Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2025 Aug 15;104(33):e43916. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000043916

Unveiling the enigma: Investigating the controversy surrounding mitochondrial DNA copy number and gastric cancer using Mendelian randomization analysis

Jie Zhou a,b, Taohua Shangguan a,b,*, Yixin Xu a,b, Chao Chen a,b, Kun Wang a,b
PMCID: PMC12366980  PMID: 40826743

Abstract

Gastric cancer (GC), as one of the most prevalent malignant tumors, significantly impacts individuals’ health. Many studies have examined the relationship between mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number and GC. However, conclusions remain inconclusive, with conflicting findings. The genome-wide association study summary statistics for mtDNA copy number were obtained from 2 sources: one from a robust cohort of 465,809 White individuals provided by the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium and the UK Biobank; and the other from a dataset comprising 395,718 UK Biobank participants. In addition, a total of 5 sets of genome-wide association study summary statistics for GC were obtained through datasets from Finland, the European Bioinformatics Institute, and the Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, encompassing a total of 937,663 participants. Furthermore, we undertook a 2-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis to explore the association between mtDNA copy number and GC. The Inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was primarily utilized, complemented by 4 other validation methods. Based on our comprehensive investigation, no discernible causal relationship was found between mtDNA copy number and GC in both the training and validation cohorts (IVW, P >.05). Furthermore, in the reverse Mendelian randomization analysis, no association was observed between GC and mtDNA copy number either (IVW, P >.05). Additionally, all analyses showed no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy or heterogeneity. The findings of this study provide evidence that there is no causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC.

Keywords: causal relationship, genetically predicted, GWAS, single nucleotide polymorphism

1. Introduction

Worldwide, gastric cancer (GC) remains one of the most common malignancies and a leading cause of mortality. According to the latest estimates released by GLOBOCAN, the annual incidence of GC worldwide reached 1089,000 cases, ranking fifth among all malignant tumors.[1] While incidence rates are declining in many countries, the aging demographic profile is anticipated to drive a future increase in GC cases.[2] The challenge of timely detection of this insidious cancer for effective therapeutic interventions persists. In recent years, the exploration of GC risk factors and the identification of reliable screening markers continue to represent critical areas of research.[3]

Mitochondria play a crucial role in the fundamental functions of eukaryotic cells, such as energy production, ROS regulation, autophagy, senescence, and involvement in cell signaling pathways.[4] Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the unique genome of mitochondria, encodes 2 ribosomal RNAs, 22 transfer RNAs, and 13 polypeptides essential for the respiratory chain.[5] The mitochondrial DNA copy number reflects the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear DNA copies, serving as a surrogate marker for mitochondrial quantity and dysfunction, indirectly reflecting damage to mtDNA.[6,7] Additionally, the mtDNA copy number can vary under different physiological and stress conditions (such as ROS/oxidative stress) and may be associated with pathological processes like cancer, diabetes, and Huntington disease.[7,8]

Currently, there is a significant controversy regarding the relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC. On one hand, Zhu et al conducted a case-control study and measured the relative mtDNA copy number in peripheral blood leukocytes using real-time quantitative PCR. Their findings suggested a potential positive involvement of mtDNA in the development of GC.[9] Similarly, Fernandes et al also observed that the peripheral blood mtDNA copy number in GC patients was significantly higher than in the noncancer control group.[10] Additionally, Alikhani et al reported similar results in their study.[11] On the other hand, Jiang et al analyzed the mtDNA copy numbers in the peripheral blood of high-altitude residents and found no significant difference in mtDNA copy numbers between GC patients and healthy individuals.[12] The study by Liao et al also confirmed that there is no association between leukocyte mtDNA copy number and the risk of developing GC.[13] Similarly, Lee et al reported comparable findings in their study.[14] Even more surprisingly, Sun et al discovered that individuals with low mtDNA copy number had a significantly higher risk of developing GC.[15] Given this, the causal association between mtDNA copy number and GC has not yet been established and requires further research.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a potential causal inference method that utilizes genetic variations as instrumental variables (IVs) to infer the impact of exposure factors on outcomes from observational data.[16] MR can mitigate the effects of unmeasured confounders or biases while leveraging Mendelian inheritance patterns to avoid reverse causation.[16] In this study, we collected multiple recently published genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics on GC and mtDNA copy number. Through 2-sample MR analysis, our primary aim is to elucidate the causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC, uncovering the pathogenesis of GC, and exploring potential therapeutic targets.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

The data utilized in our analysis were sourced from publicly available repositories and had been approved by the institutional review committees of the respective studies. Therefore, no ethical committee review was deemed necessary for this study.

