brinton in:

  14. Search for Daniel D. Buchanan in:

  15. Search for Barbara Burwinkel in:

  16. Search for Jenny Chang-Claude in:

  17. Search for Stephen J. Chanock in:

  18. Search for Chu Chen in:

  19. Search for Maxine M. Chen in:

  20. Search for Timothy H. T. Cheng in:

  21. Search for Christine L. Clarke in:

  22. Search for Mark Clendenning in:

  23. Search for Linda S. Cook in:

  24. Search for Fergus J. Couch in:

  25. Search for Angela Cox in:

  26. Search for Marta Crous-Bous in:

  27. Search for Kamila Czene in:

  28. Search for Felix Day in:

  29. Search for Joe Dennis in:

  30. Search for Jeroen Depreeuw in:

  31. Search for Jennifer Anne Doherty in:

  32. Search for Thilo Dörk in:

  33. Search for Sean C. Dowdy in:

  34. Search for Matthias Dürst in:

  35. Search for Arif B. Ekici in:

  36. Search for Peter A. Fasching in:

  37. Search for Brooke L. Fridley in:

  38. Search for Christine M. Friedenreich in:

  39. Search for Lin Fritschi in:

  40. Search for Jenny Fung in:

  41. Search for Montserrat García-Closas in:

  42. Search for Mia M. Gaudet in:

  43. Search for Graham G. Giles in:

  44. Search for Ellen L. Goode in:

  45. Search for Maggie Gorman in:

  46. Search for Christopher A. Haiman in:

  47. Search for Per Hall in:

  48. Search for Susan E. Hankison in:

  49. Search for Catherine S. Healey in:

  50. Search for Alexander Hein in:

  51. Search for Peter Hillemanns in:

  52. Search for Shirley Hodgson in:

  53. Search for Erling A. Hoivik in:

  54. Search for Elizabeth G. Holliday in:

  55. Search for John L. Hopper in:

  56. Search for David J. Hunter in:

  57. Search for Angela Jones in:

  58. Search for Camilla Krakstad in:

  59. Search for Vessela N. Kristensen in:

  60. Search for Diether Lambrechts in:

  61. Search for Loic Le Marchand in:

  62. Search for Xiaolin Liang in:

  63. Search for Annika Lindblom in:

  64. Search for Jolanta Lissowska in:

  65. Search for Jirong Long in:

  66. Search for Lingeng Lu in:

  67. Search for Anthony M. Magliocco in:

  68. Search for Lynn Martin in:

  69. Search for Mark McEvoy in:

  70. Search for Alfons Meindl in:

  71. Search for Kyriaki Michailidou in:

  72. Search for Roger L. Milne in:

  73. Search for Miriam Mints in:

  74. Search for Grant W. Montgomery in:

  75. Search for Rami Nassir in:

  76. Search for Håkan Olsson in:

  77. Search for Irene Orlow in:

  78. Search for Geoffrey Otton in:

  79. Search for Claire Palles in:

  80. Search for John R. B. Perry in:

  81. Search for Julian Peto in:

  82. Search for Loreall Pooler in:

  83. Search for Jennifer Prescott in:

  84. Search for Tony Proietto in:

  85. Search for Timothy R. Rebbeck in:

  86. Search for Harvey A. Risch in:

  87. Search for Peter A. W. Rogers in:

  88. Search for Matthias Rübner in:

  89. Search for Ingo Runnebaum in:

  90. Search for Carlotta Sacerdote in:

  91. Search for Gloria E. Sarto in:

  92. Search for Fredrick Schumacher in:

  93. Search for Rodney J. Scott in:

  94. Search for V. Wendy Setiawan in:

  95. Search for Mitul Shah in:

  96. Search for Xin Sheng in:

  97. Search for Xiao-Ou Shu in:

  98. Search for Melissa C. Southey in:

  99. Search for Anthony J. Swerdlow in:

  100. Search for Emma Tham in:

