The missing link between genetic association and regulatory function

Noah Connally, Sumaiya Nazeen, Daniel Lee, Huwenbo Shi, John Stamatoyannopoulos, Sung Chun, Chris Cotsapas, Christopher A. Cassa, Shamil Sunyaev
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.08.21258515

Abstract

The genetic basis of most traits is highly polygenic and dominated by non-coding alleles. It is widely assumed that such alleles exert small regulatory effects on the expression of cis-linked genes. However, despite the availability of gene expression and epigenomic data sets, few variant-to-gene links have emerged. It is unclear whether these sparse results are due to limitations in available data and methods, or to deficiencies in the underlying assumed model. To better distinguish between these possibilities, we identified 220 gene-trait pairs in which protein-coding variants influence a complex trait or its Mendelian cognate. Despite the presence of expression quantitative trait loci near most GWAS associations, by applying a gene-based approach we found limited evidence that the baseline expression of trait-related genes explains GWAS associations, whether using colocalization methods (8% of genes implicated), transcription-wide association (2% of genes implicated), or a combination of regulatory annotations and distance (4% of genes implicated). These results contradict the hypothesis that most complex trait-associated variants coincide with homeostatic eQTLs, suggesting that better models are needed. The field must confront this deficit, and pursue this “missing regulation.”

Introduction

Modern complex trait genetics has uncovered surprises at every turn, including the paucity of associations between traits and coding variants of large effect, and the “mystery of missing heritability,” in which no combination of common and rare variants can explain a large fraction of trait heritability1. Further work has revealed unexpectedly high polygenicity for most human traits and very small effect sizes for individual variants. Bulk enrichment analyses have demonstrated that a large fraction of heritability resides in regions with gene regulatory potential, predominantly tissue-specific accessible chromatin and enhancer elements, suggesting that trait-associated variants influence gene regulation2–4. Furthermore, genes in trait-associated loci are more likely to have genetic variants that affect their expression levels (expression QTLs, or eQTLs), and the variants with the strongest trait associations are more likely also to be associated with transcript abundance of at least one proximal gene5. Combined, these observations have led to the inference that most trait-associated variants are eQTLs, and their effects arise from altering transcript abundance, rather than protein sequence. Equivalent sQTL (splice QTL) analyses of exon usage data have revealed a more modest overlap with trait-associated alleles, suggesting that a fraction of trait-associated variants influence splicing, and hence the relative abundance of different transcript isoforms, rather than overall expression levels. The genetic variant causing expression changes may lie outside the locus and involve a knock-on effect on gene regulation, with the variant altering transcript abundances for genes elsewhere in the genome (a trans-eQTL), but the consensus view is that trans-eQTLs are typically mediated by the variant influencing a gene in the region (a cis-eQTL)6. Thus, a model has emerged in which most trait-associated variants influence proximal gene regulation.

Here we argue that this unembellished model—in which GWAS peaks are mediated by the effects on the homeostatic expression in bulk tissues—is the exception rather than the rule. We highlight challenges of current strategies linking GWAS variants to genes and call for a reevaluation of the basic model in favor of more complex models possibly involving context-specificity with respect to cell types, developmental stages, cell states, or the constanstancy of expression effects.

Our argument begins with several observations that challenge the unembellished model. One challenge is the difference between spatial distributions of eQTLs, which are dramatically enriched in close proximity to genes, and GWAS peaks, which are usually farther away7–9. Another is that expression levels mediate a minority of complex trait heritability10. Finally, many studies have designed tools for colocalization analysis: a test of whether GWAS and eQTL associations are due to the same set of variants, not merely distinct variants in linkage disequilibrium. If the model is correct, most trait associations should also be eQTLs, but across studies, only 5-40% of trait associations co-localize with eQTLs11–14.

Despite the doubts raised, the fact that most GWAS peaks do not colocalize with eQTLs cannot disprove the predominant, unembellished model. In a sense, negative colocalization results are confusing because their hypothesis is too broad. If we predict merely that GWAS peaks will colocalize with some genes’ expression, it is not clear what is meant by a peak’s failure to colocalize with any individual gene’s expression.

Thus, a narrower, more testable hypothesis requires identifying genes we believe a priori are biologically relevant to the GWAS trait. If these trait-linked genes have nearby GWAS peaks and eQTLs, failure to colocalize would be a meaningful negative result.

Earlier studies tested all GWAS peaks; when a peak has no colocalization, the model is inconclusive. But trait-linked genes that fail to colocalize reveal that our method for detecting non-coding variation is, with current data, incompatible with our model for understanding it.

