Skip to main content
Blood Cancer Journal logoLink to Blood Cancer Journal
. 2021 Apr 14;11(4):74. doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00462-y

Genetically determined telomere length and multiple myeloma risk and outcome

Matteo Giaccherini 1, Angelica Macauda 1,2, Enrico Orciuolo 3, Marcin Rymko 4, Karolina Gruenpeter 5, Charles Dumontet 6, Malgorzata Raźny 7, Victor Moreno 8, Gabriele Buda 3, Katia Beider 9, Judit Varkonyi 10, Hervé Avet-Loiseau 11, Joaquín Martinez-Lopez 12, Herlander Marques 13, Marzena Watek 14,15, Maria Eugenia Sarasquete 16, Vibeke Andersen 17,18, Lionel Karlin 6, Anna Suska 19, Marcin Kruszewski 20, Niels Abildgaard 21, Marek Dudziński 22, Aleksandra Butrym 23, Arnold Nagler 9, Annette Juul Vangsted 24, Katalin Kadar 10, Tomczak Waldemar 25, Krzysztof Jamroziak 15, Svend Erik Hove Jacobsen 17, Lene Hyldahl Ebbesen 26, Michał Taszner 27, Grzegorz Mazur 23, Fabienne Lesueur 28, Matteo Pelosini 29, Ramon Garcia-Sanz 16, Artur Jurczyszyn 19, Delphine Demangel 6, Rui Manuel Reis 13,30, Elżbieta Iskierka-Jażdżewska 31, Miroslaw Markiewicz 22, Federica Gemignani 1, Edyta Subocz 32, Daria Zawirska 33, Agnieszka Druzd-Sitek 34, Anna Stępień 35, M Henar Alonso 8, Juan Sainz 36,37, Federico Canzian 2,✉,#, Daniele Campa 1,#
PMCID: PMC8046773  PMID: 33854038

Abstract

Telomeres are involved in processes like cellular growth, chromosomal stability, and proper segregation to daughter cells. Telomere length measured in leukocytes (LTL) has been investigated in different cancer types, including multiple myeloma (MM). However, LTL measurement is prone to heterogeneity due to sample handling and study design (retrospective vs. prospective). LTL is genetically determined; genome-wide association studies identified 11 SNPs that, combined in a score, can be used as a genetic instrument to measure LTL and evaluate its association with MM risk. This approach has been already successfully attempted in various cancer types but never in MM. We tested the “teloscore” in 2407 MM patients and 1741 controls from the International Multiple Myeloma rESEarch (IMMeNSE) consortium. We observed an increased risk for longer genetically determined telomere length (gdTL) (OR = 1.69; 95% CI 1.36–2.11; P = 2.97 × 10−6 for highest vs. lowest quintile of the score). Furthermore, in a subset of 1376 MM patients we tested the relationship between the teloscore and MM patients survival, observing a better prognosis for longer gdTL compared with shorter gdTL (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.86–0.99; P = 0.049). In conclusion, we report convincing evidence that longer gdTL is a risk marker for MM risk, and that it is potentially involved in increasing MM survival.

Subject terms: Myeloma, Risk factors

Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy that arises from a single clone of malignant plasma cells (PCs) in the bone marrow. It has a worldwide incidence of 2.1/100,000 new cases every year, ranking as the second most common hematological cancer1. MM has usually a late onset with a mean age at diagnosis around 60 years1.

There are overwhelming evidences that genetic variability influences the risk of developing MM28. In the recent years the importance of genetics has also emerged in MM response to treatment and survival915. Alongside polymorphic variants, another emerging marker of susceptibility and prognosis for several diseases is telomere length. Telomeres are specialized structures that cap the end of chromosomes and are involved in several processes like cellular growth, chromosomal stability, and proper segregation to daughter cells16. Telomerases are the most important enzymes involved in telomere replication and their dysfunction is considered a cancer hallmark17. Telomere length measured in leukocytes (LTL) has been used to investigate the susceptibility to different cancer types including several hematological malignancies1825, among which MM for which only two studies of small size have been attempted, a prospective cohort study and a retrospective case control study21,26. In a meta-analysis conducted by Xu and colleagues the role of LTL in relation to survival in several cancer types has been investigated27. However, MM was not among the tumors investigated by the authors and the only study conducted on MM survival consisted of five patients where telomere length was measured in bone marrow cells, comparing malignant vs. non-malignant cells28.

Telomere length is highly correlated across tissues29,30, it is reasonably stable during time, as assessed in a longitudinal study18, and therefore it is considered a valid surrogate for the measure of telomere length in specific tissues.

However, LTL measurement is prone to heterogeneity due to sample handling (DNA extraction methods used, storage of blood and/or DNA, elution buffer used)31. In addition, the analysis of LTL is sensitive to other confounders, such as the epidemiologic design of the study (retrospective vs. prospective) and, in studies on cancer, whether the subjects have received chemotherapy or not. LTL is genetically determined (gdTL) with an estimated heritability that ranges from 0.44 to 0.7032,33. Recently genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 11 SNPs23,3436 that, collectively, explain 2.28% of LTL variability and can be used as a genetic instrument in a Mendelian randomization fashion. This approach has been already successfully tested in relation to the risk of developing various cancer types23,3745, but was never done in MM. We have tested the genetic score (henceforth called “teloscore”) in the context of the International Multiple Myeloma rESEarch (IMMeNSE) consortium to investigate the relationship between gdTL and MM risk and survival.