  101. Search for Jone Trovik in:

  102. Search for Constance Turman in:

  103. Search for Jonathan P. Tyrer in:

  104. Search for Celine Vachon in:

  105. Search for David VanDen Berg in:

  106. Search for Adriaan Vanderstichele in:

  107. Search for Zhaoming Wang in:

  108. Search for Penelope M. Webb in:

  109. Search for Nicolas Wentzensen in:

  110. Search for Henrica M. J. Werner in:

  111. Search for Stacey J. Winham in:

  112. Search for Alicja Wolk in:

  113. Search for Lucy Xia in:

  114. Search for Yong-Bing Xiang in:

  115. Search for Hannah P. Yang in:

  116. Search for Herbert Yu in:

  117. Search for Wei Zheng in:

  118. Search for Paul D. P. Pharoah in:

  119. Search for Alison M. Dunning in:

  120. Search for Peter Kraft in:

  121. Search for Immaculata De Vivo in:

  122. Search for Ian Tomlinson in:

  123. Search for Douglas F. Easton in:

  124. Search for Amanda B. Spurdle in:

  125. Search for Deborah J. Thompson in:

Contributions

T.A.O’M., D.J.T., A.B.S., and D.F.E. designed the study; T.A.O’M., D.J.T., D.M.G., and A.B.S. drafted the manuscript; T.A.O’M. and D.J.T. conducted statistical analyses and genotype imputation; T.A.O’M. and D.M.G. conducted bioinformatic analyses; T.A.O’M., J.F., and G.W.M. conducted eQTL analyses; D.M.G. and T.A.O’M. performed and analyzed ChIP-seq experiments; T.A.O’M. co-ordinated the iCOGS and OncoArray case genotyping, and associated data management; J.D., J.P.T., and K.M. co-ordinated quality control and data cleaning for the iCOGS and OncoArray control datasets; A.B.S. and T.A.O’M. co-ordinated the ANECS stage 1 genotyping; A.M.D. and C.S.H. co-ordinated the SEARCH stage 1 genotyping; I.T. and CHIBCHA funded and implemented the NSECG GWAS; I.T., L.M., M.G., A.J., and S.H. co-ordinated the National Study of Endometrial Cancer Genetics (NSECG), and collation of CORGI control GWAS data; A.B.S. and P.M.W. co-ordinated the Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study (ANECS); R.J.S., M.M.C.E., J.A., and E.G.H. co-ordinated collation of GWAS data for the Hunter Community Study; P.D.P.P., D.F.E., and M.S. co-ordinated Studies of Epidemiology and Risk Factors in Cancer Heredity (SEARCH); M.K.B. provided data management support for BCAC; I.D.V., P.K., and M.M.C. co-ordinated E2C2 genotyping and analysis; F.D. and J.P. co-ordinated analysis of UK Biobank genotyping data; The following authors provided samples and/or phenotypic data: F.A., D.A., K.A., J.A., P.L.A., M.W.B., A.B., H.B., H.Br., L.B., D.D.B., B.B., J.C.-C., S.J.C., C.C., C.L.C., M.C., L.S.C., F.J.C., A.C., L.C., J.De., J.A.D., S.C.D., A.B.E., P.A.F., B.L.F., L.F., M.M.G., G.G.G., E.L.G., C.A.H., P.H., S.H., A.H., P.Hi., E.H., J.L.H., D.J.H., C.K., V.N.K., D.L., L.L.M., E.L., A.L., J.L., J.Lo., L.L., A.M.M., A.M., R.L.M., M.M., R.N., H.O., I.O., G.O., C.P., J.P., L.P., J.Pr., T.P., T.R.R., H.A.R., R.A.W.R., I.R., C.S., G.E.S., F.S., V.W.S., X.S., X.-O.S., M.C.S., A.J.S., E.T., J.T., C.T., C.V., D.V.D.B., A.V., Z.W., N.W., H.M.J.W., S.J.W., A.W., L.X., Y.-B.X., H.P.Y., and H.Y. All authors provided critical review of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tracy A. O’Mara or Amanda B. Spurdle or Deborah J. Thompson.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05427-7

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.