4.8 Article

Understanding the genetics of neuropsychiatric disorders: the potential role of genomic regulatory blocks

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 6-18

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-019-0518-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [MC_U120097115, MR/N026063/1, G0700995, MR/L022176/1, MC_UP_1102/1, MR/N027078/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1102/1, MR/L022176/1, MR/N027078/1, MC_U120097115, MR/N026063/1, G0700995] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust [106954, 094849] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent genome-wide association studies have identified numerous loci associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. The majority of these are in non-coding regions, and are commonly assigned to the nearest gene along the genome. However, this approach neglects the three-dimensional organisation of the genome, and the fact that the genome contains arrays of extremely conserved non-coding elements termed genomic regulatory blocks (GRBs), which can be utilized to detect genes under long-range developmental regulation. Here we review a GRB-based approach to assign loci in non-coding regions to potential target genes, and apply it to reanalyse the results of one of the largest schizophrenia GWAS (SWG PGC, 2014). We further apply this approach to GWAS data from two related neuropsychiatric disorders-autism spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder-to show that it is applicable to developmental disorders in general. We find that disease-associated SNPs are overrepresented in GRBs and that the GRB model is a powerful tool for linking these SNPs to their correct target genes under long-range regulation. Our analysis identifies novel genes not previously implicated in schizophrenia and corroborates a number of predicted targets from the original study. The results are available as an online resource in which the genomic context and the strength of enhancer-promoter associations can be browsed for each schizophrenia-associated SNP.

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

4.8
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