Epigenetic analysis leads to identification of HNF1B as a subtype-specific susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer (original) (raw)

Introduction

Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has a strong heritable component1, with an approximate three-fold increased risk associated with a first-degree family history2. Much of the excess familial risk observed for EOC is unexplained3, and efforts to identify common susceptibility genes have proven to be difficult. Seven regions harbouring susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for ovarian cancer have been identified through genome-wide association studies4,5,6,7 thus far, but candidate gene studies have been largely unsuccessful8.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has fully characterized more than 500 serous EOC cases with respect to somatic mutation, DNA methylation, mRNA expression and germline genetic variants9. These data are publicly available and can be analysed to identify candidate genes for association studies of the disease.

We conducted such an analysis of TCGA data and found a unique expression and methylation pattern of HNF1B characterized by downregulation of expression in most cases, with epigenetic silencing in about half of the cases, suggesting it might have a role in the serous subtype of ovarian cancer. In contrast, HNF1B overexpression is common in clear cell ovarian cancer10. The HNF1B gene (formerly known as TCF2) encodes a POU-domain containing a tissue-specific transcription factor, and mutations in the gene cause maturity onset diabetes of the young type 5 (ref. 11). HNF1B is also a susceptibility gene for type II diabetes12,13, prostate cancer12,14,15,16 and uterine cancer17.

We report here on our comprehensive characterization of this gene in ovarian cancer and show evidence of a differential effect of HNF1B on the serous and clear cell subtypes of ovarian cancer. It appears that HNF1B has a loss-of-function role in serous and a gain-of-function role in clear cell ovarian cancers, and variants in this gene differentially affect genetic susceptibility to these subtypes.

Results

DNA methylation/expression analysis

From TCGA data (see Methods), HNF1B was observed to be epigenetically silenced in approximately half of the 576 primary serous ovarian tumours and downregulated by another mechanism in most of the other tumours, whereas no evidence of methylation was seen in the normal fallopian tube samples (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Fig. S1) available from TCGA. We further assessed _HNF1B_-promoter methylation in an independent data set (OCRF panel; see Methods) and found the promoter region to be methylated in 42% of serous tumours and in none of the clear cell ovarian tumours (Fig. 1b). The pattern in serous tumours, in contrast to clear cell cancers, led to the evaluation of HNF1B as a candidate subtype-specific susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer.

Figure 1: Identification of HNF1B as a subtype-specific candidate gene for ovarian cancer and its establishment as a susceptibility gene.

(a) The scatterplot compares the mRNA expression (y axis) versus DNA methylation (x axis) in serous ovarian tumours from TCGA (see Methods). Each blue dot is a serous tumour sample, whereas each pink dot is one of the ten normal fallopian tube samples. The HNF1B promoter is silenced in the majority of these tumours, either by an epigenetic (bottom right, high DNA methylation and low mRNA expression) or an unknown alternative mechanism. The mRNA expression data were integrated from three platforms (online Methods) and interpreted as log ratios, and we observe the same pattern with each individual expression platform (Supplementary Fig. S1). (b) _HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation differs by histological subtype. Although unmethylated in the normal fallopian tissue, this locus is hypermethylated (beta value >0.2) in approximately 50% of the TCGA (_n_=576; see Methods) serous cases as well as another independent set of 32 serous tumour samples (OCRF panel; see Methods), but remains unmethylated in clear cell tumours (OCRF panel; see Methods) (_n_=4). These data are consistent with reported HNF1B expression in the clear cell tumours. (c) Genetic variants in the HNF1B locus are associated with risk of ovarian cancer histological subtypes. Plotted in each panel is the −log10 (_P_-value) from the SNP association with risk for each subtype (Manhattan plots) located in the 150-kb region described in the text. Imputed SNPs are indicated with a relatively lighter colour, whereas the genotyped SNPs are indicated with a darker colour. Dashed lines indicate the genome-wide significance threshold (5 × 10−8). The linkage disequilibrium plot on the bottom shows the _r_2 between the SNPs. Genomic coordinates are based on hg19 (Build37).

Full size image

SNP analysis

With all invasive cancer subtypes considered together, we found no genome-wide significant (P<5 × 10−8) HNF1B SNP associations among women of European ancestry (Table 1; Supplementary Data S1). However, when analyses were stratified by histological subtype, we observed genome-wide significant results for both serous and clear cell EOC subtypes, but with risk associations in opposite directions. The association was similar for high- and low-grade serous cancers. There was no evidence of association for mucinous or endometrioid subtypes (Fig. 1c). Associations in the non-European populations are shown in Supplementary Table S2.

Table 1 Association between invasive, serous and clear cell ovarian cancer for ten HNF1B SNPs that reached genome-wide significance in Whites.

Full size table

Minor alleles at nine SNPs, six genotyped and three imputed, were associated with increased risk of invasive serous ovarian cancer at P<5 × 10−8 (Table 1). The risk signal spanned a 21.4-kb region from the 5′ untranslated region (UTR) through part of intron 4 of HNF1B (Fig. 1c). The most strongly associated SNP for invasive serous ovarian cancer (rs7405776, minor allele frequency (MAF) 36%) conferred a 13% increased risk per minor allele (_P_=3.1 × 10−10; Table 1, Supplementary Fig. S2A). The signals of this SNP and the eight other genome-wide significant SNPs were indistinguishable, given the linkage disequilibrium and resulting haplotype structure (Supplementary Figs S3, S4 and S5).

For the clear cell subtype, rs11651755 (MAF 45%) was associated with a 23% decreased risk of disease at a genome-wide significant level (_P_=2 × 10−8; Table 1, Supplementary Fig. S2B). This signal was distinct from the nine significant SNPs for invasive serous cancer (Table 1). The odds against the serous-associated SNP, rs7405776, as the true best hit for clear cell ovarian cancer were 244:1. Conversely, the odds against the clear cell SNP, rs11651755, as the true best hit for serous were 1808:1. Further, when rs11651755 and rs7405776 were jointly modelled, the signal for clear cell cancer was driven completely by rs11651755, whereas that for the serous disease was driven by rs7405776 (Table 1). The clear cell SNP (rs11651755) sits on five haplotypes, only three of which also contain the serous SNP (rs7405776; Supplementary Fig. S5). Thus, different SNPs in the HNF1B gene regions explain the associations observed for serous and clear cell ovarian cancer.

DNA methylation and protein expression

The identification of HNF1B as a susceptibility gene for serous and clear cell ovarian cancer led us to further evaluate the relationship between _HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation, protein expression and histological subtype. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis for HNF1B protein expression in 1,149 ovarian cancers from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis Consortium, and DNA-methylation analysis on 269 of these tumours, revealed that the majority of clear cell tumours expressed the HNF1B protein and were unmethylated at the HNF1B promoter, whereas the majority of serous tumours lacked HNF1B protein expression and displayed frequent _HNF1B_-promoter methylation (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S6).

