4.7 Article

The splice site variant rs11078928 may be associated with a genotype-dependent alteration in expression of GSDMB transcripts

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-627

关键词

GSDMB; Rs11078928; Asthma; Autoimmune disease; GWAS; SNP; Alternative mRNA splicing

资金

  1. Mendip Golf Club
  2. NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many genetic variants have been associated with susceptibility to complex traits by genome wide association studies (GWAS), but for most, causal genes and mechanisms of action have yet to be elucidated. Using bioinformatics, we identified index and proxy variants associated with autoimmune disease susceptibility, with the potential to affect splicing of candidate genes. PCR and sequence analysis of whole blood RNA samples from population controls was then carried out for the 8 most promising variants to determine the effect of genetic variation on splicing of target genes. Results: We identified 31 splice site SNPs with the potential to affect splicing, and prioritised 8 to determine the effect of genotype on candidate gene splicing. We identified that variants rs11078928 and rs2014886 were associated with altered splicing of the GSDMB and TSFM genes respectively. rs11078928, present in the asthma and autoimmune disease susceptibility locus on chromosome 17q12-21, was associated with the production of a novel. exon5-8 transcript of the GSDMB gene, and a separate decrease in the percentage of transcripts with inclusion of exon 6, whereas the multiple sclerosis susceptibility variant rs2014886, was associated with an alternative TFSM transcript encompassing a short cryptic exon within intron 2. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the utility of a bioinformatic approach in identification and prioritisation of genetic variants effecting splicing of their host genes, and suggest that rs11078928 and rs2014886 may affect the splicing of the GSDMB and TSFM genes respectively.

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