In this study, we explored the causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC through 2-sample bidirectional MR analyses, with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) serving as IVs.[17] Three assumptions must be satisfied for MR analysis: the SNPs are linked to the exposure; the SNPs are independent of confounders in the exposure-outcome relationship; and the SNPs influence the outcome solely through the exposure.[18]

2.2. GWAS summary data sources

2.2.1. mtDNA copy number

The GWAS summary statistics for mtDNA copy number were obtained from a robust cohort of 465,809 White individuals sourced from the esteemed Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium and the UK Biobank,[19] serving as the primary training cohort, as detailed by Longchamps et al in their 2022 publication. To fortify the credibility of our findings, we introduced a validation group comprising 395,718 UK Biobank participants with diverse ancestries, predominantly of European descent.[20] In addition, the GWAS was adjusted for age, age2, sex, chip type, 20 genetic principal components, and blood cell counts (including white blood cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts). This represents a more comprehensive genetic assessment of mtDNA copy number compared to previous studies.[19,21]

2.2.2. Gastric cancer

In this study, we incorporated a total of 5 sets of GWAS summary statistics for GC as outcome data for analysis. Among these, we gathered 3 cohorts from Finland (DF10, Public release: December 18, 2023), which encompassed Adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach (AdenoPapAdenoCA) (n = 792, control = 314,193), Neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach (NETC) (n = 118, control = 314,193), and Malignant neoplasm of the stomach (MNOS) (n = 1423, control = 314,193). While there may be some overlap in these datasets, they can indirectly reflect the association between mtDNA copy number and different pathological subtypes of GC. Furthermore, this study obtained 2 large-scale GWAS datasets on GC from the European Bioinformatics Institute (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/) and the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/). More specifically, the GC GWAS data were respectively analyzed by Sakaue et al (n = 7921, controls = 159,201)[22] and Jiang et al (sample size = 456,348).[23] The detailed information and sources of the aforementioned data can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Details of the GWAS and datasets used in our analyses.

Phenotypes Cases/controls Consortium/Author PubMed ID Data download link
Mitochondrial DNA copy number 395,718 UK Biobank 35023831 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/
Mitochondrial DNA copy number in the replication analysis 465,809 CHARGE and UK Biobank 34859289 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/
Adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of stomach 792/314,193 FinnGen consortium – https://storage.googleapis.com/finngen-public-data-r10/summary_stats/finngen_R10_C3_STOMACH_ADENO_EXALLC.gz
Neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of stomach 118/314193 FinnGen consortium – https://storage.googleapis.com/finngen-public-data-r10/summary_stats/finngen_R10_C3_STOMACH_NEUROENDOCRINE_EXALLC.gz
Malignant neoplasm of stomach 1423/314,193 FinnGen consortium – https://storage.googleapis.com/finngen-public-data-r10/summary_stats/finngen_R10_C3_STOMACH_EXALLC.gz
Gastric cancer 7921/159,201 Saori Sakaue et al. 34594039 https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/;ID: ebi-a-GCST90018629
Gastric cancer 456,348 Longda Jiang et al. 34737426 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/; ID: GCST90018849
Open in a new tab

GWAS = genome-wide association studies.

2.3. IVs selection and data harmonization

In our analysis, we included SNPs that showed genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8). These SNPs were then grouped based on linkage disequilibrium (using a window size of 10,000 kb and r2 < 0.001). Moreover, palindromic and ambiguous SNPs were excluded from the IVs utilized in the MR analysis.[24] However, if selecting based on P < 5 × 10−8 results in a limited number of SNPs, we will further relax the selection criteria (e.g., using P < 1 × 10−5) for refinement. The F statistic was determined by assessing the variance elucidated by the SNPs for each exposure, computed as [(N—K—1)/K]/ [R2/ (1–R2)], where K signifies the count of genetic variants and N represents the sample size. To uphold the robustness and dependability of the findings, we omitted feeble IVs (F-statistics < 10) from the analysis.