With this distinction in mind, we created a set of trait-associated genes capable of supporting or contradicting the model of non-coding GWAS associations acting as eQTLs. For this purpose the selection of genes becomes extremely important. Because the model attempts to explain the genetic relationship between traits and gene expression, true positives cannot be selected based on measurements of genetic association to traits (GWAS) or expression (eQTL mapping). With this restriction, one source of true positives is to identify genes that are both in loci associated with a complex trait and are also known to harbor coding mutations tied to a related Mendelian trait or the same complex trait. Using a model not based on expression, Mendelian genes are enriched in common-variant heritability for cognate complex traits15. The genes and their coding variants may be detected in familial studies of cognate Mendelian disorders, or by aggregation in a burden test on the same complex phenotypes as GWAS16

For genes whose coding variants can cause detectable phenotypic change, the strong expectation is that a variant of small effect influences the gene identified by its rare coding variants. As an example, APOE and LDLR are both low-density lipoprotein receptor genes17,18. Coding variants in APOE and LDLR can lead to the Mendelian disorder familial hypercholesterolemia18,19. Even in the absence of a Mendelian coding variant, experiments in animal models have found that the overexpression of these genes reduces cholesterol levels20–22. GWAS on human subjects have found significant associations near APOE and LDLR, so it seems reasonable to suspect that any noncoding effects in these loci may be mediated by these genes. This general relationship between Mendelian and complex traits is supported by several lines of evidence summarized in Supplementary Note 1.

Results

To test the model that trait-associated variants influence baseline gene expression, we assembled a list of such putatively causative genes. We selected seven polygenic common traits with available large-scale GWAS data, each of which also has an extreme form in which coding variants of large effect alter one or more genes with well-characterized biology (Table 1). Our selection included four common diseases: type II diabetes23, where early onset familial forms are caused by rare coding mutations (insulin-independent MODY; neonatal diabetes; maternally inherited diabetes and deafness; familial partial lipodystrophy); ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease24,25, which have Mendelian pediatric forms characterized by severity of presentation; and breast cancer26, where germline coding mutations (e.g., BRCA1) or somatic tissue (e.g., PIK3CA) are sufficient for disease. We also chose three quantitative traits: low and high density lipoprotein levels (LDL and HDL); and height.

View this table:
Table 1. Putatively causative Mendelian genes.

Each gene includes reference(s) to the known biological role of its coding variants, as established in familial studies, in vitro experiments, and/or animal models. Genes from Backman et al. are not included here, but can be found in Figure 3.

In well-powered GWAS, even relatively rare large-effect coding alleles (mutations in BRCA1 which cause breast cancer, for instance) may be detectable as an association to common variants, which could make the effect of a coding variant appear to be regulatory instead. To account for this possibility, we computed association statistics in each GWAS locus conditional on coding variants. We applied a direct conditional test to datasets with available individual-level genotype data (height, LDL, HDL); for those studies without available genotype data, we computed conditional associations from summary statistics using COJO27,28 (Methods). With both methods, the resulting GWAS associations should reflect only non-coding variants.

After controlling for coding variation, we examined whether these genes are more likely than chance to be in close proximity to variants associated with the polygenic form of each trait. In agreement with existing literature29, we observe a significant enrichment for all traits in our combined Mendelian and Backman et al. gene sets (Supp. Fig. 1).

Of our 220 genes, 147 (67%) fell within 1 Mb of a GWAS locus for the cognate complex trait, over three times as many as the 43 predicted by a random null model (95% confidence interval: 31.5-54.5). Our window of 1 Mb represents roughly the upper bound for distances identified between enhancer-promoter pairs, but most pairs are closer30, so we would expect enrichment to increase as the window around genes decreases; this proves to be the case. At a distance of 100 kb, we find 104 putatively causative genes (47%), though the null model predicts only 11 (95% CI 4.5-17.0), a order-of-magnitude enrichment (Supp. Fig. 1). Given their known causal roles in the severe forms of each phenotype, these results suggest that the 147 genes near GWAS signals are likely to be the targets of trait-associated non-coding variants. For example, we see a significant GWAS association between breast cancer risk and variants in the estrogen receptor (ESR1) locus even after controlling for coding variation; the baseline expression model would thus predict that non-coding risk alleles alter ESR1 expression to drive breast cancer risk.