Figure 2: _HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation, protein expression and global DNA-methylation pattern by subtype.

Each row is a tissue sample collected at the Mayo Clinic that belongs to one of the three categories: normal ovarian tissue (_n_=7), clear cell ovarian tumours (_n_=17) or serous ovarian tumours (_n_=196). Endometrioid (_n_=49) and mucinous (_n_=7) tumours are not included in this figure. Each column represents a CpG locus, either from the region flanking the HNF1B transcription start site (panel A, ordered by genomic locations with an arrow indicating the transcription start site) or from a global panel of 1,003 CpG loci mapped to autosomal CpG island regions that distinguish clear cell and serous subtypes (panel B, ordered by average DNA methylation across the samples). For each horizontal panel group, the samples (rows) are ordered by HNF1B IHC status. The heatmap shows the DNA-methylation beta value, with blue indicating low DNA methylation and red indicating high methylation. Clear cell tumours showed less DNA methylation at the _HNF1B_-promoter region and correspondingly higher HNF1B protein expression. The clear cell tumours generally show a CIMP where there is extensive gain of aberrant promoter methylation in a correlated manner. CIMP status (left side bar, defined as methylated at >80% of the 1,003 loci) is highly correlated HNF1B expression. Also noteworthy is that the _HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation (panel a) is the opposite from the global pattern (panel b, Supplementary Fig. S8). This suggests HNF1B DNA methylation is not a passenger event of global DNA-methylation changes.

Full size image

Although most clear cell tumours were devoid of _HNF1B_-promoter methylation, they revealed a surprisingly high frequency of CpG island hypermethylation at other sites across the genome, indicative of a CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). The few clear cell tumours lacking HNF1B expression exhibited _HNF1B_-promoter methylation, and a correspondingly low frequency of CpG island methylation throughout the genome, similar to the serous subtype (Fig. 2). HNF1B expression and CIMP methylation are strongly associated (_P_=3 × 10−16; Fig. 2). Further, minimal hypermethylation is observed in serous tumours overall, but HNF1B is one notable exception (Supplementary Fig. S7).

DNA methylation and genotype

We further investigated the relationship between risk allele genotypes and HNF1B DNA methylation in 231 serous ovarian cancers. The top serous risk SNP, rs7405776, showed only a borderline association with increased promoter methylation (_P_=0.07; Fig. 3). Intriguingly, the association between SNPs in HNF1B and _HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation strengthened as their location approached the promoter region, and the strongest signal came from a few SNPs, exemplified by rs11658063, overlapping with a polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) mark in embryonic stem cells (_P_=0.003; Fig. 3, Supplementary Fig. S8). We validated this SNP–methylation association in the TCGA data (Supplementary Fig. S9; see Methods). None of the probes used contained common SNPs in the sequence, excluding technical artifact as a confounder of this association.

Figure 3: Correlation of serous risk-associated SNPs with _HNF1B_-promoter DNA-methylation level.

Plotted is the linkage disequilibrium region defined as _r_2>0.2 with the top serous SNP rs7405776. (a) Annotation of the region in terms of (from top to bottom:) UCSC genes, FANTOM mark, PRC marks (PRC2 and PRC1)32, the chromatin status determined in stem cells33, the conservation score across this region and the CpG island information, on top of the location of the HM450 probe used in b boxplots of promoter DNA-methylation level of HNF1B (cg14487292) by SNP genotype with position indicated in c. This DNA-methylation probe was selected based on inverse association with mRNA expression for HNF1B, and does not contain any SNP with MAF >1% in its probe sequence. Each boxplot shows the distribution of DNA-methylation level by genotype (homozygous major—white; heterozygous—grey; and homozygous minor—black, where the minor alleles are the risk alleles). Two-sided _P_-values testing for trend are presented, and are computed for 231 Mayo Clinic high-grade, high-stage serous tumours to avoid confounding by histological subtypes, and also to be consistent with the TCGA data (primarily high-grade, high-stage serous). Results were similar with all subtypes combined. The risk alleles are associated with significantly increased DNA methylation. The association of rs11658063 genotype with promoter methylation is consistent across the entire region flanking HNF1B transcription start site, and stronger for the upstream promoter region (Supplementary Fig. S8).

Full size image

Overexpression of HNF1B

Given the proposed role of HNF1B in clear cell tumorigenesis, we stably overexpressed the gene in immortalized endometriosis epithelial cells (EECs), which are hypothesized to be a cell of origin for clear cell ovarian cancers (Supplementary Fig. S10)18. EECs overexpressing HNF1B acquired an enlarged, flattened morphology and multi-nucleated cells accumulated in the cultures (Fig. 4a). Also, significant upregulation of HNF1B-associated genes SPP1, DPP4, and ACE2 was observed upon HNF1B overexpression in EECs (Fig. 4b).

Figure 4: Phenotypic effects and downstream targets of HNF1B overexpression in immortalized EECs.

(a) Morphological changes in EECs expressing a HNF1B GFP fusion protein (EECGFP.HNF1B). GFP-positive cells were sorted using flow cytometry. The arrows indicate five nuclei contained within a single EECGFP.HNF1B cell, showing the aberrant polynucleation that we observed in these cells. Using flow cytometry, we quantified the increase in polynucleation in EECGFP.HNF1B to be around eightfold compared with controls (data not shown). (b) Gene-expression analysis of _HNF1B_-target genes and clear cell ovarian cancer associated genes. *_P_>0.01.

Full size image

Discussion

HNF1B appears to have a prominent role in ovarian cancer aetiology. It is the first clear cell ovarian cancer-susceptibility gene identified, and variation in the gene is also associated with risk of serous ovarian cancer at a genome-wide significance level. The gene is overexpressed in clear cell tumours and silenced in serous tumours. The strong association between HNF1B expression and CIMP methylation (_P_=3 × 10−16), and the reciprocal nature of DNA methylation at the _HNF1B_-promoter CpG islands, versus other CpG islands across the genome, suggests that _HNF1B_-promoter methylation is not merely a CIMP passenger event; in fact, HNF1B expression may even contribute to the hypermethylation phenotype. Taken together, these data indicate differing roles for HNF1B in these invasive EOC subtypes: a potential gain-of-function in clear cell ovarian cancer and loss-of-function in serous ovarian cancer, underscoring the heterogeneity of this disease.