Materials and methods

Study population

This study was conducted within the IMMeNSE consortium, that has been extensively described elsewhere46. We used DNA samples from 2407 MM patients and 1741 controls for whom information on sex, age (age at diagnosis for the cases/age at recruitment for the controls), and country of origin (Denmark, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain) was collected. Cases were defined by a confirmed diagnosis of MM according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria47. In addition, clinical data such as disease stage according to Durie-Salmon (DS) staging system48 and/or International Staging System (ISS)49, first-line treatment received, based on bortezomib/immunomodulatory drugs (defined as “new treatments”) or any other regimen, such as vincristine/adriamycin/dexamethasone or melphalan/prednisone (defined as “old treatments”) and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively collected from medical records. Information about DS stage was available for 1235 cases, while the stage according to ISS was available for 1022 cases, and for 984 cases information on both systems was available. Controls were selected among the general population as well as among hospitalized subjects or among blood donors in the same geographic areas where the cases were collected. Characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. The IMMEnSE study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (reference number: S-004/2020). Following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Table 1.

Summary of the study population.

MM cases Controls
Country/region
Denmark 277 494
France 330 176
Hungary 83 75
Israel 89 72
Italy 231 227
Poland 1043 262
Portugal 126 120
Spain 228 315
Total 2407 1741
Sex
Male 53.26% 51.92%
Female 46.74% 48.08%
Median age 61.47 52.59
(25th – 75th percentile) (55–68) (42–65)
Disease stage, Durie-Salmon
1 179
2 299
3 757
Total 1235
Disease stage, International Staging System
1 324
2 332
3 366
Total 1022
Vital status
Alive 902
Deceased 371
Total 1273

SNP selection

To build the teloscore we used 11 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (ZNF676-rs412658, TERT-rs2736100, CTC1-rs3027234, DHX35-rs6028466, PXK-rs6772228, NAF1-rs7675998, ZNF208-rs8105767, OBFC1-rs9420907, ACYP2-rs11125529, TERC-rs10936599, and ZBTB46-rs755017), identified through GWAS, that affect telomere length23,3436. Characteristics of the SNPs under investigation are summarized in Supplementary Table 1.

Genotyping

DNA samples were extracted from whole blood. Genotyping was conducted in 384-well plates, using TaqMan (ABI, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) technology according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. For quality control purposes around 10% of the samples were duplicated in order to check the concordance between the genotypes. Case/control status was unknown to the person performing the genotyping. Fluorescent signals of the genotyping assays were read on PCR plates by a spectrophotometer (Ω, BMG LABTECH, Ortenberg, Germany) and the software KlusterCaller (LGC Group, Teddington, UK) was used to determine genotypes.

Teloscore computation

The “teloscore” was computed as follows: for each SNP the number of alleles associated with longer telomeres (according to the results of the literature) was counted and added up for each study subject, resulting in the unweighted score. Therefore, considering 11 SNPs, the unweighted score could assume any value between 0 (shortest telomeres) and 22 (longest telomeres). We then created a weighted score for each study subject. First, we took from the literature estimates of the per-allele effect on LTL in base pairs for each SNP (Supplementary Table 1). Then, we multiplied for each SNP the number of alleles associated with longer telomeres by the per-allele effect on LTL in base pairs that were then summed up for each study subject. The weighted score thus represents the estimated difference in telomere length, measured in base pairs, attributable to the SNPs under investigation. The concordance between the teloscore built with SNPs and the relative telomere length measured with real time quantitative PCR was described in detail elsewhere37. Only a subset of the study subjects had a 100% SNP call rate (1769 cases and 1207 controls). For survival analyses, unweighted and weighted teloscores were built with all the individuals with complete data on stage, therapy received and OS. The number of cases with 100% SNP call rate was 1000 with DS staging system information and 813 with ISS.

In order to be able to compute comparable score values for all study subjects, we also considered average values for each score. Supplementary Table 2 shows examples of how the teloscores were generated.

Statistical analysis

The association between the individual SNPs and MM risk was tested using unconditional logistic regression computing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used an allelic (log-additive) and a codominant model of inheritance. The threshold for statistical significance was therefore p = 0.05/(11 SNPs x 2 models) = 0.05/22 = 0.0023.

For both teloscores (weighted and unweighted) we calculated quintiles based on the distribution of values in the controls. The association between the teloscores and MM risk was tested with logistic regression computing OR and 95% CIs.

All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and country of origin.

Survival analysis to assess the effect of the SNPs and the teloscore on OS of MM patients was done using Cox regression, calculating hazard ratio (HR), and 95% CI. OS was defined as the time between MM diagnosis and last follow up for alive patient or death. Survival analyses were carried out with individual SNPs and with both teloscores (weighted and unweighted). We built the teloscores calculating quintiles based on the distribution of values in all the individuals with staging, therapies and OS data. The analyses were adjusted for age, sex, country of origin, MM stage (according to DS or ISS), and first-line therapy.

