4.3 Article

Integrating genome-wide association studies and gene expression data highlights dysregulated multiple sclerosis risk pathways

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 205-212

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516649038

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; pathway analysis; genome-wide association studies; gene expression; gene-based test; immune pathways

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB966900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300945, 61571152, 81571600, 81322018, 81273287, 81100887]
  3. Youth Topnotch Talent Support Program
  4. National Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Much effort has been expended on identifying the genetic determinants of multiple sclerosis (MS). Existing large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets provide strong support for using pathway and network-based analysis methods to investigate the mechanisms underlying MS. However, no shared genetic pathways have been identified to date. Objective: We hypothesize that shared genetic pathways may indeed exist in different MS-GWAS datasets. Methods: Here, we report results from a three-stage analysis of GWAS and expression datasets. In stage 1, we conducted multiple pathway analyses of two MS-GWAS datasets. In stage 2, we performed a candidate pathway analysis of the large-scale MS-GWAS dataset. In stage 3, we performed a pathway analysis using the dysregulated MS gene list from seven human MS case-control expression datasets. Results: In stage 1, we identified 15 shared pathways. In stage 2, we successfully replicated 14 of these 15 significant pathways. In stage 3, we found that dysregulated MS genes were significantly enriched in 10 of 15 MS risk pathways identified in stages 1 and 2. Conclusion: We report shared genetic pathways in different MS-GWAS datasets and highlight some new MS risk pathways. Our findings provide new insights on the genetic determinants of MS.

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

4.3
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