Different SNPs in the HNF1B gene regions explain the associations observed for serous and clear cell ovarian cancers. These different effects provide further support for the growing view that the histological subtypes of ovarian cancer represent distinct diseases18,19,20,21,22,23,24, with endometriosis as a proposed cell of origin for clear cell disease18 and fallopian tube fimbriae as one for serous disease22. Interestingly, no association was observed between HNF1B genotypes and endometrioid ovarian cancer despite the view that, like clear cell, endometriosis is also a cell of origin for this subtype. The lack of association may be due to a different transformation mechanism from endometriosis for the endometrioid subtype, given that although the HNF1B promoter remains unmethylated in the endometrioid subtype, the endometrioid subtype does not overexpress HNF1B. Alternatively, misclassification of high-grade serous EOC as high-grade endometrioid could result in a bias towards the null for the endometrioid subtype.

Variation in the 5′ UTR through the intron 4 region of HNF1B is also associated with susceptibility to prostate12,14,15,16 and uterine cancer17 (where minor alleles of certain SNPs are associated with decreased risk) and type II diabetes12,13 (increased risk for the same or correlated SNP alleles; Supplementary Fig. S4). The opposing directions of these associations mirror the differential effects seen here in ovarian cancer. The most strongly associated SNP for both prostate14 and uterine cancer17 is rs4430796, correlated at _r_2=0.94 with the top clear cell ovarian cancer SNP, rs11651755, suggesting a common risk variant. Although increased risk of type II diabetes has been reported with rs4430796 (ref. 12), Winckler et al.13 have suggested that the best marker of diabetes risk is rs757210, which correlated at _r_2=0.97 with our top serous SNP. Thus, the evidence suggests that a specific variant in HNF1B predisposes to clear cell ovarian, uterine and prostate cancers and that a different variants is associated with diabetes and serous ovarian cancer.

We were able to completely fine-map the HNF1B region, localize the signal and identify a handful of potentially causal SNPs. This is quite different from other regions of the genome where it is not uncommon to identify hundreds of candidate causal SNPs. Further, an important link, often missing when susceptibility loci are identified, is the functional role that the variant has in disease. In the case of serous ovarian cancer, the SNP–_HNF1B_-promoter DNA methylation association strengthens as it approaches the promoter region, particularly where it overlaps with a PRC2 mark. PRC2–DNA methyltransferase cross-talk has been proposed to be a mechanism of predisposition to cancer-specific hypermethylation25. Our DNA-methylation data indicate that the causal risk alleles for the serous subtype may predispose the promoter to acquiring aberrant methylation, thereby promoting the development of serous but not clear cell tumours. This predisposition could be a direct functional effect of the SNP on the DNA-methylation machinery, or could act indirectly through differential binding affinity for PRC2 or one or more transcription factors. Given that we were able to fine-map the HNF1B region, it is unlikely that an unidentified common variant explains these associations. For serous ovarian cancer, the methylation signal suggests that the causal variant is most likely to be among those located within the region with the PRC2 mark for which we identified five SNPs with genome-wide significance.

This is the first study investigating the effects of overexpression of HNF1B in endometriosis, and the results support the hypothesis that HNF1B may have an oncogenic role in the initiation of clear cell ovarian cancers, as speculated by Gounaris et al.23 as a key step of endometriosis transformation. The observation in our data that HNF1B induces a polynucleated phenotype in EEC cells is intriguing, as clear cell ovarian cancers are often tetradiploid, more so than other ovarian cancer subtypes26. The polynucleated phenotype may suggest that HNF1B overexpression in EECs perturbs cytokinesis, causing aneuploidy in some cells.

Histology re-review of the three clear cell tumours that do not express HNF1B revealed two scenarios: two samples with inconsistent evaluations between pathologists, and one consistently called clear cell. They might be cases that are especially difficult to classify, and therefore a molecular signature, for example, CIMP or HNF1B status, would be of great help in correctly classifying those tumours. The one sample that is called consistently clear cell tumour but does not express HNF1B might represent a rare subtype of clear cell carcinoma. With a larger cohort of clear cell ovarian cancers, these possibilities can be investigated.

To our knowledge, this is the first report of tumour DNA-methylation patterns leading to the identification of a germline susceptibility locus, underscoring the value of TCGA. Recent studies suggest a strong genetic component to inter-individual variation in tumour DNA methylation, and demonstrate both cis- and _trans_- associations between genotypes and DNA methylation27. In addition, methylation quantitative trait loci were found to be enriched for expression quantitative trait loci. It has also been shown that epimutation is associated with genetic variation, for example, associations have been demonstrated between 5′ UTR MLH1 variants and MLH1 epigenetic silencing28. Moreover, we have for the first time demonstrated the existence of a CIMP phenotype in ovarian cancer, highlighting the complicated nature of the disease.

In summary, variation in HNF1B is associated with serous and clear cell subtypes of ovarian cancer in opposite manner at genetic, epigenetic and protein expression levels. These observations are compatible with a tumour suppressor role in serous cancer and an oncogenic role in clear cell disease. Future efforts should focus on understanding these mechanisms as they could have major clinical implications for ovarian cancer, based on better subtype stratification, potential novel treatment approaches and a better understanding of disease aetiology. Currently, effective chemotherapeutics for clear cell ovarian cancer is lacking, but our study reveals that HNF1B-expressing clear cell tumours have extensive epigenetic alterations that potentially make them good candidates for epigenetic therapies.

Methods

Molecular aspects

TCGA data access

We downloaded the TCGA serous ovarian cancer data packages from the TCGA public-access ftp (https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/tcgafiles/ftp_auth/distro_ftpusers/anonymous/tumour/ov/). Data generated with the following platforms were used: Affymetrix HT Human Genome U133 Array Plate Set; Agilent 244K Custom Gene Expression G4502A-07-3; Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array; and Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation27 Beadchip (a full list of the packages is provided in Supplementary Methods).The Illumina Human1M-Duo DNA Analysis BeadChip Genotype data were downloaded from the controlled access data tier.

DNA methylation data production for the OCRF tumour panel

The Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation27 assay was performed as described9 on 32 serous and 4 clear cell ovarian tumours from USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Duke University (‘OCRF tumour panel’). The beta values for each sample and locus were calculated with mean non-background corrected methylated (M) and unmethylated (U) signal intensities with the formula M/(M+U), representing the percentage of methylated alleles. Detection _P_-values were calculated by comparing the set of analytical probe replicates for each locus to the set of 16 negative control probes. Data points with detection _P_-values >0.05 were masked.

DNA methylation data production for the Mayo tumour panel

We also performed the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip assay on an independent set of tumour DNA in the Mayo Clinic Genotyping Shared Facility using recommended Illumina protocol29. 1 μg of tumour DNA was bisulfite-converted using the Zymo EZ96 DNA Methylation Kit. Three samples failing quality control were removed, leaving DNA-methylation data on 333 ovarian cancer cases, including 254 serous and 17 clear cell tumours. Plate normalization was done with a linear model on the logit-transformed beta values, following back-transformation to the (0,1) range.