To better assess the causality of the association between LTL and MM onset and progression we used a Mendelian randomization approach considering the 11 SNPs as genetic instruments of the exposure, and risk of developing MM and MM OS as outcomes of interest. We utilized the inverse variance weighted (IVW) regression because on the premise of absence of directional pleiotropy, it provides consistently robust causal effect estimates50,51. The Egger (MR-Egger) estimation method was used to test for possible pleiotropic effects of the genetic instruments50,51. Finally to assess evidence of heterogeneity between the polymorphisms, the Cochran Q′ heterogeneity and Bowden I2GX statistics were computed to obtain an estimate of instrument strength for the MR-Egger analysis52. Additional information has been given elsewhere50,51. Analyses were carried out with the Mendelian randomization package in R V0.5.0 (30 Sept. 2020).

Bioinformatic tools

Several bioinformatic tools were used in order to identify functional relevance for the polymorphic variants showing the most promising associations with risk of developing MM. In particular, RegulomeDB (https://www.regulomedb.org/regulome-search/)53 was used to identify the regulatory potential of the region nearby each SNP while the GTEx portal web site (https://www.gtexportal.org) was used to identify potential associations between the SNP and expression levels of nearby genes (eQTL)54.

Results

Characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. The SNPs under investigation are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. All the selected SNPs were in Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) in the control population. The average call rate of the SNPs used for statistical analysis was 96.3%. Concordance with duplicated samples was higher than 99%.

We observed several associations between individual SNPs and MM risk. In particular, two polymorphisms showed a statistically significant association considering the Bonferroni-corrected threshold (p < 0.0023). TERC-rs10936599-T was associated with decreased risk of developing MM (ORhomozygous = 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.76; P = 2.87 × 10−4), while OBFC1-rs9420907-C was associated with increased MM risk (ORheterozygous = 1.32; 95%CI 1.12–1.55; P = 7.78 × 10−4). All the results of the risk analysis considering the SNPs individually are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Association between single SNPs and MM risk.

SNP Gene Allele MAFa EAa Allelic modelb Codominant modelc
M/m HR1 95% CI1 Pvalue HRHet 95% CI Pvalue HRHom 95% CI Pvalue
rs11125529 ACYP2 C/A 0.11 A 0.99 0.86–1.16 0.994 1.10 0.92–1.31 0.299 0.63 0.37–1.07 0.093
rs6772228 PXK T/A 0.04 T 0.81 0.62–1.07 0.121 0.75 0.50–0.99 0.048 1.91 0.43–8.32 0.389
rs10936599 TERC C/T 0.24 C 0.79 0.70–0.90 1.72 × 10−4 0.84 0.72–0.98 0.027 0.55 0.39–0.76 2.87 × 10−4
rs7675998 NAF1 G/A 0.24 G 0.94 0.83–1.06 0.321 0.84 0.73–0.98 0.029 1.15 0.82–1.60 0.402
rs2736100 TERT A/C 0.5 C 1.07 0.96–1.18 0.223 1.07 0.89–1.28 0.479 1.14 0.92–1.39 0.223
rs9420907 OBFC1 A/C 0.13 C 1.17 1.03–1.35 0.020 1.32 1.12–1.55 7.78 × 10−4 0.88 0.57–1.35 0.556
rs3027234 CTC1 C/T 0.22 C 0.89 0.79–1.00 0.054 0.97 0.83–1.13 0.669 0.65 0.47–0.90 0.009
rs8105767 ZNF208 A/G 0.28 G 1.14 1.02–1.27 0.022 1.05 0.90–1.21 0.559 1.46 1.12–1.90 0.005
rs412658 ZNF676 C/T 0.35 T 1.01 0.91–1.12 0.866 1.02 0.88–1.18 0.826 1.01 0.81–1.27 0.920
rs6028466 DHX35 G/A 0.07 A 1.23 1.08–1.50 0.042 1.25 1.00–1.55 0.048 1.33 0.55–3.15 0.505
rs755017 ZBTB46 A/G 0.12 G 1.10 0.93–1.29 0.235 1.05 0.88–1.25 0.609 1.61 0.88–2.93 0.120

aMAF minor allele frequency, EA effect allele, allele associated with longer telomere length, OR odds ratio, 95% CI 95% coefficient interval.

bAllelic model: M vs. m, common allele vs. rare allele.

cCodominant model: Mm vs. MM, heterozygous carriers vs. common homozygous, mm vs. MM, rare homozygous vs. common homozygous.

Association of the “teloscore” with MM risk

Supplementary Table 2 illustrates how the teloscores were generated. We tested the association between the unweighted and weighted teloscore with MM risk in individuals that had 100% call rate only (1769 cases and 1207 controls). We observed an increased risk for individuals that had longer gdTL. The association was similar in terms of estimates and P values when comparing individuals belonging to the highest quintile with individuals belonging to the lowest quintile, for the unweighted (OR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.07–1.73; P = 0.013) and weighted (OR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.08–1.80; P = 0.011) scores (Table 3).

Table 3.

Association between teloscore and MM risk.