2.4. Statistical analysis

For our meticulous and thorough analysis, we performed MR analysis utilizing R software (version 4.2.0, http://www.r-project.org) in tandem with the “Two-Sample MR” package (version 0.5.6).[25] Additionally, we employed the online tool PhenoScanner to evaluate all established phenotypes associated with the genetic instruments under consideration in our analyses (http://www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk/).

2.5. Primary analysis

We conducted a 2-sample MR analysis to investigate whether genetically predicted mtDNA copy number has a causal relationship with GC. The Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW) method, as the most crucial and commonly used approach, employs meta-analysis to amalgamate the Wald ratios of causal effects for each SNP.[26,27] In addition to IVW, we utilized supplementary methods including Weighted Median,[28] MR-Egger,[29] Simple mode and weighted mode approaches. A range of methodologies, each tailored to specific validity assumptions, were utilized to obtain MR estimates. IVW, for instance, operates under the assumption that all SNPs act as valid IVs, ensuring accurate estimations. The Weighted Median method showcases heightened precision, evident in its reduced standard deviation compared to MR-Egger analysis. Furthermore, the reliability of the results was further validated using data from a validation cohort.

2.6. Reverse MR analysis

In order to explore whether there is a reverse causal relationship between genetically predicted mtDNA copy number and GC, this study conducted a reverse MR analysis, treating GC as the exposure and mtDNA copy number as the outcome. Building upon the results from the IVW method, additional analysis methods were employed to validate the findings and further confirm their robustness through the utilization of data from a validation cohort.

2.7. Sensitivity analysis

Due to variations in experimental conditions, selected populations, and SNPs, heterogeneity may exist in 2-sample MR analyses, potentially leading to biased estimates of causal effects. Therefore, this study performed heterogeneity tests for the primary IVW and MR-Egger methods. Cochrane Q value was employed to evaluate the heterogeneity of the genetic instruments, where a P-value >.05 suggests no significant heterogeneity. Additionally, an essential assumption in MR analysis is that IVs affect the outcome solely through the exposure, highlighting the need to investigate potential horizontal pleiotropy between the exposure and outcome.[30] In this study, the MR-Egger intercept method was utilized to evaluate the presence of pleiotropy. A P-value >.05 indicates a minimal or negligible probability of pleiotropy in the causal analysis, thereby permitting its exclusion. Finally, outliers in IVW analysis methods can be identified and adjusted using the MR-PRESSO test,[31] while leave-one-out analysis was employed to determine the influence of a single SNP on the genetic causal relationship between the exposure and outcome.[32]

3. Results

3.1. Association of genetically predicted mtDNA copy number with GC in training cohort

After LD clumping, proxy SNP exploration, the Phenoscanner database mining and data harmonization, we selected eligible SNPs as IVs to fit 3 key assumptions. A total of 70 SNPs associated with mtDNA copy number were obtained for further analysis in the training cohord (Table S1, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

To investigate the genetically predicted causal relationship between the mtDNA copy number and GC, we used the mtDNA copy number dataset from the training cohort as the exposure and datasets from 5 groups of GC datasets as the outcome for MR analysis.

In the Finnish database, within the first dataset on GC, characterized by the phenotype of AdenoPapAdenoCA, a systematic MR analysis did not uncover any evidence of a genetically predicted causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC (IVW: odds ratio [OR], 0.842; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.426–1.664; P = .621). The second dataset, characterized by the phenotype of NETC, was incorporated into the MR analysis, revealing no association between mtDNA copy number and GC (IVW: OR, 4.949; 95% CI, 0.819–29.909; P = .081). In the third dataset, characterized by MNOS as the outcome, no causal relationship with mtDNA copy number was similarly found (IVW: OR, 1.127; 95% CI, 0.678–1.873, P = .645) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The MR analysis between mtDNA copy number and GC in the training cohort. AdenoPapAdenoCA = adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach, GC = gastric cancer, IVW, Inverse variance weighted, MNOS = malignant neoplasm of the stomach, MR = Mendelian randomization, mtDNA = mitochondrial DNA, NETC = neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach.