IHC assay

Previously built tissue microarrays, triplicate core, measuring 0.6 mm were cut at 4-μm thickness and mounted on superfrost slides. Slides were stained on a Ventana Benchmark XT using the manufacturer’s pretreatment protocol CC1 standard (Supplementary Methods). A pathologist (MK) evaluated the IHC staining, and assigned the sample a score 0 in the absence of any nuclear staining, score 1 for any nuclear staining >1–50% or score 2 for >50% tumour cell nuclei-positive for HNF1B.

Genotype and DNA methylation association

We assessed the correlation of germline genotype at the nine genome-wide significant SNPs in serous cancer, with HNF1B DNA promoter methylation status using the Mayo Tumour Panel. Probe cg14487292 was used as it was most inversely correlated with mRNA expression. The nominal _P_-values are from two-sided tests for linear trend in the DNA-methylation beta values across the three genotypes for each locus. Bonferroni adjustment was not done for multiple comparisons as the SNPs are highly correlated. Validation was done with the TCGA data (Supplementary Appendix).

In vitro model of HNF1B overexpression

An immortalized EEC line was generated by lentiviral transduction of hTERT (Addgene plasmid 12245) into primary EECs (Supplementary Fig. S10). _TERT-_immortalized EECs were transduced with lentiviral HNF1B-green fluorescent protein (GFP) or GFP (Genecopoeia) supernatants and positive cells selected with 400 ng ml−1 puromycin (Sigma). GFP expression was confirmed by fluorescent microscopy; HNF1B expression was confirmed by real-time PCR (Supplementary Fig. S10).

For gene-expression studies, RNA was collected from cells using the Qiagen RNeasy kit with on-column DNase I digestion. An amount of 1 μg RNA was reverse transcribed using an MMLV reverse transcriptase enzyme (Promega), and relative mRNA level was assayed using the ABI 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR system utilizing the delta-delta Ct method. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism. Two-tailed paired _t_-tests with significance level of 0.05 were used.

Genetic association study

Study design

The genetic susceptibility aspect of this study was organized by the Collaborative Oncological Gene-Environment Study, an ovarian, breast and prostate cancer consortium. The ovarian cancer part of this effort on which the current report is based is led by the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and included 43 studies (Supplementary Table S1). Following sample quality control, 44,308 subjects, including 16,111 patients with invasive EOC, 2,063 with low malignant potential (borderline) disease and 26,134 controls, were available for analysis; results presented here are restricted to invasive cancers. All studies obtained approval from their respective human research ethics committees, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Selection of SNPs

Data for 174 SNPs in this region were available from the Collaborative Oncological Gene-Environment Study genotyping effort and provided full fine-mapping information in the 150-kb region surrounding HNF1B (hg18 coordinates 33,100,000–33,250,000). In addition, phase I haplotype data from the 1000 Genomes Project (January 2012) were used to impute genotypes for SNPs across this region, resulting in available data on an additional 307 SNPs with MAF >0.02 in European Whites and imputation _r_2>0.30 (IMPUTE 2.2).

SNP genotyping

The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium genotyping was conducted by McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre (_n_=19,806) and the Mayo Clinic Medical Genome Facility (_n_=27,824) using an Illumina Infinium iSelect BeadChip. Genotypes were called using GenCall. Sample and SNP quality-control measures are described in the Supplementary Methods.

Statistical analysis

We used the program LAMP30 for principal components analysis to assign intercontinental ancestry based on the HapMap (release no. 22) genotype frequency data for European, African and Asian populations (Supplementary Methods). For LAMP-derived European ancestry groups for all patients of invasive cancer and for those with serous invasive cancer, we carried out unconditional logistic regression analyses within each study site, adjusted for the first five eigenvalues from the principal components analysis for European ancestry and then used a fixed-effects meta-analytic approach to obtain the summary OR estimate, 95% confidence interval and _P_-value. Details on analysis for the non-European groups are provided in the Supplementary Methods. Log-additive mode of inheritance was modelled (that is, co-dominant), treating each SNP as an ordinal variable.

For haplotype analysis, we used the tagSNPs program31 to obtain the haplotype dosage for each subject for the LAMP-derived European ancestry group for haplotypes with a frequency of ≥1%. The associations between haplotype and risks of serous and clear cell ovarian cancer were modelled by meta-analysis relative to the most common haplotype.

Additional information

How to cite this article: Shen, H., Fridley, B. L., Song, H. et al. Epigenetic analysis leads to identification of HNF1B as a subtype-specific susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer. Nat. Commun. 4:1628 doi: 10.1038/ncomms2629 (2013).