Type of score Quintiles Controls Cases Total OR 95% CI Pvalue
Unweighted, subjects with 100% call rate 1 342 438 780 1.00 Ref.
2 250 344 594 1.03 0.81–1.31 0.788
3 226 327 553 1.18 0.93–1.51 0.178
4 180 293 473 1.32 1.02–1.71 0.032
5 209 367 576 1.36 1.07–1.73 0.013
Continuousa 1207 1769 2976 1.09 1.03–1.15 2.53 × 10−3
Unweighted scaled, all subjects 1 478 522 1000 1.00 Ref.
2 356 449 805 1.09 0.88–1.34 0.422
3 338 448 786 1.25 1.01–1.55 0.037
4 252 440 692 1.59 1.28–1.99 4.17 × 10−5
5 317 548 865 1.58 1.28–1.94 1.93 × 10−5
Continuousa 1741 2407 4148 1.14 1.08–1.19 1.89 × 10−7
Weighted, subjects with 100% call rate 1 244 293 537 1.00 Ref.
2 248 315 563 1.02 0.78–1.32 0.905
3 234 363 597 1.26 0.96–1.63 0.085
4 241 387 628 1.35 1.04–1.75 0.022
5 240 411 651 1.39 1.08–1.80 0.011
Continuousa 1207 1769 2976 1.10 1.04–1.16 1.20 × 10−3
Weighted scaled, all subjects 1 356 361 717 1.00 Ref.
2 342 386 728 1.01 0.79–1.27 0.940
3 348 493 841 1.29 1.03–1.62 0.026
4 348 546 894 1.49 1.19–1.86 4.80 × 10−4
5 347 621 968 1.69 1.36–2.11 2.97 × 10−6
Continuousa 1741 2407 4148 1.15 1.09–1.21 1.07 × 10−8

aThe estimate measures the increase in risk associated with each increase of one quintile.

We performed an additional analysis using all the individuals and the average scores rather than the absolute values (see Methods). We observed a strong association between long gdTL and increased risk of MM when analyzing the score as a categorical variable with a stronger association observed with the weighted score (OR = 1.69; 95% CI 1.36–2.11; P = 2.97 × 10−6 for highest vs. lowest quintile) compared to the unweighted score (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.28–1.94; P = 1.93 × 10−5) (Table 3).

Considering that TERC-rs10936599 is a well-known risk locus for MM, we have also computed a score considering all the SNPs with the exception of this one, observing results that are in line with what we observed with the 11 SNP score (Supplementary Table 3).

We also estimated the correlation between MM risk and the genetic score using a Mendelian randomization approach as previously described. The IVW regression showed a highly significant association between the 11 SNPs used as genetic instruments of exposure and risk of developing MM (coeff = 1.175, 95% CI 0.61–1.75, P = 5.38 × 10−5), whereas the MR-Egger regression showed a statistically non-significant association (coeff = 0.532, 95% CI −1.16 to 2.22, P = 0.538), although in line with IVW regression, with the intercept slightly, but not significantly, different from zero (intercept = 0.06, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.20, P = 0.428). The Q′ heterogeneity statistic did not show statistically significant heterogeneity between the polymorphisms (P = 0.111), and Bowden I2GX statistic showed that the selected genetic variants have high power to detect directional pleiotropy and causal effect for MR-Egger (I2 = 93.1%). Scatter plots and forest plot of the causal estimate for risk of developing MM are shown in Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

Association between individual SNPs and teloscore with MM OS

Survival analysis did not show any statistically significant associations if considering multiple testing. However, we found an association between TERC-rs10936599-T allele carriers and worse MM survival compared to C allele carriers (HRallelic = 1.20; 95% CI 1.00–1.43; P = 0.048) and an association between A allele homozygous of the PXK-rs6772228 SNP and worse survival compared to homozygous for the common T allele (HRhomozygous = 4.51; 95% CI 1.06–19.17; P = 0.041) (Table 4 and Supplementary Table 4).

Table 4.

Association between individual SNPs and MM OS, adjusted by stage (Durie-Salmon).

SNP Gene Allele MAFa EAa Allelic modelb Codominant modelc
M/m HRa 95% CIa Pvalue HRHet 95% CI Pvalue HRHom 95% CI Pvalue
rs11125529 ACYP2 C/A 0.11 A 0.90 0.71–1.13 0.369 0.89 0.68–1.16 0.391 0.59 0.37–1.93 0.710
rs6772228 PXK T/A 0.04 T 1.30 0.89–1.89 0.165 1.18 0.78–1.75 0.426 4.51 1.06–19.17 0.041
rs10936599 TERC C/T 0.24 C 1.20 1.00–1.43 0.048 1.23 0.98–1.54 0.066 1.34 0.80– 2.23 0.265
rs7675998 NAF1 G/A 0.24 G 1.18 0.98–1.42 0.080 1.11 0.88–1.40 0.374 1.62 0.99–2.63 0.053
rs2736100 TERT A/C 0.50 C 1.05 0.89–1.22 0.536 1.02 0.77–1.34 0.879 1.10 0.70–1.49 0.545
rs9420907 OBFC1 A/C 0.13 C 0.96 0.78–1.17 0.724 0.95 0.75–1.20 0.690 0.95 0.51–1.85 0.941
rs3027234 CTC1 C/T 0.22 C 1.03 0.86–1.23 0.726 1.00 0.79–1.25 0.993 1.15 0.71–1.83 0.559
rs8105767 ZNF208 A/G 0.28 G 1.01 0.85–1.19 0.913 1.06 0.84–1.32 0.612 0.95 0.62–1.42 0.799
rs412658 ZNF676 C/T 0.35 T 0.98 0.83–1.15 0.847 1.01 0.80–0.25 0.943 0.95 0.66–1.35 0.763
rs6028466 DHX35 G/A 0.07 A 1.15 0.86–1.52 0.350 1.10 0.78–1.54 0.562 1.58 0.58–4.27 0.369
rs755017 ZBTB46 A/G 0.12 G 0.86 0.67–1.09 0.216 0.92 0.70–1.20 0.559 0.44 0.14–1.37 0.158

