Systematic tissue-specific functional annotation of the human genome highlights immune-related DNA elements for late-onset Alzheimer's disease
Lu Q, Powles RL, Abdallah S, Ou D, Wang Q, Hu Y, Lu Y, Liu W et al.. PLoS genetics, 2017-07-24
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Continuing efforts from large international consortia have made genome-wide epigenomic and transcriptomic annotation data publicly available for a variety of cell and tissue types. However, synthesis of these datasets into effective summary metrics to characterize the functional non-coding genome remains a challenge. Here, we present GenoSkyline-Plus, an extension of our previous work through integration of an expanded set of epigenomic and transcriptomic annotations to produce high-resolution, single tissue annotations. After validating our annotations with a catalog of tissue-specific non-coding elements previously identified in the literature, we apply our method using data from 127 different cell and tissue types to present an atlas of heritability enrichment across 45 different GWAS traits. We show that broader organ system categories (e.g. immune system) increase statistical power in identifying biologically relevant tissue types for complex diseases while annotations of individual cell types (e.g. monocytes or B-cells) provide deeper insights into disease etiology. Additionally, we use our GenoSkyline-Plus annotations in an in-depth case study of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). Our analyses suggest a strong connection between LOAD heritability and genetic variants contained in regions of the genome functional in monocytes. Furthermore, we show that LOAD shares a similar localization of SNPs to monocyte-functional regions with Parkinson's disease. Overall, we demonstrate that integrated genome annotations at the single tissue level provide a valuable tool for understanding the etiology of complex human diseases. Our GenoSkyline-Plus annotations are freely available at http://genocanyon.med.yale.edu/GenoSkyline.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lu, Q., Powles, R. L., Abdallah, S., Ou, D., Wang, Q., Hu, Y., et al. (2017). Systematic tissue-specific functional annotation of the human genome highlights immune-related DNA elements for late-onset Alzheimer's disease. PLoS genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006933
Vancouver
Lu Q, Powles RL, Abdallah S, Ou D, Wang Q, Hu Y, et al. Systematic tissue-specific functional annotation of the human genome highlights immune-related DNA elements for late-onset Alzheimer's disease. PLoS genetics. 2017. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006933. PMID: 28742084.
BibTeX
@article{lu2017-28742084,
author = {Lu, Q. and Powles, R. L. and Abdallah, S. and Ou, D. and Wang, Q. and Hu, Y. and Lu, Y. and Liu, W. and others},
title = {{Systematic tissue-specific functional annotation of the human genome highlights immune-related DNA elements for late-onset Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {PLoS genetics},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pgen.1006933},
pmid = {28742084},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006933}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Overall, we demonstrate that integrated genome annotations at the single tissue level provide a valuable tool for understanding the etiology of complex human diseases.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS genetics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28742084) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.