Subsequently, we continued the analysis of 3 large-scale GWAS datasets on GC sourced from the European Bioinformatics Institute and the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol. Using GWAS data analyzed by Sakaue et al, no causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC was identified (IVW: OR, 0.853; 95% CI, 0.629–1.158; P = .308). Furthermore, in the data analyzed by Jiang et al, consistent negative results were obtained (IVW: OR, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.673–1.175; P = .408) (Fig. 1).

In the above-mentioned 5 MR analyses concerning mtDNA copy number and GC, various analytical methods, including Weighted Median, MR-Egger, Simple Mode, and Weighted Mode analyses, were incorporated. The results revealed that all findings aligned with the primary IVW method, failing to establish a significant association between the 2 factors (Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

3.2. Reverse MR analysis in the training cohort

To delve deeper into the association between GC and mtDNA copy number, we conducted a reverse MR analysis, treating GC as the exposure and mtDNA copy number as the outcome. Given the limited number of SNPs obtained using a stringent threshold of P < 5 × 10−8, we chose a more inclusive criterion of P < 1 × 10−5 for screening in this study.

In the Finnish database, with phenotypes including AdenoPapAdenoCA (IVW: OR, 1.004; 95% CI, 0.997–1.012; P = .248), NETC (IVW: OR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.997–1.005; P = .613), and MNOS (IVW: OR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.997–1.005; P = .617) as exposures, no reverse causal relationship was found between GC and mtDNA copy number (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The reverse MR analysis between mtDNA copy number and GC in the training cohort. AdenoPapAdenoCA = adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach, GC = gastric cancer, IVW, Inverse variance weighted, MNOS = malignant neoplasm of the stomach, MR = Mendelian randomization, mtDNA = mitochondrial DNA, NETC = neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach.

Additionally, we included GWAS datasets on GC separately analyzed by Sakaue et al (IVW: OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 0.995–1.015; P = .296) and Jiang et al (IVW: OR, 1.000; 95% CI, 0.999–1.002, P = .571; Outlier SNP removed: rs17242869) as exposures to explore their causal relationship with mtDNA copy number. Similar to the results from the Finnish dataset, none of these 3 datasets revealed a reverse causal relationship with mtDNA copy number (Fig. 2).

In all the reverse MR analyses mentioned above, we also employed a variety of analytical techniques, such as weighted median, MR-Egger, simple mode, and weighted mode methods. Consistently, all findings aligned with the primary IVW method, indicating no significant association between these 2 factors (Table S3, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

3.3. Conducting bidirectional MR analysis in the validation cohort

We performed validation analysis using the GWAS summary statistics for mtDNA copy number on 395,718 UK Biobank participants, predominantly of European descent. After LD clumping, proxy SNP exploration, the Phenoscanner database mining and data harmonization, 68 SNPs associated with mtDNA copy number were selected for further analysis in the validation cohort (Table S4, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

In the Finnish database, with phenotypes including AdenoPapAdenoCA (IVW: OR, 0.872; 95% CI, 0.440–1.728; P = .695), NETC (IVW: OR, 5.172; 95% CI, 0.850–31.471; P = .074), and MNOS (IVW: OR, 1.154; 95% CI, 0.692–1.924; P = .584) as outcomes, no causal relationship was found between mtDNA copy number and GC. Additionally, similar results were found in GWAS datasets on GC separately analyzed by Sakaue et al (IVW: OR, 0.877; 95% CI, 0.639–1.204; P = .416) and Jiang et al (IVW: OR, 1.273; 95% CI, 0.270–6.009; P = .760) (Fig. 3) (Table S5, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

The MR analysis between mtDNA copy number and GC in the validation cohort. AdenoPapAdenoCA = adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach, GC = gastric cancer, IVW, Inverse variance weighted, MNOS = malignant neoplasm of the stomach, MR = Mendelian randomization, mtDNA = mitochondrial DNA, NETC = neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach.