aMAF minor allele frequency, EA effect allele, allele associated with longer telomere length, HR hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% coefficient interval.

bAllelic model: M vs. m, common allele vs. rare allele.

cCodominant model: Mm vs. MM, heterozygous carriers vs. common homozygous; mm vs. MM, rare homozygous vs. common homozygous.

The analyses between teloscore and OS of MM patients showed a trend between having longer gdTL and better MM survival, considering the quintile as a continuous variable for unweighted (HR = 0.93; 95%CI 0.85–0.99; P = 0.046) or weighted (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.86–0.99; P = 0.049) score, adjusted by DS staging system. Similar results were obtained in the analyses adjusted by ISS (Table 5).

Table 5.

Association between teloscore and MM OS.

Type of score Quintiles OS adjusted by stage (DS) OS adjusted by stage (ISS)
Alive Deceased Total HR 95% CI Pvalue Alive Deceased Total HR 95% CI Pvalue
Unweighted, subjects with 100% call rate 1 158 65 223 1.00 Ref. 130 45 175 1.00 Ref.
2 142 52 194 1.11 0.77–1.60 0.564 115 41 156 1.21 0.78–1.85 0.382
3 134 48 182 0.98 0.67–1.43 0.930 120 36 156 0.92 0.59–1.43 0.726
4 117 42 159 0.72 0.48–1.07 0.106 164 50 214 0.77 0.51–1.15 0.210
5 133 43 176 0.84 0.57–1.24 0.393 54 17 71 0.89 0.50–1.56 0.685
Continuousa 684 250 934 0.93 0.85–1.01 0.103 583 189 772 0.92 0.82–1.02 0.138
Unweighted scaled, all subjects 1 182 92 274 1.00 Ref. 152 71 223 1.00 Ref.
2 174 77 251 1.06 0.78–1.44 0.684 139 56 195 1.07 0.74–1.52 0.716
3 172 65 237 0.90 0.65–1.24 0.538 154 50 204 0.83 0.57–1.19 0.317
4 233 94 327 0.84 0.63–1.12 0.251 196 69 265 0.77 0.55–1.08 0.136
5 109 37 146 0.73 0.49–1.06 0.106 102 33 135 0.73 0.48–1.12 0.154
Continuousa 870 365 1235 0.93 0.85–0.99 0.046 743 279 1022 0.91 0.83–0.99 0.037
Weighted, subjects with 100% call rate 1 136 54 190 1.00 Ref. 119 37 156 1.00 Ref.
2 141 54 195 1.06 0.72–1.54 0.765 111 48 159 1.27 0.82–1.96 0.268
3 127 49 176 1.02 0.69–1.50 0.917 116 36 152 0.94 0.59–1.49 0.797
4 144 44 188 0.72 0.48–1.07 0.108 121 30 151 0.66 0.40–1.07 0.094
5 136 49 185 0.91 0.61–1.34 0.626 116 38 154 1.01 0.64–1.60 0.933
Continuousa 684 250 934 0.94 0.86–1.03 0.198 583 189 772 0.94 0.84–1.04 0.225
Weighted scaled, all subjects 1 168 83 251 1.00 Ref. 147 64 211 1.00 Ref.
2 167 78 245 1.06 0.77–1.44 0.722 138 66 204 1.06 0.75–1.50 0.726
3 173 73 246 0.97 0.70–1.32 0.837 148 51 199 0.86 0.59–1.24 0.426
4 181 66 247 0.76 0.55–1.05 0.107 158 46 204 0.67 0.45–0.98 0.042
5 181 65 246 0.81 0.58–1.12 0.210 152 52 204 0.82 0.57–1.19 0.310
Continuousa 870 365 1235 0.93 0.86–0.99 0.049 743 279 1022 0.92 0.84–0.99 0.046

aThe estimate measures the increase in risk associated with each increase of one quintile.

The results of the Mendelian randomization analysis performed with IVW regression and MR-Egger regression showed an inverse, non-significant association between MM survival and the genetic score built with the 11 SNPs (coeff = −0.44, 95% CI −1.18 to 0.29, P = 0.238), with the intercept of the MR-Egger regression non-significantly different from zero (coeff = −0.108, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.07, P = 0.227). Q′ heterogeneity (P = 0.391) did not show statistically significant heterogeneity between the polymorphisms, and Bowden I2GX statistic did not show weak instrument bias (92.8%). Scatter plots and forest plot of the causal estimate for risk of developing MM are shown in Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

In silico identification of functional effects

We tested the possible functional relevance of CTC1-rs3027234, ZNF208-rs8105767, OBFC1-rs9420907, TERC-rs10936599, and PXK-rs6772228, that were significant in at least one analysis and the variants in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with them using RegulomeDB and GTEx.