References

1. Lichtenstein, P. et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 78–85 (2000).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
2. Auranen, A. et al. Cancer incidence in the first-degree relatives of ovarian cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 74, 280–284 (1996).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
3. Antoniou, A. C. & Easton, D. F. . Risk prediction models for familial breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2, 257–274 (2006).
   Article Google Scholar
4. Pharaoh, P. D. P. et al. GWAS meta-analysis and replication identifies three novel common susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer. Nat. Genet (e-pub ahead of print 27 March 2013; doi:10.1038/ng2564) (2013).
5. Goode, E. L. et al. A genome-wide association study identifies susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer at 2q31 and 8q24. Nat. Genet. 42, 874–879 (2010).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
6. Bolton, K. L. et al. Common variants at 19p13 are associated with susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat. Genet. 42, 880–884 (2010).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
7. Song, H. et al. A genome-wide association study identifies a new ovarian cancer susceptibility locus on 9p22.2. Nat. Genet. 41, 996–1000 (2009).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
8. Bolton, K. L., Ganda, C., Berchuck, A., Pharaoh, P. D. & Gayther, S. A. . Role of common genetic variants in ovarian cancer susceptibility and outcome: progress to date from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). J. Intern. Med. 271, 366–378 (2012).
   Article CAS Google Scholar
9. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474, 609–615 (2011).
10. Tsuchiya, A. et al. Expression profiling in ovarian clear cell carcinoma: identification of hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 beta as a molecular marker and a possible molecular target for therapy of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Am. J. Pathol. 163, 2503–2512 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
11. Horikawa, Y. et al. Mutation in hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 beta gene (TCF2) associated with MODY. Nat. Genet. 17, 384–385 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
12. Gudmundsson, J. et al. Two variants on chromosome 17 confer prostate cancer risk, and the one in TCF2 protects against type 2 diabetes. Nat. Genet. 39, 977–983 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
13. Winckler, W. et al. Evaluation of common variants in the six known maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) genes for association with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 56, 685–693 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
14. Berndt, S. I. et al. Large-scale fine mapping of the HNF1B locus and prostate cancer risk. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 3322–3329 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
15. Sun, J. et al. Evidence for two independent prostate cancer risk-associated loci in the HNF1B gene at 17q12. Nat. Genet. 40, 1153–1155 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
16. Thomas, G. et al. Multiple loci identified in a genome-wide association study of prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 40, 310–315 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
17. Spurdle, A. B. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant associated with risk of endometrial cancer. Nat. Genet. 43, 451–454 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
18. Pearce, C. L. et al. Association between endometriosis and risk of histological subtypes of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Lancet Oncol. 13, 385–394 (2012).
    Article Google Scholar
19. Kurman, R. J. & Shih, IeM. . The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 34, 433–443 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
20. Gilks, C. B. . Molecular abnormalities in ovarian cancer subtypes other than high-grade serous carcinoma. J. Oncol. 2010, 740968 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
21. Risch, H. A., Marrett, L. D., Jain, M. & Howe, G. R. . Differences in risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer by histologic type. Results of a case-control study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 144, 363–372 (1996).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
22. Crum, C. P. et al. The distal fallopian tube: a new model for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 19, 3–9 (2007).
    Article Google Scholar
23. Gounaris, I., Charnock-Jones, D. S. & Brenton, J. D. . Ovarian clear cell carcinoma—bad endometriosis or bad endometrium? J. Pathol. 225, 157–160 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
24. Kobel, M. et al. Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases: implications for biomarker studies. PLoS Med. 5, e232 (2008).
    Article Google Scholar
25. Widschwendter, M. et al. Epigenetic stem cell signature in cancer. Nat. Genet. 39, 157–158 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
26. Skirnisdottir, I., Seidal, T., Karlsson, M. G. & Sorbe, B. . Clinical and biological characteristics of clear cell carcinomas of the ovary in FIGO stages I-II. Int. J. Oncol. 26, 177–183 (2005).
    PubMed Google Scholar
27. Bell, J. T. et al. DNA methylation patterns associate with genetic and gene expression variation in HapMap cell lines. Genome Biol. 12, R10 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
28. Hitchins, M. P. et al. Dominantly inherited constitutional epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in a cancer-affected family is linked to a single nucleotide variant within the 5' UTR. Cancer Cell 20, 200–213 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
29. Bibikova, M. et al. High density DNA methylation array with single CpG site resolution. Genomics 98, 288–295 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
30. Sankararaman, S., Sridhar, S., Kimmel, G. & Halperin, E. . Estimating local ancestry in admixed populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82, 290–303 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
31. Stram, D. O. et al. Modeling and E-M estimation of haplotype-specific relative risks from genotype data for a case-control study of unrelated individuals. Hum. Hered. 55, 179–190 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
32. Ku, M. et al. Genomewide analysis of PRC1 and PRC2 occupancy identifies two classes of bivalent domains. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000242 (2008).
    Article Google Scholar
33. Ernst, J. et al. Mapping and analysis of chromatin state dynamics in nine human cell types. Nature 473, 43–49 (2011).
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the individuals who took part in this study and all the researchers, clinicians and administrative staff who have made possible the many studies contributing to this work. In particular, we thank: D. Bowtell, P.M. Webb, A. deFazio, D. Gertig, A. Green, P. Parsons, N. Hayward and D. Whiteman (AUS); G. Peuteman, T. Van Brussel and D. Smeets (BEL); the staff of the genotyping unit, S LaBoissière and F Robidoux (Génome Québec); U. Eilber and T. Koehler (GER); L. Gacucova (HMO); P. Schurmann, F. Kramer, W. Zheng, T.-W. Park-Simon, K. Beer-Grondke and D. Schmidt (HJO); S. Windebank, C. Hilker and J. Vollenweider (MAY); the state cancer registries of AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, 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 (NHS); L. Paddock, M. King, U. Chandran, A. Samoila and Y. Bensman (NJO); M. Sherman, A. Hutchinson, N. Szeszenia-Dabrowska, B. Peplonska, W. Zatonski, A. Soni, P. Chao and M. Stagner (POL); C. Luccarini, P. Harrington, the SEARCH team and ECRIC (SEA); the Scottish Gynaecological Clinical Trials group and SCOTROC1 investigators (SRO); W.-H. Chow and Y.-T. Gao (SWH); I. Jacobs, M. Widschwendter, N. Balogun, A. Ryan and J. Ford (UKO); and Carole Pye (UKR). The Collaborative Oncological Gene-Environment Study (COGS) project is funded through a European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant (agreement number 223175–HEALTH-F2-2009-223175). 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). The scientific development and funding of this project were (in part) supported by the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network: a NCI Cancer Post-GWAS Initiative (U19-CA148112). This study made use of data generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control consortium. A full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the data is available from http://www.wtccc.org.uk/. Funding for the project was provided by the Wellcome Trust under award 076113. The results published here are in part based upon data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project established by the National Cancer Institute and National Human Genome Research Institute. Information about TCGA, and the investigators and institutions who constitute the TCGA research network, can be found at http://cancergenome.nih.gov/. G.C.T. is a Senior Principal Research Fellow of the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. D.F.E. is a Principal Research Fellow of Cancer Research UK. P.A.F. is supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe. B.K. holds an American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN). L.E.K. is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Investigator award (MSH-87734). H.S.1 is supported by a National Institutes of Health training grant (T32GM067587), ‘Training in Cellular, Biochemical and Molecular Sciences’. Funding of the constituent studies was provided by the American Cancer Society (CRTG-00-196-01-CCE); the California Cancer Research Program (00-01389V-20170, N01-CN25403, 2II0200); the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP-86727); Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Council Queensland; Cancer Council New South Wales; Cancer Council South Australia; Cancer Council Tasmania; Cancer Foundation of Western Australia; the Cancer Institute of New Jersey; Cancer Research UK (C490/A6187, C490/A10119, C490/A10124, C536/A13086 and C536/A6689); the Celma Mastry Ovarian Cancer Foundation; the Danish Cancer Society (94-222-52); the Norwegian Cancer Society, Helse Vest, the Norwegian Research Council, ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; the Eve Appeal; the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund; Imperial Experimental Cancer Research Centre (C1312/A15589); the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (PPD/USC.06); Nationaal Kankerplan of Belgium; Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare of Japan; the L & S Milken Foundation; the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (4 PO5C 028 14, 2 PO5A 068 27); the Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation; the US National Cancer Institute (K07-CA095666, K07-CA143047, K07-CA80668, K22-CA138563, N01-CN55424, N01-PC067001, N01-PC035137, P01-CA017054, P01-CA087696, P50-CA105009, P50-CA136393, R01-CA014089, R01-CA016056, R01-CA017054, R01-CA049449, R01-CA050385, R01-CA054419, R01-CA058598, R01-CA058860, R01-CA061107, R01-CA061132, R01-CA063682, R01-CA064277, R01-CA067262, R01-CA071766, R01-CA074850, R01-CA076016, R01-CA080742, R01-CA080978, R01-CA087538, R01-CA092044, R01-095023, R01-CA106414, R01-CA122443, R01-CA112523, R01-CA114343, R01-CA126841, R01-CA149429, R01-CA141154, R03-CA113148, R03-CA115195, R37-CA070867, R37-CA70867, U01-CA069417, U01-CA071966, P30-CA15083, R01CA83918, U24 CA143882 and Intramural research funds); the US Army Medical Research and Material Command (DAMD17-98-1-8659, DAMD17-01-1-0729, DAMD17-02-1-0666, DAMD17-02-1-0669 and W81XWH-10-1-0280); the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (199600 and 400281); the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research (01 GB 9401); the state of Baden-Württemberg through Medical Faculty of the University of Ulm (P.685); the Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; the Mayo Foundation; the Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; the Phi Beta Psi Sorority; the Lon V. Smith Foundation (LVS-39420); the Oak Foundation; the OHSU Foundation; the Mermaid I project; the Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, University College Hospital ‘Womens Health Theme’ and the Royal Marsden Hospital; and WorkSafeBC. We acknowledge the contributions of Kyriaki Michailidou, Ali Amin Al Olama and Karoline Kuchenbaecker to the iCOGS statistical analyses and Shahana Ahmed, Melanie J. Maranian and Catherine S Healey for their contributions to the iCOGS genotyping quality-control process. US National Health Institute/National Center for Research Resources/General Clinical Research Center M01- RR000056.