In the validation cohort, during the reverse MR analysis with phenotypes like adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of stomach (IVW: OR, 1.004; 95% CI, 0.997–1.012; P = .269), neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of stomach (IVW: OR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.997–1.005; P = .634), and malignant neoplasm of stomach (IVW: OR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.997–1.005; P = .620) as exposures, no causal link was established between GC and mtDNA copy number. Furthermore, similar results were observed in GWAS datasets on GC separately analyzed by Sakaue et al (IVW: OR, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.996–1.016; P = .214) and Jiang et al (IVW: OR, 1.000; 95% CI, 0.999–1.002; P = .559; Outlier SNP removed: rs17242869) (Fig. 4) (Table S6, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

The reverse MR analysis between mtDNA copy number and GC in the validation cohort. AdenoPapAdenoCA = adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach, GC = gastric cancer, IVW, Inverse variance weighted, MNOS = malignant neoplasm of the stomach, MR = Mendelian randomization, mtDNA = mitochondrial DNA, NETC = neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach.

3.4. Sensitivity analysis

In the analyses mentioned above, we utilized the online tool PhenoScanner to evaluate each SNP, and the results revealed no association between these SNPs and the investigated outcomes. During the outlier test, we only identified an outlier in the reverse MR analysis when a GWAS dataset on GC separately analyzed by Longda Jiang et al was used as the exposure: rs17242869, which was subsequently removed from further analysis. Moreover, we employed a “leave-one-out” approach for sensitivity analysis to explore whether specific SNPs influenced the causal relationships. The results indicated that systematically excluding each SNP did not result in significant changes in the model’s effect estimates or qualitative conclusions (Fig. S1–4, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P684). Additionally, in all the analyses involving the training cohort, validation cohort, and all reverse MR analyses, no evidence of heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy was found (Table S7, Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P685).

4. Discussion

Over the past decade, numerous observational studies have investigated the association between mtDNA copy number and GC. They have also explored the potential of peripheral blood mtDNA copy number as an early detection marker for GC. However, due to the influence of various confounding factors, studies in this field have produced inconsistent and even conflicting results.[9–15] In this study, we have leveraged existing GWAS data to introduce an innovative approach. We have utilized MR analysis to establish a link between mtDNA copy number and GC. Through the application of 2-sample bidirectional MR analysis, our aim is to delve into the causal relationship between the 2 factors and identify potential therapeutic targets for GC.

Wu et al first described the changes in mtDNA copy numbers in GC.[33] In comparison to corresponding noncancerous tissue, 50% of GC patients exhibited a relative decrease in mtDNA copy numbers, while 23% showed a relative increase. Additionally, the mtDNA copy number was associated with Borrmann type, indicating that the decrease in mtDNA may be involved in the phenotypic changes, tumor progression, and metastasis of GC. However, our study analyzed 5 sets of GWAS summary statistics for GC and 2 sets for mtDNA copy number. Through MR analysis, we did not find any causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC in both the training and validation cohort. Similarly, in the reverse MR analysis, negative results were obtained in both the training and validation cohort. Furthermore, tests for horizontal pleiotropy, heterogeneity analysis, and sensitivity analysis all met the 3 core assumptions of MR, further validating the reliability of our results. These findings are consistent with previous research results.[12,13,15]

The presence of numerous confounding factors often leads to inconsistent results. Similarly, according to Yu et al review of mitochondrial DNA copy numbers in different cancers, conflicting conclusions have also emerged in certain types of cancer.[34] The observed increase in mitochondrial DNA may be attributed to the use of varying methods for estimating mitochondrial DNA content and DNA extraction. Therefore, to comprehend the significance of mitochondrial DNA alterations in cancer, standardized methods should be employed for calculating mitochondrial DNA content. In addition, factors such as the study population, sample size, statistical differences, and technical limitations are all reasons that can lead to biases in research results. Therefore, by using genetic variants as IVs, MR can mitigate the influence of unmeasured confounders or biases. This allows for the inference of the impact of mtDNA copy number on GC from observational data, leading to higher credibility of the conclusions.

To our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive and largest MR analysis on the genetic causal effects of mtDNA copy number on the risk of GC. Our MR study boasts several strengths. Firstly, we employed a 2-sample MR design to mitigate the impact of confounding variables and reverse causation often encountered in traditional observational studies. Furthermore, we meticulously screened exposure-related IVs and manually excluded SNPs associated with potential confounders, thereby adhering closely to the fundamental assumptions of MR analysis. Lastly, our study conducted analyses across multiple datasets and validated our findings using a validation cohort, with results consistently supporting our conclusions.