RegulomeDB showed a value of 1b for CTC1-rs3027234 that indicates the presence of an eQTL, of at least one transcription factor binding site and the region to be sensitive to the action of DNase. Analyzing rs3027234 in the GTEx portal, a correlation between the T allele and lower gene expression was observed in 20 tissues including whole blood, where it showed a strongly significant association (P = 1.2 × 10−33). RegulomeDB assigned to ZNF208-rs8105767 a value of 1 f, which indicates a functional role similar to CTC1-rs3027234. GTEx reported six associations with different genes for rs8105767, and the strongest correlation was between the A allele and lower expression of the ZNF257 gene (P = 1.6 × 10−25) in whole blood. RegulomeDB assigned to OBFC1-rs9420907 and TERC-rs10936599 a value of 3a, indicating the presence of at least one transcription factor binding site and the region to be sensitive to the action of DNase, and GTEx did not show any eQTL. RegulomeDB assigned to PXK-rs6772228 a value of 7, indicating the absence of a functional role. Despite that, rs6772228 is in LD with rs77480019 (r2 = 0.92) and rs73077957 (r2 = 0.84) for which RegulomeDB assigned a value of 3a, but GTEx did not show any eQTL in whole blood.

Discussion

Telomere length is considered a risk factor, or a risk marker, for a large number of diseases including several cancer types1825. However, in spite of the number of studies, including several with considerable sample size, it is still unclear whether long or short telomeres are responsible for the increase in risk. In addition to true biological differences in various diseases, a possible explanation for this uncertainty may be explained by the technical heterogeneity due to sample handling and study design used across the studies. For MM only two relatively small studies have been attempted, one in a retrospective case–control setting55 and the other in a prospective cohort26, both reporting an association between longer telomeres and increased risk of developing the disease. Telomere length is at least in part genetically determined and there are several studies that have successfully used SNPs as genetic surrogates for telomere length to infer risk of developing several tumor types23,3745. This approach has never been attempted in MM. LTL has been tested in relation to cancer survival27, but never in MM and the only study conducted in MM is very small (n = 5) and used purified bone marrow cells and not whole blood28.

Considering that LTL measure could be influenced by several epidemiologic confounders or methodological issues, the main advantage of the strategy used in this study is that the exposure (the genotypes) is not influenced by study design (prospective vs. retrospective), by sample manipulation or by environmental variables since genotypes are invariable throughout life. The aim of this study was to test whether GWAS-identified SNPs involved in telomere length, combined in a score, were associated with MM risk and, for the first time, OS of MM patients. Considering that individually each of the SNPs explains a small proportion of LTL variability, we have combined them in a score and performed a MR analysis to better characterize the relation between gdTL and the disease risk and survival.

We found a novel association between carriers of the C allele OBFC1-rs9420907 SNP and increased MM risk (P = 7.78 × 10−4). The C allele of the SNP is also associated with longer telomeres34,38. This gene product is associated to the shelterin complex and is also a subunit of alpha accessory factor (AAF) that is involved in the initiation of DNA replication. We observed an increase in risk associated with the C allele of the rs3027234 polymorphisms and with G allele of the rs8105767. The CTC1-rs3027234-C allele is associated with longer telomeres and, according to GTEx, with an increased expression of the gene in blood with a very high statistical significance (p = 1.2 × 10−33). It is therefore plausible that the C allele contributes to an increase efficiency of the complex that in turn results in longer telomeres that increase the risk of developing MM. The G allele of rs8105767 is associated with longer telomeres34 and, according to GTEX, it has an effect on the expression of various genes in whole blood, mainly ZNF257 (P = 1.6 × 10−25).

The main finding of this manuscript is the observation that gdTL is associated with increased risk of MM. This association is consistent in all the models we tested and when using all the subjects it reached a very high statistical significance, especially comparing individuals with the longest telomeres with individuals with the shortest telomeres (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1; P = 2.97 × 10−6) or when considering the quintile variable as continuous (P = 1.07 × 10−8). This finding is in agreement with what was found in the two studies that reported longer telomeres measured by real-time PCR to be associated with increased risk of developing the disease26,55 and it is also in line with a very large study performed on a substantial number of different cancer types, where the general trend for most cancers was an association between longer genetically determined telomeres and increased risk23. To analyze in depth the association between gdTL and risk of MM, the 11 SNPs selected were analyzed with a Mendelian randomization approach to test the presence of directional pleiotropy and its influence in the estimate of the causal effect between LTL and risk of developing MM. The results were in line with the finding obtained through teloscore analysis, supporting the evidence for a causal effect of longer gdTL with an increased MM risk. Moreover, the MR-Egger intercept was not statistically different from zero and the results of the heterogeneity tests were not statistically significant. These observations suggest the absence of directional pleiotropy and heterogeneity between the polymorphisms selected.