We next looked for evidence that the trait-associated variants were also altering the expression of our 147 genes in relevant tissues. Controlling for the number of tests we conducted, 134 of these genes had an eQTL in at least one relevant tissue at a false discovery rate of Q < 0.05 (Methods). If these variants act through changes in gene expression, phenotypic associations should be driven by the same variants as eQTLs in relevant tissue types. We therefore looked for co-localization between our GWAS signals and eQTLs in relevant tissues (Table 2) drawn from the GTEx Project, using three well-documented methods: coloc11, JLIM12, and eCAVIAR14. We found support for the colocalization of trait and eQTL association for only 7 genes out of 147 (4.8%) for coloc; 10/147 (6.8%) for JLIM; and 8/147 (5.4%) for eCAVIAR. Accounting for overlap, this represents only 18/220 putatively causative genes (8.2%) or 18/147 (12.2%) putatively causative genes near GWAS peaks, even without full multiple-hypothesis testing correction (Methods), which is not obviously better than random chance. We note that prior estimates of the fraction of GWAS associations colocalizing with eQTLs (25%-40%11,12,14,31) do not directly evaluate the ability to find causative genes. By contrast, our estimate of the number of putatively causative genes that colocalize with eQTLs tests the consistency of our knowledge, models, and data.

View this table:
Table 2. Tissue-trait pairs

Tissues were selected for each trait based on a priori knowledge of disease biology.

A potential weakness of our approach is the restriction of our search to pre-defined tissues. We believe this is necessary in order to avoid the disadvantages of testing each gene-trait pair in each tissue—either a large number of false positives, or a severe multiple-testing correction that may lead to false negatives. However, restricting to the set of tissues with a known biological role and available expression data almost certainly leaves out tissues with relevance in certain contexts. Some of the tissues we do use have smaller sample sizes, limiting their power to detect eQTLs with smaller effects.

To address potential shortcomings from the available sample of tissue contexts, we incorporated the Multivariate Adaptive Shrinkage Method (MASH)32. MASH is a Bayesian method that takes genetic association summary statistics measured across a variety of conditions and, by determining patterns of similarity across conditions, updates the summary statistics of each individual condition. In our case, if an eQTL is difficult to find in a tissue of interest, incorporating information from other tissues may help us detect it. Unlike meta-analysis, this method generates summary statistics that still correspond to a specific tissue.

We ran MASH on every locus used in our earlier analysis, using data from all non-brain GTEx tissues (Methods). Rerunning coloc with these modified statistics increased the number of GWAS-eQTL colocations from 389 to 489. However the 100 new colocations identified only four additional putatively causative genes (Supp. Fig. 2). These results indicate that tissue type selection was not the limiting factor in our analysis.

Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS)33–36 are another class of methods applied to identify causative genes under GWAS peaks using gene expression. TWAS measures genetic correlation between traits and is not designed to avoid correlations caused by LD, which gives it higher power in the case of allelic heterogeneity or poorly typed causative variants37. However, while sensitive, TWAS analyses typically yield expansive result sets that include many false positives and are sensitive to the number of tissue types37. Results from the FUSION implementation of TWAS35 across all tissues identified our putatively causative genes as likely tied to the GWAS peak in 66/220 loci (30%). However, only 4/220 (1.8%) genes were identified by FUSION when we restricted the analysis to relevant tissues.

Given the paucity of expression-mediated GWAS peaks, we asked whether GWAS variants indeed reside in regulatory sites. Taking the 128 genes in the Mendelian subset of putatively causative genes, we fine-mapped each nearby GWAS association using the SuSiE algorithm38. For 37 of these genes, we identified at least one high-confidence fine-mapped SNP (PIP>0.7) within 100kb of the transcription start site. We tested whether these fine-mapped SNPs fall within regulatory DNA marked by chromatin accessibility39, a narrowly mapped active histone modification feature (H3K27ac, H3K4me1, or H3K4me340), or characterized as an “enhancer” by ChromHMM41,42 (Methods). As many as 32/37 (86%) genes identified this way have a fine-mapped SNP within a regulatory feature across all the tissue types examined, or 25/37 (68%) when restricting to phenotype-relevant tissues (Fig. 3; Supp. Table 1, Supp. Table 2). Despite strong evidence that these GWAS associations are due to regulatory effects, only 5/25 loci (20%) demonstrably correspond to expression effects in our eQTL analysis.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Putatively causative genes identified by each method category.

The leftmost column in each half of the plot displays the entire group of putatively causative genes for our Mendelian set of genes and our Backman et al. set of genes respectively, as well as noting how many are unique to each set or shared between the two sets. The second column in each half indicates how many genes from each set have a nearby GWAS peak, or have both a nearby GWAS peak and an eQTL. The remaining columns indicate how many genes were identified through colocalization, TWAS, or chromatin methods, while noting how many of these genes are unique vs. shared between the Mendelian and Backman sets.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Chromatin-based causative gene identification.

Following the fine-mapping of GWAS variants, three parallel methods were used. The first identified fine-mapped variants falling within regions annotated as enhancers by ChromHMM. The second identified variants within histone modification features, and evaluated their relevance using an ABD score that combined the strength of the feature (i.e., the strength of the acetylation or methylation peak) with its genomic distance to the gene of interest (Methods). The third repeated both of these—checking for fine-mapped variants within a region and calculating the ABD score—for DNase I hypersensitivity sites.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Genes identified as associated with a complex trait by each method.

Columns “Mend” and “Backman” indicate whether a gene is from the Mendelian set of putatively causative genes, the Backman et al. set, or both. Subsequent columns indicate whether a gene was identified as a hit using each of our methods: JLIM, coloc, eCaviar, TWAS, and chromatin analysis.

In order to more directly compare our regulatory feature analysis to our eQTL analysis, we measured “activity-by-distance”—a simplification of the “activity-by-contact” method30,43 (Methods; Fig. 2). Taking each locus’s feature with the highest ABD score, we implicate 5/37 (14%) of our Mendelian subset of genes. This reinforces our observation that, even when a GWAS association and trait-relevant gene are proximal, they are difficult to link, whether using eQTLs or chromatin data.

Discussion

Overall, our results are consistent with the idea that complex traits are governed by non-coding genetic variants whose effects on phenotype are mediated by their contribution to the regulation of nearby genes. However, these results are inconsistent with the model that a common mechanism of this mediation is the effect on baseline expression within tissues. The enrichment of our putatively causative genes—selected based on existing biological knowledge—near GWAS peaks supports their role in complex traits. Additionally, the enrichment of fine-mapped GWAS variants in accessible chromatin regions and regulatory features lends support to the model of GWAS associations being produced by eQTLs. However, the inability of varied statistical methods to actually link GWAS associations and expression contradicts the idea that the causative GWAS variants are homeostatic, bulk-tissue eQTLs of the sort found in broad expression-data collection projects.

Many explanations have been suggested for the limited success of expression methods to explain the mechanisms of GWAS variants. Undirected, broad approaches— including most GWAS-eQTL linking studies—are designed to be largely independent of a priori biological knowledge and hypotheses. This unconstrained focus is ideal for discovery, but, though it delivers the largest number of positive findings, it is ill-suited to provide an explanation for negative results—when you don’t know what you were looking for, it’s hard to explain why you didn’t find it. By testing only loci for which there is a strongly suspected contributing gene, we are better able to distinguish which factors prevent us from identifying it using expression.

As a result, we conclude that a number of explanations often considered when evaluating expression-based variant-to-gene methods are not applicable in the context we examined. These include non-expression-mediated mechanisms, lack of statistical power for GWAS, the absence of eQTLs for relevant genes, and underpowered methods for linking expression to GWAS (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3. Proposed explanations for negative results under the unembellished model.

Many explanations have been proposed for GWAS associations that are not explained by cis-eQTLs. This table details explanations inconsistent with our results, which are explained in the left column and addressed in the right. Explanations involving more detailed models of gene regulation can be found in Table 4. Two of the explanations addressed here involve violations of the assumptions of our and other expression-based complex trait studies. If coding and non-coding variants affect fundamentally different biological pathways, or if trait associations rarely depend on cis-eQTLs, our methods of mapping regulation to traits would have nothing to uncover. Even in the presence of eQTL-driven trait associations, insufficient power to detect trait associations, to detect eQTL associations, or to link the two would result in predominantly negative results.

Instead, we believe the “missing regulation” will be found primarily through examining more nuanced models of gene expression. Solving the mystery will require not only identifying the eQTLs behind GWAS peaks, but also explaining the phenotypic irrelevance of our “red herring eQTLs”: eQTLs for putatively causative genes that fall near GWAS peaks but do not colocalize with them. Some proposed models involve expression that depends on context—whether cell type, cell state, environment, or developmental stage. Others depend on heterogeneity of expression or the variance of expression across relatively short time scales. These various models may depend on or be augmented by thresholding or buffering—processes causing a change in gene expression to have a non-linear effect on phenotype. A summary of these models can be found in Table 4.

View this table:
Table 4. Explaining negative results with more nuanced models of gene regulation.

To reconcile an expression-based model with our observations requires us to both explain the absence of trait-linked eQTLs as well as explaining away the inconsequence of eQTLs for trait-linked genes. The left-hand side lists additions or changes to the unembellished model, while the right contains explanations of the models and current relevant research.

The implications of our results are both conceptual and practical. The inability of current models to identify the expression effects of known trait-associated genes, and to explain the non-effects of their identified eQTLs, calls for new models of the role of gene regulation in complex traits. One long-standing goal of GWAS has been to discover genes contributing to complex traits1,8, but low rates of positive findings for expression-based variant-to-gene methods have constrained this possibility12,44. Among other challenges, this has limited the benefit of GWAS and expression data for disease-gene mapping and drug discovery44,45. Another practical question raised is the value of different large-scale datasets. Compared to genotypes, expression data are relatively difficult to collect. If the most relevant models are shown to depend on effects not observable in bulk-tissue, homeostatic eQTL mapping, the field may need to consider prioritizing other forms of expression data.

The introduction to this manuscript includes two examples of suspect genes: APOE and LDLR. Both genes harbor coding variants causing Mendelian hypercholesterolemia. Both have non-coding variants that GWAS have tied to LDL levels. Both have eQTLs in trait-relevant tissues. For APOE, these points cohere into an explanation: the LDL-association is an eQTL for the lipid-binding gene. But for LDLR—and for most genes— the association, the mechanism, and the gene cannot be tied together. In the field of complex-trait genetics—both basic and translational—solving this regulatory mystery may prove to be a critical step.

Data Availability

All relevant data are included within the paper.

Figures

Supplementary figure 1.
Supplementary figure 1. Enrichment of Mendelian genes near GWAS peaks.

A) As the window around GWAS peaks shrinks, the enrichment of Mendelian genes within the window becomes increasingly significant, while the enrichment of non-matching trait pairs used as controls (gray lines; Methods) is not consistently increased. Some controls achieve nominal significance (dotted horizontal line), but none reach significance once multiple-testing is corrected for (solid horizontal line). B) As above, but for genes from Backman et al. (2021)16. C) The combined gene lists from parts A and B. Note that, accounting for multiple test correction (based on the total number of tests across all panels) height does not reach significance using the Mendelian gene list, while T2D is barely significant using the Backman list. However, combining the lists increases power and demonstrates significance for all traits.

Supplementary figure 2.
Supplementary figure 2. Change in coloc hits when adjusting eQTL statistics using MASH.

By using the Bayesian method MASH to update our measurements of eQTLs based on tissues with similar expression patterns, we increased the number of colocalizations found. However, even in tissues in which the number of genes identified increased substantially, we did not meaningfully increase the number of putatively causative genes identified.

View this table:
Supplementary Table 1. Roadmap epigenomics aliases of tissue types used for functional genomic analysis.

Tissue types from the Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium do not perfectly match those from GTEx. However, there is overlap, and as with GTEx, we analyzed trait-relevant tissues.

View this table:
Supplementary Table 2. Tissue types and bio-samples from the DNase I hypersensitive sites index used for functional genomic analysis

Meuleman et al. assess DNase I hypersensitive sites across 438 cell and tissue types39; we selected the above based on their relevance to our complex traits.

Supplementary Note 1. Evidence for the relationship between Mendelian and complex traits

More generally, this expectation is supported by several lines of evidence. Comorbidity between Mendelian and complex traits has been used to identify common variants associated with the complex traits282. Early GWAS found associations near genes identified through familial studies of severe disorders283,284, and later implicated some of the same genes in complex and Mendelian forms of cardiovascular285 and neuropsychiatric286 traits. More recent analyses have found that GWAS associations are enriched in regions near causative genes for cognate Mendelian traits in blood traits287, lipid traits and diabetes15, as well as a diverse collection of 62 traits29. Another recent method used transcriptomic, proteomic and epigenomic data to prioritize genes and found that, in a selection of nine phenotypes, selected genes were enriched for Mendelian genes causing similar traits288. Together, these suggest that genes causing Mendelian traits also influence cognate complex traits, but not through the same coding mechanism.

Genes can also harbor coding variants tied to less severe forms of a trait. These coding variants are more difficult to identify individually, as their effect sizes are much smaller. However, the greater number of variants (in aggregate) and freedom from searching for severe segregating traits, allows the use of large population datasets. Backman et al. used burden testing on UK Biobank data to identify genes whose coding variation affects complex traits, finding many genes not identified through familial studies16.