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, since our genomic analysis was primarily conducted in individuals of European ancestry, and given the well-documented geographic variations in GC incidence and risk factors, the generalizability of our findings to other ethnic populations may be limited. Furthermore, the use of GWAS summary-level data inherently restricted our ability to perform more sophisticated ancestry heterogeneity controls, such as principal component analysis or population-specific stratification adjustments. Secondly, despite conducting various sensitivity analyses, we cannot completely rule out the potential impact of pleiotropies or heterogeneities. Moreover, the mtDNA GWAS data (e.g., UK Biobank) and partial GC GWAS datasets (e.g., Sakaue et al) may share overlapping participants, which could introduce bias in MR analysis. Although we performed sensitivity analyses using GC data from nonoverlapping cohorts (e.g., Finnish populations), residual confounding from undetected overlap cannot be entirely ruled out. Lastly, in the reverse MR analysis, constrained by a limited number of SNPs, we included SNPs with genome-wide significance (P < 1 × 10−5), which may have reduced the robustness of our conclusions.

5. Conclusion

In light of the substantial controversy surrounding the causal relationship between mtDNA copy number and GC, we conducted a meticulous analysis using MR on 2 GWAS datasets for mtDNA copy number and 5 GWAS datasets for GC. Our comprehensive investigation revealed no discernible causal relationship between peripheral blood mtDNA copy number and GC. Notably, the absence of positive findings in the reverse MR analysis further strengthens this conclusion.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Jie Zhou.

Data curation: Jie Zhou, Taohua Shangguan, Chao Chen, Kun Wang.

Funding acquisition: Yixin Xu.

Methodology: Jie Zhou, Kun Wang.

Software: Yixin Xu.

Supervision: Taohua Shangguan.

Writing – original draft: Jie Zhou.

Writing – review & editing: Taohua Shangguan.

Supplementary Material

medi-104-e43916-s001.xlsx (36.4KB, xlsx)

Abbreviations:

AdenoPapAdenoCA
adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach
CI
confidence interval
GC
gastric cancer
GWAS
genome-wide association studies
IVs
instrumental variables
IVW
inverse variance weighted
MNOS
malignant neoplasm of the stomach
MR
Mendelian randomization
mtDNA
mitochondrial DNA
NETC
neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoma of the stomach
OR
odds ratio
SNPs
single nucleotide polymorphisms

This study was funded by the Jiangsu University Medical Education Collaborative Innovation Fund Project (No. JDY2023018) and the Medical Research Project of Jiangsu Health Commission (No. Z2021010).

This study was based on publicly available summary data and required no ethics approval or participant consent.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are publicly available.

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article.

How to cite this article: Zhou J, Shangguan T, Xu Y, Chen C, Wang K. Unveiling the enigma: Investigating the controversy surrounding mitochondrial DNA copy number and gastric cancer using Mendelian randomization analysis. Medicine 2025;104:33(e43916).

Contributor Information

Jie Zhou, Email: 834705826@qq.com.

Yixin Xu, Email: xyxdoctor@sina.com.

Chao Chen, Email: chao7132@qq.com.

Kun Wang, Email: 506425248@qq.com.