From a biologic point of view, longer telomeres (particularly as measured by the SNP teloscore, which represents the innate tendency to have longer or shorter telomeres) could represent a marker of a cell that has a higher dividing potential and therefore an increased tendency in acquiring new potential harmful mutations23.

A potential limitation is that most of the controls used in this study, as for almost all case–control studies, are either blood donors or hospitalized individuals with pathologies unrelated to MM. Considering that gdLTL has been associated with several human traits, this may represent a confounding factor of the analysis.

A point of novelty is represented by two borderline associations between the allele associated with shorter TL and a worse OS of MM patients, compared to the allele associated with longer TL, both for TERC-rs10936599 (P = 0.048) and PXK-6772228 (P = 0.041). Furthermore, the teloscore survival analyses showed that longer gdTL is correlated with better MM patients OS compared to patients with shorter gdTL. Despite this, the different direction obtained for IVW and MR-Egger analyses did not support a significant association of the teloscore with OS of MM patients, although the Cochran’s Q statistic did not show evidence of heterogeneity between the polymorphisms. A possible explanation for Mendelian randomization results is that the increase of patient’s survival could be due to pleiotropic effects of the genetic variants that act on the outcome via a confounder.

Xu and colleagues conducted a thorough meta-analysis to test the effect of LTL in cancer progression and survival and even though MM was not included, their findings are in agreement with ours i.e., shorter telomere associated with worse prognosis27.

We do not have data for myeloma-specific mortality. On the other hand, although in the last years many advances in therapy have been made, MM remains an incurable disease and therefore we presume that the vast majority of deaths are disease specific.

It is worth noting that gdTL as measured in our work, being based on germline polymorphisms that do not change throughout life, is unaffected not only by age, but also by any other biological mechanism induced by environmental exposures (e.g., smoking) or therapeutic exposures (e.g., anticancer treatments) that are known to affect telomere length.

In conclusion, we present here convincing evidence that longer gdTL is a risk marker for MM development.

Supplementary information

Supplementary material (375.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by intramural funds of Univerity of Pisa and DKFZ; by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (Madrid, Spain) [PI12/02688 to J.S., PI17/02276 to J.S.]; by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, co-funded by FEDER funds—a way to build Europe—[PI14-00613 to V.M.] and by Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) of the Catalan Government (Barcelona, Spain) [2017SGR723 to V.M.]. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

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

These authors contributed equally: Federico Canzian, Daniele Campa

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41408-021-00462-y.

