Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if available).
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorSara HäggKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Senior EditorEduardo FrancoMcGill University, Montreal, Canada
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Bull et al aimed to use data from observational studies and mendelian randomisation to explore if changes in circulating metabolites are associated with colorectal cancer development. As Mendelian randomisation uses information on genetic variations which are fixed at birth, it is less vulnerable to confounding than standard observational studies.
Overall, a major strength of the study is that it uses data from large cohort studies, one from childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood when the incidence of colorectal cancer is very low (reducing the likelihood of reverse causation) and before medication (such as statins which have the potential to affect metabolite levels) has been initiated.
This study has some weaknesses which have been acknowledged by the authors. Although the findings of this study indicate the potentially significant role that polyunsaturated fatty acids may have in colorectal cancer risk, the genes and therefore also the genetic variations (SNPs) associated with fatty acids often produce an effect for more than one fatty acid which may introduce bias. This together with the fact that there was limited information available on many specific fatty acids which are known causative metabolites for colorectal cancer, makes it difficult to establish with confidence which specific classes of fatty acids could potentially play a causative role in these associations. Also, the study populations are majority white European descent which may limit the applicability of these findings to other populations.
The methodology used was largely acceptable to achieve the aims set out and the findings have shown an association between polyunsaturated fat and colorectal cancer. However, I feel that the conclusion should be tempered slightly as although this study alongside other similar MR studies provides evidence of an association between genetic liability to CRC and levels of metabolites at certain ages, I do not think there is enough evidence at this stage to say that genetic liability for CRC actually alters the levels of metabolites.
Overall, this is an important piece of work that has the potential to contribute to our understanding of the causal relationship between circulating metabolites at different stages of the life cycle and colorectal cancer risk as it would be extremely difficult to gather such evidence using other study designs. It opens the door for future research aiming to better understand the role that these metabolites could play in colorectal cancer risk prediction and in turn help identify groups of individuals who would benefit most from prevention and early detection interventions.
This work will be of interest not only to epidemiologists working in the area of GI tract cancers but also those interested in the different applications for mendelian randomisation within cancer epidemiology research.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The manuscript by Bull et al investigates the relationship between metabolic features, in particular different lipoproteins and fatty acids, and colorectal cancer. They combine different data sources to analyze forward and reverse Mendelian Randomization associations in children and adults. Their results indicate that polyunsaturated fatty acids may be implicated in the risk for colorectal cancer.
Overall, the paper is well-written, and the methods used are solid. The use of different data (cohort individual data and summary stats) and stratifications strengthens the analyses. The conclusions drawn from the results are balanced and supported by the data although the novelty of the findings is modest.