4.8 Article

An atlas of human long non-coding RNAs with accurate 5′ ends

期刊

NATURE
卷 543, 期 7644, 页码 199-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nature21374

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEXT
  2. MEXT, Japan
  3. Cancer Research Trust
  4. MACA Ride to Conquer Cancer
  5. Australian Research Council [DP160101960]
  6. National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health [U54HG007004]
  7. Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [BIO2011-26205]
  8. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [SEV-2012-0208]
  9. Russian Science Foundation [15-14-30002]
  10. BBSRC [BB/G022771/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Russian Science Foundation [15-14-30002] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation
  12. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G022771/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are largely heterogeneous and functionally uncharacterized. Here, using FANTOM5 cap analysis of gene expression (CAGE) data, we integrate multiple transcript collections to generate a comprehensive atlas of 27,919 human lncRNA genes with high-confidence 5' ends and expression profiles across 1,829 samples from the major human primary cell types and tissues. Genomic and epigenomic classification of these lncRNAs reveals that most intergenic lncRNAs originate from enhancers rather than from promoters. Incorporating genetic and expression data, we show that lncRNAs overlapping trait-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms are specifically expressed in cell types relevant to the traits, implicating these lncRNAs in multiple diseases. We further demonstrate that lncRNAs overlapping expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL)-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms of messenger RNAs are co-expressed with the corresponding messenger RNAs, suggesting their potential roles in transcriptional regulation. Combining these findings with conservation data, we identify 19,175 potentially functional lncRNAs in the human genome.

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