Physical activity and sleep duration are established risk factors for many diseases, but their aetiology is poorly understood, partly due to relying on self-reported evidence. Here we report a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of device-measured physical activity and sleep duration in 91,105 UK Biobank participants, finding 14 significant loci (7 novel). These loci account for 0.06% of activity and 0.39% of sleep duration variation. Genome-wide estimates of ~ 15% phenotypic variation indicate high polygenicity. Heritability is higher in women than men for overall activity (23 vs. 20%, p = 1.5 × 10−4) and sedentary behaviours (18 vs. 15%, p = 9.7 × 10−4). Heritability partitioning, enrichment and pathway analyses indicate the central nervous system plays a role in activity behaviours. Two-sample Mendelian randomisation suggests that increased activity might causally lower diastolic blood pressure (beta mmHg/SD: −0.91, SE = 0.18, p = 8.2 × 10−7), and odds of hypertension (Odds ratio/SD: 0.84, SE = 0.03, p = 4.9 × 10−8). Our results advocate the value of physical activity for reducing blood pressure.

Cancer risk is determined by a complex interplay of environmental and heritable factors. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) provide a personalized genetic susceptibility profile that may be leveraged for disease prediction. Using data from the UK Biobank (413,753 individuals; 22,755 incident cancer cases), we quantify the added predictive value of integrating cancer-specific PRS with family history and modifiable risk factors for 16 cancers. We show that incorporating PRS measurably improves prediction accuracy for most cancers, but the magnitude of this improvement varies substantially. We also demonstrate that stratifying on levels of PRS identifies significantly divergent 5-year risk trajectories after accounting for family history and modifiable risk factors. At the population level, the top 20% of the PRS distribution accounts for 4.0% to 30.3% of incident cancer cases, exceeding the impact of many lifestyle-related factors. In summary, this study illustrates the potential for improving cancer risk assessment by integrating genetic risk scores.

Systemic inflammation markers have been linked to increased cancer risk and mortality in a number of studies. However, few studies have estimated pre-diagnostic associations of systemic inflammation markers and cancer risk. Such markers could serve as biomarkers of cancer risk and aid in earlier identification of the disease. This study estimated associations between pre-diagnostic systemic inflammation markers and cancer risk in the prospective UK Biobank cohort of approximately 440,000 participants recruited between 2006 and 2010. We assessed associations between four immune-related markers based on blood cell counts: systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and risk for 17 cancer sites by estimating hazard ratios (HR) using flexible parametric survival models. We observed positive associations with risk for seven out of 17 cancers with SII, NLR, PLR, and negative associations with LMR. The strongest associations were observed for SII for colorectal and lung cancer risk, with associations increasing in magnitude for cases diagnosed within one year of recruitment. For instance, the HR for colorectal cancer per standard deviation increment in SII was estimated at 1.09 (95% CI 1.02–1.16) in blood drawn five years prior to diagnosis and 1.50 (95% CI 1.24–1.80) in blood drawn one month prior to diagnosis. We observed associations between systemic inflammation markers and risk for several cancers. The increase in risk the last year prior to diagnosis may reflect a systemic immune response to an already present, yet clinically undetected cancer. Blood cell ratios could serve as biomarkers of cancer incidence risk with potential for early identification of disease in the last year prior to clinical diagnosis.

No abstract

doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.