4.6 Article

Identification of novel genetic loci for osteoporosis and/or rheumatoid arthritis using cFDR approach

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183842

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [P50AR055081, R01AR057049, R01AR059781, D43TW009107, P20 GM109036, R01MH107354, R01MH104680, R01GM109068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are co-morbidity between osteoporosis (OP) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Some genetic risk factors have been identified for these two phenotypes respectively in previous research; however, they accounted for only a small portion of the underlying total genetic variances. Here, we sought to identify additional common genetic loci associated with OP and/or RA. The conditional false discovery rate (cFDR) approach allows detection of additional genetic factors (those respective ones as well as common pleiotropic ones) for the two associated phenotypes. We collected and analyzed summary statistics provided by large, multi-center GWAS studies of FNK (femoral neck) BMD (a major risk factor for osteoporosis) (n = 53,236) and RA (n = 80,799). The conditional quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots can assess the enrichment of SNPs related to FNK BMD and RA, respectively. Furthermore, we identified shared loci between FNK BMD and RA using conjunction cFDR (ccFDR). We found strong enrichment of p-values in FNK BMD when conditional Q-Q was done on RA and vice versa. We identified 30 novel OP-RA associated pleiotropic loci that have not been reported in previous OP or RA GWAS, 18 of which located in the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) region previously reported to play an important role in immune system and bone health. We identified some specific novel polygenic factors for OP and RA respectively, and identified 30 novel OP-RA associated pleiotropic loci. These discovery findings may offer novel pathobiological insights, and suggest new targets and pathways for drug development in OP and RA patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据