Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Genetics

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

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
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.

Related studies in Genetics

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →