Yoshinao Koike

Oct 3, 2024 | nature.com | Satoshi Koyama |Xiaoxi Liu |Yoshinao Koike |Keiko Hikino |Masaru Koido |Wei Li | +13 more

AbstractHuman genetic variants are associated with many traits through largely unknown mechanisms. Here, combining approximately 260,000 Japanese study participants, a Japanese-specific genotype reference panel and statistical fine-mapping, we identified 4,423 significant loci across 63 quantitative traits, among which 601 were new, and 9,406 putatively causal variants.

May 19, 2024 | nature.com | Xiaoxi Liu |Yoshinao Koike |Keiko Hikino |Yukihide Momozawa |Kouichi Ozaki |Hirotaka Watada | +2 more

AbstractSarcopenia is a common skeletal muscle disease in older people. Lower limb muscle strength is a good predictive value for sarcopenia; however, little is known about its genetic components. Here, we conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for knee extension strength in a total of 3452 Japanese aged 60 years or older from two independent cohorts.

Jan 31, 2024 | nature.com | Yuki Ishikawa |Nao Tanaka |Mitsuteru Akahoshi |Takashi Matsushita |Akira Oka |Motohisa Yamamoto | +15 more

AbstractHere we report the largest Asian genome-wide association study (GWAS) for systemic sclerosis performed to date, based on data from Japanese subjects and comprising of 1428 cases and 112,599 controls. The lead SNP is in the FCGR/FCRL region, which shows a penetrating association in the Asian population, while a complete linkage disequilibrium SNP, rs10917688, is found in a cis-regulatory element for IRF8.

Aug 23, 2023 | nature.com | Yuki Ishikawa |Rosalind A. Eeles |Yoshinao Koike |Keiko Hikino |Momoko Horikoshi |Kaoru Ito | +4 more

AbstractProstate cancer (PrCa) is the second most common cancer worldwide in males. While strongly warranted, the prediction of mortality risk due to PrCa, especially before its development, is challenging.

Jul 18, 2023 | elifesciences.org | Yoshinao Koike |Masahiro Nakajima |Nao Otomo |Masahiko Takahata

Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review. We thank you for the comprehensive review of our manuscript and valuable suggestions. We have again discussed the two weaknesses you have pointed out. As for the lack of replication, we added new replication data and evaluated the reproducibility. Our study originally conducted meta-analyses using three datasets.