Author information

Author notes

1. Hui Shen, Brooke L. Fridley and Honglin Song: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

1. USC Epigenome Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, 90033, California, USA
   Hui Shen & Peter W. Laird
2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, 66160, Kansas, USA
   Brooke L. Fridley
3. Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK
   Honglin Song, Jonathan Tyrer, Douglas F. Easton & Paul D.P. Pharoah
4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, 90033, California, USA
   Kate Lawrenson, Susan J. Ramus, Douglas Stram, Anna H. Wu, David Van Den Berg, Daniel O. Stram, Malcolm C. Pike, Alice W. Lee, Rod Karevan, Simon A. Gayther & Celeste Leigh Pearce
5. Division of Experimental Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
   Julie M. Cunningham & Viji Shridhar
6. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
   Mine S. Cicek & Ellen L. Goode
7. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
   Melissa C. Larson, Robert A. Vierkant & Sebastian M. Armasu
8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Calgary Laboratory Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 2T9, Alberta, Canada
   Martin Köbel
9. Department of Epidemiology, Center for Cancer Genetics Research and Prevention, School of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, 92697, California, USA
   Argyrios Ziogas, Xiao-Ou Shu & Hoda Anton-Culver
10. Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 37232, Tennessee, USA
    Wei Zheng
11. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, 20892, Maryland, USA
    Hannah P. Yang, Nicolas Wentzensen & Louise A. Brinton
12. Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, London, NW1 2BU, UK
    Eva L. Wozniak, Usha Menon & Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Affiliated to UM Cancer Research Institute, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 59100, Malaysia
    Yin Ling Woo, Siti Zawiah Omar & Noor Azmi Mat Adenan
14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
    Boris Winterhoff
15. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, HB 5006, Norway
    Elisabeth Wik, Helga B. Salvesen, Camilla Krakstad & Mari K. Halle
16. Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, HB 5006, Norway
    Elisabeth Wik, Helga B. Salvesen, Camilla Krakstad & Mari K. Halle
17. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, 94305, California, USA
    Alice S. Whittemore, Weiva Sieh & Valerie McGuire
18. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, 27708, North Carolina, USA
    Rachel Palmieri Weber & Joellen M. Schildkraut
19. Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, Massachusetts, USA
    Allison F. Vitonis, Kathryn L. Terry & Daniel W. Cramer
20. Génome Québec, Montréal, H3A 0G1, Québec, Canada
    Daniel Vincent, Daniel C. Tessier & François Bacot
21. Vesalius Research Center, VIB, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
    Ignace Vergote, Sandrina Lambrechts, Diether Lambrechts & Evelyn Despierre
22. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
    Ignace Vergote, Sandrina Lambrechts & Evelyn Despierre
23. Department of Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, HB 6500, The Netherlands
    Anne M. Van Altena & Leon F.A.G Massuger
24. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, 02115, Massachusetts, USA
    Shelley S. Tworoger & Elizabeth M. Poole
25. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, Massachusetts, USA
    Shelley S. Tworoger, Kathryn L. Terry, Elizabeth M. Poole & Daniel W. Cramer
26. Cancer Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Hawaii, 96813, USA
    Pamela J. Thompson, Yurii B. Shvetsov & Galina Lurie
27. Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation, Sime Darby Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, 47500, Malaysia
    Soo-Hwang Teo
28. University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, University Malaya Medical Centre, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 59100, Malaysia
    Soo-Hwang Teo
29. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90033, California, USA
    Claire Templeman & Doerthe Brueggmann
30. Department of Pathology, Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3053, Victoria, Australia
    Melissa C. Southey
31. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, G4 0SF, UK
    Nadeem Siddiqui
32. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Ulm, 89091, Germany
    Shan Wang-Gohrke
33. Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC 3053, Victoria, Australia
    Gianluca Severi, Graham G. Giles & Laura Baglietto
34. Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytical Epidemiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Victoria, Australia
    Gianluca Severi, Graham G. Giles & Laura Baglietto
35. Institut für Humangenetik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 65187, Germany
    Ira Schwaab
36. Department of Molecular Pathology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, 02-781, Poland
    Iwona K. Rzepecka, Joanna Moes-Sosnowska, Jolanta Kupryjanczyk & Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska
37. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Jena University Hospital, Jena, 07743, Germany
    Ingo B. Runnebaum & Matthias Dürst
38. Division of Public Health Sciences, Program in Epidemiology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, 98109, Washington, USA
    Mary Anne Rossing
39. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, 98109, Washington, USA
    Mary Anne Rossing
40. Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, 08901, New Jersey, USA
    Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez & Elisa V. Bandera
41. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, 06520, Connecticut, USA
    Harvey A. Risch
42. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Erlangen, 91054, Germany
    Stefan P. Renner, Peter A. Fasching & Matthias W. Beckmann
43. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, 10065, New York, USA
    Malcolm C. Pike, Irene Orlow & Sara H. Olson
44. Division of Population Sciences, Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, 33612, Florida, USA
    Catherine M. Phelan, Alvaro N.A. Monteiro & Thomas A. Sellers
45. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, 00530, Finland
    Liisa M. Pelttari, Heli Nevanlinna, Arto Leminen & Ralf Butzow
46. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, 97239, Oregon, USA
    Tanja Pejovic
47. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, 97239, Oregon, USA
    Tanja Pejovic
48. Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
    James Paul
49. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, 14263, New York, USA
    Kunle Odunsi
50. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
    Stefan Nickels, Rebecca Hein & Jenny Chang-Claude
51. School of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA
    Roberta B. Ness
52. Women’s College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5G IN8, Ontario, Canada
