4.8 Article

INFERNO: inferring the molecular mechanisms of noncoding genetic variants

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 17, 页码 8740-8753

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky686

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging [U01-AG032984, UF1-AG047133, U54-AG052427, U24-AG041689, R01-GM099962, P30-AG010124, RF1-AG055477, U54-NS100693, T32-AG00255]
  2. National Institutes of Health [U24-AG041689]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of variants identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) reside in the noncoding genome, affecting regulatory elements including transcriptional enhancers. However, characterizing their effects requires the integration of GWAS results with context-specific regulatory activity and linkage disequilibrium annotations to identify causal variants underlying noncoding association signals and the regulatory elements, tissue contexts, and target genes they affect. We propose INFERNO, a novel method which integrates hundreds of functional genomics datasets spanning enhancer activity, transcription factor binding sites, and expression quantitative trait loci with GWAS summary statistics. INFERNO includes novel statistical methods to quantify empirical enrichments of tissue-specific enhancer overlap and to identify co-regulatory networks of dysregulated long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). We applied INFERNO to two large GWAS studies. For schizophrenia (36,989 cases, 113,075 controls), INFERNO identified putatively causal variants affecting brain enhancers for known schizophrenia-related genes. For inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (12,882 cases, 21,770 controls), INFERNO found enrichments of immune and digestive enhancers and lncRNAs involved in regulation of the adaptive immune response. In summary, INFERNO comprehensively infers the molecular mechanisms of causal noncoding variants, providing a sensitive hypothesis generation method for post-GWAS analysis. The software is available as an open source pipeline and a web server.

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