References

  • [1].Thrift AP, Wenker TN, El-Serag HB. Global burden of gastric cancer: epidemiological trends, risk factors, screening and prevention. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20:338–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC, Lordick F. Gastric cancer. Lancet. 2020;396:635–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Matsuoka T, Yashiro M. Biomarkers of gastric cancer: current topics and future perspective. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:2818–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Javadov S, Kozlov AV, Camara AKS. Mitochondria in health and diseases. Cells. 2020;9:1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Miller FJ, Rosenfeldt FL, Zhang C, Linnane AW, Nagley P. Precise determination of mitochondrial DNA copy number in human skeletal and cardiac muscle by a PCR-based assay: lack of change of copy number with age. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:e61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Clay Montier LL, Deng JJ, Bai Y. Number matters: control of mammalian mitochondrial DNA copy number. J Genet Genomics. 2009;36:125–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Malik AN, Czajka A. Is mitochondrial DNA content a potential biomarker of mitochondrial dysfunction? Mitochondrion. 2013;13:481–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Hurtado-Roca Y, Ledesma M, Gonzalez-Lazaro M, et al. Adjusting MtDNA quantification in whole blood for peripheral blood platelet and leukocyte counts. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0163770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Zhu X, Mao Y, Huang T, et al. High mitochondrial DNA copy number was associated with an increased gastric cancer risk in a Chinese population. Mol Carcinog. 2017;56:2593–600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Fernandes J, Michel V, Camorlinga-Ponce M, et al. Circulating mitochondrial DNA level, a noninvasive biomarker for the early detection of gastric cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:2430–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Alikhani M, Saberi S, Esmaeili M, et al. Mitochondrial DNA copy number variations and serum pepsinogen levels for risk assessment in gastric cancer. Iran Biomed J. 2021;25:323–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Jiang J, Zhao JH, Wang XL, et al. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA in Tibetan gastric cancer patients at high altitude. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3:875–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Liao LM, Baccarelli A, Shu XO, et al. Mitochondrial DNA copy number and risk of gastric cancer: a report from the Shanghai Women’s Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:1944–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Lee H, Lee JH, Kim DC, et al. Is mitochondrial DNA copy number associated with clinical characteristics and prognosis in gastric cancer? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:87–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Sun Y, Gu J, Ajani JA, Chang DW, Wu X, Stroehlein JR. Genetic and intermediate phenotypic susceptibility markers of gastric cancer in Hispanic Americans: a case-control study. Cancer. 2014;120:3040–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Emdin CA, Khera AV, Kathiresan S. Mendelian Randomization. JAMA. 2017;318:1925–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23:R89–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Burgess S, Labrecque JA. Mendelian randomization with a binary exposure variable: interpretation and presentation of causal estimates. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:947–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Longchamps RJ, Yang SY, Castellani CA, et al. Genome-wide analysis of mitochondrial DNA copy number reveals loci implicated in nucleotide metabolism, platelet activation, and megakaryocyte proliferation. Hum Genet. 2022;141:127–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Chong M, Mohammadi-Shemirani P, Perrot N, et al. GWAS and ExWAS of blood mitochondrial DNA copy number identifies 71 loci and highlights a potential causal role in dementia. Elife. 2022;11:e70382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Hägg S, Jylhävä J, Wang Y, Czene K, Grassmann F. Deciphering the genetic and epidemiological landscape of mitochondrial DNA abundance. Hum Genet. 2021;140:849–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Sakaue S, Kanai M, Tanigawa Y, et al. ; FinnGen. A cross-population atlas of genetic associations for 220 human phenotypes. Nat Genet. 2021;53:1415–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Jiang L, Zheng Z, Fang H, Yang J. A generalized linear mixed model association tool for biobank-scale data. Nat Genet. 2021;53:1616–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Burgess S, Thompson SG; CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:755–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Broadbent JR, Foley CN, Grant AJ, Mason AM, Staley JR, Burgess S. MendelianRandomization v0.5.0: updates to an R package for performing Mendelian randomization analyses using summarized data. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife. 2018;7:e34408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37:658–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Bowden J, Smith GD, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40:304–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32:377–89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].van Kippersluis H, Rietveld CA. Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:1279–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Chen L, Yang H, Li H, He C, Yang L, Lv G. Insights into modifiable risk factors of cholelithiasis: a Mendelian randomization study. Hepatology. 2022;75:785–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Hong J, Qu Z, Ji X, et al. Genetic associations between IL-6 and the development of autoimmune arthritis are gender-specific. Front Immunol. 2021;12:707617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Wu CW, Yin PH, Hung WY, et al. Mitochondrial DNA mutations and mitochondrial DNA depletion in gastric cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2005;44:19–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Yu M. Generation, function and diagnostic value of mitochondrial DNA copy number alterations in human cancers. Life Sci. 2011;89:65–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

medi-104-e43916-s001.xlsx (36.4KB, xlsx)
medi-104-e43916-s002.docx (1.7MB, docx)

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES