发现基因表达和复杂性状的遗传效应的系统差异。

IF 31.7 1区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Nature genetics Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1038/s41588-023-01529-1
Hakhamanesh Mostafavi, Jeffrey P. Spence, Sahin Naqvi, Jonathan K. Pritchard
{"title":"发现基因表达和复杂性状的遗传效应的系统差异。","authors":"Hakhamanesh Mostafavi, Jeffrey P. Spence, Sahin Naqvi, Jonathan K. Pritchard","doi":"10.1038/s41588-023-01529-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most signals in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of complex traits implicate noncoding genetic variants with putative gene regulatory effects. However, currently identified regulatory variants, notably expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), explain only a small fraction of GWAS signals. Here, we show that GWAS and cis-eQTL hits are systematically different: eQTLs cluster strongly near transcription start sites, whereas GWAS hits do not. Genes near GWAS hits are enriched in key functional annotations, are under strong selective constraint and have complex regulatory landscapes across different tissue/cell types, whereas genes near eQTLs are depleted of most functional annotations, show relaxed constraint, and have simpler regulatory landscapes. We describe a model to understand these observations, including how natural selection on complex traits hinders discovery of functionally relevant eQTLs. Our results imply that GWAS and eQTL studies are systematically biased toward different types of variant, and support the use of complementary functional approaches alongside the next generation of eQTL studies. This study seeks to explain the poor overlap of genome-wide association study and cis-expression quantitative trait locus variants using a model of differential selective constraint, suggesting that these two study types have biases towards different functional classes of variants.","PeriodicalId":18985,"journal":{"name":"Nature genetics","volume":"55 11","pages":"1866-1875"},"PeriodicalIF":31.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic differences in discovery of genetic effects on gene expression and complex traits\",\"authors\":\"Hakhamanesh Mostafavi, Jeffrey P. Spence, Sahin Naqvi, Jonathan K. Pritchard\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41588-023-01529-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most signals in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of complex traits implicate noncoding genetic variants with putative gene regulatory effects. However, currently identified regulatory variants, notably expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), explain only a small fraction of GWAS signals. Here, we show that GWAS and cis-eQTL hits are systematically different: eQTLs cluster strongly near transcription start sites, whereas GWAS hits do not. Genes near GWAS hits are enriched in key functional annotations, are under strong selective constraint and have complex regulatory landscapes across different tissue/cell types, whereas genes near eQTLs are depleted of most functional annotations, show relaxed constraint, and have simpler regulatory landscapes. We describe a model to understand these observations, including how natural selection on complex traits hinders discovery of functionally relevant eQTLs. Our results imply that GWAS and eQTL studies are systematically biased toward different types of variant, and support the use of complementary functional approaches alongside the next generation of eQTL studies. This study seeks to explain the poor overlap of genome-wide association study and cis-expression quantitative trait locus variants using a model of differential selective constraint, suggesting that these two study types have biases towards different functional classes of variants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature genetics\",\"volume\":\"55 11\",\"pages\":\"1866-1875\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":31.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01529-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01529-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

复杂性状的全基因组关联研究(GWAS)中的大多数信号都涉及具有假定基因调控作用的非编码遗传变异。然而,目前确定的调控变异,特别是表达数量性状基因座(eQTL),只能解释GWAS信号的一小部分。在这里,我们发现GWAS和顺式eQTL命中是系统性不同的:eQTL在转录起始位点附近强烈聚集,而GWAS命中则没有。GWAS命中附近的基因富含关键功能注释,受到强烈的选择性约束,在不同组织/细胞类型中具有复杂的调控景观,而eQTL附近的基因缺乏大多数功能注释,表现出宽松的约束,并且具有更简单的调控景观。我们描述了一个模型来理解这些观察结果,包括复杂性状的自然选择如何阻碍功能相关eQTL的发现。我们的研究结果表明,GWAS和eQTL的研究系统地偏向于不同类型的变体,并支持在下一代eQTL研究的同时使用互补功能方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic differences in discovery of genetic effects on gene expression and complex traits
Most signals in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of complex traits implicate noncoding genetic variants with putative gene regulatory effects. However, currently identified regulatory variants, notably expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), explain only a small fraction of GWAS signals. Here, we show that GWAS and cis-eQTL hits are systematically different: eQTLs cluster strongly near transcription start sites, whereas GWAS hits do not. Genes near GWAS hits are enriched in key functional annotations, are under strong selective constraint and have complex regulatory landscapes across different tissue/cell types, whereas genes near eQTLs are depleted of most functional annotations, show relaxed constraint, and have simpler regulatory landscapes. We describe a model to understand these observations, including how natural selection on complex traits hinders discovery of functionally relevant eQTLs. Our results imply that GWAS and eQTL studies are systematically biased toward different types of variant, and support the use of complementary functional approaches alongside the next generation of eQTL studies. This study seeks to explain the poor overlap of genome-wide association study and cis-expression quantitative trait locus variants using a model of differential selective constraint, suggesting that these two study types have biases towards different functional classes of variants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature genetics
Nature genetics 生物-遗传学
CiteScore
43.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
241
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Nature Genetics publishes the very highest quality research in genetics. It encompasses genetic and functional genomic studies on human and plant traits and on other model organisms. Current emphasis is on the genetic basis for common and complex diseases and on the functional mechanism, architecture and evolution of gene networks, studied by experimental perturbation. Integrative genetic topics comprise, but are not limited to: -Genes in the pathology of human disease -Molecular analysis of simple and complex genetic traits -Cancer genetics -Agricultural genomics -Developmental genetics -Regulatory variation in gene expression -Strategies and technologies for extracting function from genomic data -Pharmacological genomics -Genome evolution
期刊最新文献
Author Correction: Brca1 haploinsufficiency promotes early tumor onset and epigenetic alterations in a mouse model of hereditary breast cancer Epigenetic scars of Brca1 loss point toward breast cancer cell of origin A multilineage screen identifies actionable synthetic lethal interactions in human cancers Intermediate cells with activated JAK/STAT signaling in prostate regeneration and diseases Toward GDPR compliance with the Helmholtz Munich genotype imputation server
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1