    Steven A. Narod
53. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Central Hospital, Nagoya, 464-8681, Japan
    Toru Nakanishi
54. Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, 14263, New York, USA
    Kirsten B. Moysich
55. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 15213, Pennsylvania, USA
    Francesmary Modugno
56. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 15213, Pennsylvania, USA
    Francesmary Modugno & Clareann H. Bunker
57. Women’s Cancer Research Program, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, 15213, Pennsylvania, USA
    Francesmary Modugno
58. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5T 3M7, Ontario, Canada
    John R. McLaughlin
59. Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, M5G IX5, Ontario, Canada
    John R. McLaughlin
60. Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, Nagoya, 464-8681, Japan
    Keitaro Matsuo & Satoyo Hosono
61. Gynecologic Clinic, The Juliane Marie Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark
    Lene Lundvall, Susanne Krüger Kjaer & Claus K. Høgdall
62. Department of Genetics and Pathology, International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, 70-115, Poland
    Jan Lubiński, Anna Jakubowska, Jacek Gronwald & Cezary Cybulski
63. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, 02-781, Poland
    Jolanta Lissowska
64. Department of Surgery, Gynecology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, 10021, New York, USA
    Douglas A. Levine
65. Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, G12 0YN, British Columbia, Canada
    Nhu D. Le
66. Department of Oncology, Laboratory for Translational Genetics, University of Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
    Sandrina Lambrechts, Diether Lambrechts & Evelyn Despierre
67. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90095, California, USA
    Gottfried E. Konecny & Peter A. Fasching
68. Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark
    Susanne Krüger Kjaer, Allan Jensen & Estrid Høgdall
69. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, HB 6500, Netherlands
    Lambertus A. Kiemeney & Katja K. Aben
70. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, HB 6500, The Netherlands
    Lambertus A. Kiemeney
71. Comprehensive Cancer Center, Utrecht, 1066CX, The Netherlands
    Lambertus A. Kiemeney & Katja K. Aben
72. Department of Population Health Research, Alberta Health Services-Cancer Care, Calgary, T2N 2T9, Alberta, Canada
    Linda E. Kelemen
73. Department of Medical Genetics and Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 2T9, Alberta, Canada
    Linda E. Kelemen
74. Division of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
    Gary L. Keeney
75. Women’s Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, 90048, California, USA
    Beth Y. Karlan
76. Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA
    Kimberly R. Kalli & Matthew S. Block
77. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan
    Hiroaki Kajiyama
78. Division of Cancer Etiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, 20892, Maryland, USA
    Bu-Tian Ji
79. Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, 27708, North Carolina, USA
    Edwin Iversen
80. Department of Pathology, Molecular Unit, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2730, Denmark
    Estrid Høgdall
81. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, 97239, Oregon, USA
    Maureen Hoatlin
82. Clinics of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, 30625, Germany
    Peter Hillemanns
83. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, 45136, Germany
    Florian Heitz, Philipp Harter & Andreas du Bois
84. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Dr. Horst Schmidt Klinik, Wiesbaden, 65199, Germany
    Florian Heitz, Philipp Harter & Andreas du Bois
85. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, PMV Research Group, University of Cologne, Cologne, 50923, Germany
    Rebecca Hein
86. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171-77, Sweden
    Per Hall
87. Gynecological Oncology Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
    Martin Gore
88. Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Center Institute, Los Angeles, 90048, California, USA
    Marc T. Goodman
89. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3806, Victoria, Australia
    Graham G. Giles
90. Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
    Montserrat Garcia-Closas
91. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK
    James M. Flanagan & Robert Brown
92. Institute of Human Genetics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, 91054, Germany
    Arif B. Ekici
93. Maggee Women’s Hospital, Pittsburg, 15213, Pennsylvania, USA
    Robert Edwards
94. Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, S017 1BJ, UK
    Diana Eccles
95. Gynaecology Research Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, 30625, Germany
    Thilo Dörk & Natalia Bogdanova
96. Section of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, 03755, New Hampshire, USA
    Jennifer A. Doherty
97. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 87131, New Mexico, USA
    Linda S. Cook & Bridget Charbonneau
98. Department of Genetics, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Herston, QLD 4006, Queensland, Australia
    Xiaoqing Chen, Jonathan Beesley & Georgia Chenevix-Trench
99. Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Cancer Genetics Laboratory, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Victoria, Australia
    Ian Campbell
100. Department of Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3053, Victoria, Australia
     Ian Campbell
101. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3002, Victoria, Australia
     Ian Campbell
102. Department of Pathology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, 00530, Finland
     Ralf Butzow
103. Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, V52 1L3, British Columbia, Canada
     Angela Brooks-Wilson
104. Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute, University College London, London, WC1E 6JJ, UK
     Elizabeth Benjamin
105. Belarusian Institute for Oncology and Medical Radiology Aleksandrov N.N., Minsk, 223040, Belarus
     Natalia Antonenkova
106. College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, Houston, 77044, Texas, USA
     Dong Liang
107. Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA
     Xifeng Wu & Michelle A.T. Hildebrandt
108. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA
     Karen Lu
109. Cancer Prevention, Detection and Control Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, 27708, North Carolina, USA
     Joellen M. Schildkraut
110. Department of Pathology, Vancouver General Hospital, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, V5Z 4E6, British Columbia, Canada
     David Huntsman
111. Gynecologic Cancer Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, 27708, North Carolina, USA
     Andrew Berchuck
112. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK
     Paul D.P. Pharoah