References

  • 1.Kumar SK, et al. Multiple myeloma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2017;3:17046. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Broderick P, et al. Common variation at 3p22.1 and 7p15.3 influences multiple myeloma risk. Nat. Genet. 2011;44:58–61. doi: 10.1038/ng.993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Campa D, et al. Comprehensive investigation of genetic variation in the 8q24 region and multiple myeloma risk in the IMMEnSE consortium. Br. J. Haematol. 2012;157:331–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09047.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chubb D, et al. Common variation at 3q26.2, 6p21.33, 17p11.2 and 22q13.1 influences multiple myeloma risk. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:1221–1225. doi: 10.1038/ng.2733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martino A, et al. Polymorphisms in xenobiotic transporters ABCB1, ABCG2, ABCC2, ABCC1, ABCC3 and multiple myeloma risk: a case-control study in the context of the International Multiple Myeloma rESEarch (IMMEnSE) consortium. Leukemia. 2012;26:1419–1422. doi: 10.1038/leu.2011.352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Martino A, et al. Impact of polymorphic variation at 7p15.3, 3p22.1 and 2p23.3 loci on risk of multiple myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2012;158:805–809. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09244.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vangsted A, Klausen TW, Vogel U. Genetic variations in multiple myeloma I: effect on risk of multiple myeloma. Eur. J. Haematol. 2012;88:8–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2011.01700.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weinhold N, et al. The CCND1 c.870G>A polymorphism is a risk factor for t(11;14)(q13;q32) multiple myeloma. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:522–525. doi: 10.1038/ng.2583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ziv E, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at 16p13 associated with survival in multiple myeloma patients. Nat. Commun. 2015;6:7539. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Johnson DC, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variation at 6q25.1 associated with survival in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:10290. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Erickson SW, et al. A common genetic variant in 19q13·3 is associated with outcome of multiple myeloma patients treated with Total Therapy 2 and 3. Br. J. Haematol. 2016;174:991–993. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ríos-Tamayo R, et al. A common variant within the HNF1B gene is associated with overall survival of multiple myeloma patients: results from the IMMEnSE consortium and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7:59029–59048. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Macauda A, et al. Inherited variation in the xenobiotic transporter pathway and survival of multiple myeloma patients. Br. J. Haematol. 2018;183:375–384. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Łacina P, Butrym A, Mazur G, Bogunia-Kubik K. BSG and MCT1 genetic variants influence survival in multiple myeloma patients. Genes. 2018;9:226. doi: 10.3390/genes9050226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Campa D, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in genes of class switch recombination and multiple myeloma risk and survival: an IMMEnSE study. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60:1803–1811. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1551536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.de Lange T. How telomeres solve the end-protection problem. Science. 2009;326:948–952. doi: 10.1126/science.1170633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Blasco MA. Telomeres and human disease: ageing, cancer and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005;6:611–622. doi: 10.1038/nrg1656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Campa D, et al. Mitochondrial DNA copy number variation, leukocyte telomere length, and breast cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20:29. doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-0955-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wentzensen IM, Mirabello L, Pfeiffer RM, Savage SA. The association of telomere length and cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:1238–1250. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ma H, et al. Shortened telomere length is associated with increased risk of cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e20466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Campa D, et al. Risk of multiple myeloma is associated with polymorphisms within telomerase genes and telomere length. Int. J. Cancer. 2015;136:E351–E358. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Campa D, et al. Leukocyte telomere length in relation to pancreatic cancer risk: a prospective study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:2447–2454. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haycock PC, et al. Association between telomere length and risk of cancer and non-neoplastic diseases. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:636. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang S, et al. Association between leukocyte telomere length and glioma risk: a case-control study. Neuro. Oncol. 2014;16:505–512. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Weischer M, et al. Short telomere length, cancer survival, and cancer risk in 47102 individuals. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:459–468. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hosnijeh FS, et al. Prediagnostic telomere length and risk of B-cell lymphoma-Results from the EPIC cohort study. Int. J. Cancer. 2014;135:2910–2917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xu X, et al. Association between telomere length and survival in cancer patients: a meta-analysis and review of literature. Front. Med. 2016;10:191–203. doi: 10.1007/s11684-016-0450-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hyatt S, et al. Telomere length is a critical determinant for survival in multiple myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2017;178:94–98. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kimura M, et al. Synchrony of telomere length among hematopoietic cells. Exp. Hematol. 2010;38:854–859. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2010.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wilson WRW, et al. Blood leucocyte telomere DNA content predicts vascular telomere DNA content in humans with and without vascular disease. Eur. Heart J. 2008;29:2689–2694. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Barrett JH, Iles MM, Dunning AM, Pooley KA. Telomere length and common disease: study design and analytical challenges. Hum. Genet. 2015;134:679–689. doi: 10.1007/s00439-015-1563-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Coutts F, et al. The polygenic nature of telomere length and the anti-ageing properties of lithium. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:757–765. doi: 10.1038/s41386-018-0289-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kim J-H, et al. Heritability of telomere length across three generations of Korean families. Pediatr. Res. 2020;87:1060–1065. doi: 10.1038/s41390-019-0699-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Codd V, et al. Identification of seven loci affecting mean telomere length and their association with disease. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:422–427. doi: 10.1038/ng.2528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mangino M, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis points to CTC1 and ZNF676 as genes regulating telomere homeostasis in humans. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2012;21:5385–5394. doi: 10.1093/hmg/dds382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Levy D, et al. Genome-wide association identifies OBFC1 as a locus involved in human leukocyte telomere biology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:9293–9298. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911494107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Campa D, et al. Genetic determinants of telomere length and risk of pancreatic cancer: a PANDoRA study. Int. J. Cancer. 2019;144:1275–1283. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Iles MM, et al. The effect on melanoma risk of genes previously associated with telomere length. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju267. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Machiela MJ, et al. Genetic variants related to longer telomere length are associated with increased risk of renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2017;72:747–754. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Machiela MJ, et al. Genetically predicted longer telomere length is associated with increased risk of B-cell lymphoma subtypes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2016;25:1663–1676. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddw027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Walsh KM, et al. Longer genotypically-estimated leukocyte telomere length is associated with increased adult glioma risk. Oncotarget. 2015;6:42468–42477. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Walsh KM, et al. Common genetic variants associated with telomere length confer risk for neuroblastoma and other childhood cancers. Carcinogenesis. 2016;37:576–582. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgw037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang C, et al. Genetic determinants of telomere length and risk of common cancers: a Mendelian randomization study. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2015;24:5356–5366. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddv252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Luu HN, et al. Association between genetic risk score for telomere length and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:1219–1228. doi: 10.1007/s10552-016-0800-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Giaccherini M, et al. Genetic polymorphisms associated with telomere length and risk of developing myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood Cancer J. 2020;10:89. doi: 10.1038/s41408-020-00356-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Martino A, et al. Genetics and molecular epidemiology of multiple myeloma: the rationale for the IMMEnSE consortium (review) Int. J. Oncol. 2012;40:625–638. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2011.1284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;364:1046–1060. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1011442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Durie BGM, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975;36:842–854. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197509)36:3&#x0003c;842::AID-CNCR2820360303&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-U. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Greipp PR, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:3412–3420. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet. Epidemiol. 2013;37:658–665. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2015;44:512–525. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bowden J, et al. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2016;45:dyw220. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Boyle AP, et al. Annotation of functional variation in personal genomes using RegulomeDB. Genome Res. 2012;22:1790–1797. doi: 10.1101/gr.137323.112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lonsdale J, et al. The genotype-tissue expression (GTEx) project. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:580–585. doi: 10.1038/ng.2653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Campa D, et al. Risk of multiple myeloma is associated with polymorphisms within telomerase genes and telomere length. Int. J. Cancer. 2015;136:E351–E358. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material (375.8KB, docx)

Articles from Blood Cancer Journal are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES