4.7 Article

A gene-level methylome-wide association analysis identifies novel Alzheimer's disease genes

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 37, 期 14, 页码 1933-1940

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab045

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R03AG070669]
  2. NIH [P20GM109036, R01AR069055, U19AG055373, MH104680]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a novel gene-level association testing method that integrates genetically regulated DNA methylation and enhancer-target gene pairs; through simulations, it showed well controlled type I error rates and achieved higher statistical power than competing methods; the CMO method identified more novel genetic loci for AD compared to existing TWAS methods when analyzing GWAS results.
Motivation: Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have successfully facilitated the discovery of novel genetic risk loci for many complex traits, including late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, most existing TWAS methods rely only on gene expression and ignore epigenetic modification (i.e. DNA methylation) and functional regulatory information (i.e. enhancer-promoter interactions), both of which contribute significantly to the genetic basis of AD. Results: We develop a novel gene-level association testing method that integrates genetically regulated DNA methylation and enhancer-target gene pairs with genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary results. Through simulations, we show that our approach, referred to as the CMO (cross methylome omnibus) test, yielded well controlled type I error rates and achieved much higher statistical power than competing methods under a wide range of scenarios. Furthermore, compared with TWAS, CMO identified an average of 124% more associations when analyzing several brain imaging-related GWAS results. By analyzing to date the largest AD GWAS of 71 880 cases and 383 378 controls, CMO identified six novel loci for AD, which have been ignored by competing methods.

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

4.7
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