Authors

1. Hui Shen
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
2. Brooke L. Fridley
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
3. Honglin Song
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
4. Kate Lawrenson
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
5. Julie M. Cunningham
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
6. Susan J. Ramus
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
7. Mine S. Cicek
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
8. Jonathan Tyrer
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
9. Douglas Stram
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
10. Melissa C. Larson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
11. Martin Köbel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
12. Argyrios Ziogas
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
13. Wei Zheng
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
14. Hannah P. Yang
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
15. Anna H. Wu
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
16. Eva L. Wozniak
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
17. Yin Ling Woo
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
18. Boris Winterhoff
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
19. Elisabeth Wik
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
20. Alice S. Whittemore
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
21. Nicolas Wentzensen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
22. Rachel Palmieri Weber
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
23. Allison F. Vitonis
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
24. Daniel Vincent
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
25. Robert A. Vierkant
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
26. Ignace Vergote
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
27. David Van Den Berg
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
28. Anne M. Van Altena
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
29. Shelley S. Tworoger
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
30. Pamela J. Thompson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
31. Daniel C. Tessier
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
32. Kathryn L. Terry
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
33. Soo-Hwang Teo
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
34. Claire Templeman
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
35. Daniel O. Stram
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
36. Melissa C. Southey
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
37. Weiva Sieh
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
38. Nadeem Siddiqui
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
39. Yurii B. Shvetsov
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
40. Xiao-Ou Shu
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
41. Viji Shridhar
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
42. Shan Wang-Gohrke
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
43. Gianluca Severi
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
44. Ira Schwaab
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
45. Helga B. Salvesen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
46. Iwona K. Rzepecka
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
47. Ingo B. Runnebaum
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
48. Mary Anne Rossing
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
49. Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
50. Harvey A. Risch
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
51. Stefan P. Renner
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
52. Elizabeth M. Poole
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
53. Malcolm C. Pike
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
54. Catherine M. Phelan
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
55. Liisa M. Pelttari
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
56. Tanja Pejovic
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
57. James Paul
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
58. Irene Orlow
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
59. Siti Zawiah Omar
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
60. Sara H. Olson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
61. Kunle Odunsi
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
62. Stefan Nickels
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
63. Heli Nevanlinna
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
64. Roberta B. Ness
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
65. Steven A. Narod
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
66. Toru Nakanishi
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
67. Kirsten B. Moysich
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
68. Alvaro N.A. Monteiro
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
69. Joanna Moes-Sosnowska
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
70. Francesmary Modugno
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
71. Usha Menon
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
72. John R. McLaughlin
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
73. Valerie McGuire
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
74. Keitaro Matsuo
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
75. Noor Azmi Mat Adenan
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
76. Leon F.A.G Massuger
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
77. Galina Lurie
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
78. Lene Lundvall
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
79. Jan Lubiński
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
80. Jolanta Lissowska
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
81. Douglas A. Levine
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
82. Arto Leminen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
83. Alice W. Lee
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
84. Nhu D. Le
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
85. Sandrina Lambrechts
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
86. Diether Lambrechts
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
87. Jolanta Kupryjanczyk
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
88. Camilla Krakstad
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
89. Gottfried E. Konecny
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
90. Susanne Krüger Kjaer
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
91. Lambertus A. Kiemeney
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
92. Linda E. Kelemen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
93. Gary L. Keeney
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
94. Beth Y. Karlan
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
95. Rod Karevan
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
96. Kimberly R. Kalli
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
97. Hiroaki Kajiyama
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
98. Bu-Tian Ji
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
99. Allan Jensen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
100. Anna Jakubowska
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
101. Edwin Iversen
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
102. Satoyo Hosono
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
103. Claus K. Høgdall
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
104. Estrid Høgdall
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
105. Maureen Hoatlin
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
106. Peter Hillemanns
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
107. Florian Heitz
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
108. Rebecca Hein
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
109. Philipp Harter
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
110. Mari K. Halle
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
111. Per Hall
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
112. Jacek Gronwald
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
113. Martin Gore
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
114. Marc T. Goodman
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
115. Graham G. Giles
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
116. Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
117. Montserrat Garcia-Closas
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
118. James M. Flanagan
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
119. Peter A. Fasching
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
120. Arif B. Ekici
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
121. Robert Edwards
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
122. Diana Eccles
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
123. Douglas F. Easton
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
124. Matthias Dürst
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
125. Andreas du Bois
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
126. Thilo Dörk
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
127. Jennifer A. Doherty
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
128. Evelyn Despierre
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
129. Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
130. Cezary Cybulski
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
131. Daniel W. Cramer
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
132. Linda S. Cook
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
133. Xiaoqing Chen
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
134. Bridget Charbonneau
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
135. Jenny Chang-Claude
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
136. Ian Campbell
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
137. Ralf Butzow
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
138. Clareann H. Bunker
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
139. Doerthe Brueggmann
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
140. Robert Brown
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
141. Angela Brooks-Wilson
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
142. Louise A. Brinton
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
143. Natalia Bogdanova
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
144. Matthew S. Block
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
145. Elizabeth Benjamin
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
146. Jonathan Beesley
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
147. Matthias W. Beckmann
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
148. Elisa V. Bandera
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
149. Laura Baglietto
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
150. François Bacot
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
151. Sebastian M. Armasu
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
152. Natalia Antonenkova
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
153. Hoda Anton-Culver
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
154. Katja K. Aben
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
155. Dong Liang
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
156. Xifeng Wu
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
157. Karen Lu
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
158. Michelle A.T. Hildebrandt
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
159. Joellen M. Schildkraut
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
160. Thomas A. Sellers
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
161. David Huntsman
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
162. Andrew Berchuck
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
163. Georgia Chenevix-Trench
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
164. Simon A. Gayther
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
165. Paul D.P. Pharoah
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
166. Peter W. Laird
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
167. Ellen L. Goode
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
168. Celeste Leigh Pearce
     You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

PRACTICAL Consortium

Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group

Australian Cancer Study

Contributions

H. Shen, B.L.F., H. Song, K.L., M.K., G.C.T., S.A.G., P.D.P.P., P.W.L., E.L.G. and C.L.P. contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version. H. Shen, B.L.F., M.S.C., K.L., J.T., D.S., M.C.L., M.K., P.D.P.P., P.W.L., E.L.G. and C.L.P. carried out data analysis. S.J.R. and C.M.P. collated and prepared samples for genotyping. S.A.G. and K.L. performed functional analyses.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toEllen L. Goode.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

A list of consortium members appears in Supplementary Note 1

A list of consortium members appears in Supplementary Note 2

A list of consortium members appears in Supplementary Note 3

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures S1-S11, Supplementary Tables S1-S2, Supplementary Notes 1-3, Supplementary Methods and Supplementary References (PDF 2792 kb)

Supplementary Data

Supplementary Data 1: Association between all non-genome-wide significant SNPs in HNF1B and risk of ovarian cancer by histological subtype in European-Whites. (XLSX 113 kb)

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative 3.0 license

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shen, H., Fridley, B., Song, H. et al. Epigenetic analysis leads to identification of HNF1B as a subtype-specific susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer.Nat Commun 4, 1628 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2629

Download citation

• Received: 28 November 2012
• Accepted: 21 February 2013
• Published: 27 March 2013
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2629