Supplementary methods

Gene selection

By manual literature search, we selected 128 genes harboring large-effect-size coding variants for one of the seven phenotypes (Table 1; specifically, we selected 128 gene-trait pairs, representing 121 unique genes). These genes were identified using familial studies, rare disease exome sequencing analyses, and, for breast cancer, using the MutPanning method218 (citations for each gene are included in Table 1). Review papers, as well as the OMIM database289, were generally used as starting points, but an examination of the original literature was needed to confirm genes’ suitability. For example, though SMC3 is known to cause Cornelia de Lange syndrome, which is characterized in part by short stature, SMC3 mutations lead to a milder form of the syndrome, usually without a marked reduction in stature290. Several of these phenotypes —height, HDL, cholesterol, breast cancer, and type II diabetes—were also analyzed in Backman et al., which, through burden testing, identified a total of 110 genes; after accounting for overlaps, this increased our set of putatively causative genes to 22016. The inclusion of genes from Backman et al. ensures that our results are not dependent on an undetected bias in our selection. The set of genes chosen from familial studies offered the advantage that it was selected based on independent methods and data distinct from the large-scale genotyping studies that have characterized the GWAS era. The tradeoff to this was the impossibility of selecting genes through a fully systematic and non-arbitrary process. Because this work was performed in the UKBB, there is some overlap between their data and ours. However, our work did not use exomes, and most of the variants driving their findings are too rare to influence GWAS results. When this is not the case, our decision to condition on coding variants should make the effects used in our work independent from their findings.

Identifying coding variants

Because GWAS sample sizes are large enough to detect the low-frequency coding variants used to select some of our genes, it is possible that a coding SNP would distort the association signal of nearby eQTLs. To minimize this concern, we removed the effects of coding variants on GWAS. Many variants can fall within coding sequences in rare splice variants, so it is important to remove only those variants that appear commonly as coding. These coding SNPs were selected based on the pext (proportion of expression across transcripts) data291. Two filters were used. First, we removed genes whose expression in a trait-relevant tissue was below 50% of their maximum expression across tissues. Second, we removed variants that fell within the coding sequence of less than 25% of splice isoforms in that tissue. The remaining variants were used to correct GWAS signal, as explained below.

GWAS

For height, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol, GWAS were performed using genotypic and phenotypic data from the UKBB. In order to avoid confounding, we restricted our sample to the 337K unrelated individuals with genetically determined British ancestry identified by Bycroft et al.292 The GWAS were run using Plink 2.0293, with the covariates age, sex, BMI (for LDL and HDL only), 10 principal components, and coding SNPs.

Conditional analysis

Because UKBB has limited power for breast cancer, Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, and type II diabetes, we used publicly available summary statistics. The Conditional and Joint Analysis (COJO)27,28 program can condition summary statistics on selected variants—in our case, coding variants—by using an LD reference panel. For this reference, we used TOPMed subjects of European ancestry294. The ancestry of these subjects was confirmed with FastPCA295,296 and the relevant data were extracted using bcftools297. Our conditional GWAS data are available at doi:10.5061/dryad.612jm644q

Enrichment analysis

At each distance, the number of Mendelian and non-Mendelian genes within that window around GWAS peaks are counted. P-values are calculated using Fisher’s exact test (Supp. Fig. 1). Because Mendelian genes may be unusually important beyond our chosen traits, we conduct a set of controls by measuring the enrichment of non-matching Mendelian and complex traits (CD genes & BC GWAS; BC genes & LDL GWAS; LDL genes & UC GWAS; UC genes & height GWAS; height genes & T2D GWAS; T2D genes & HDL GWAS; HDL genes & CD GWAS).

eQTL detection

eQTL summary statistics were taken from GTEx v7. Some methods detect colocalization with variants that are individually significant, but would not pass a genome-wide threshold12. Because we tested only a subset of genes and, we used the Bejamini-Hochberg method298 to calculate the FDR based on the number of tests we conducted multiplied by a correction factor to account for variants that are tested in combination with a gene but are not reported (a factor of 20 closely matched the genome-wide FDR results for GTEx). With this method 204/220 (93%) of our genes displayed an eQTL, including 134/147 genes with a nearby GWAS peak (91%). Even using the FDR statistics of the GTEx project—which are based on the assumption of testing every gene in every tissue—107/220 (49%) of our genes and 76/147 (52%) of genes near GWAS peaks had an eQTL at Q < 0.05.

Colocalization

JLIM12 was run using GWAS summary statistics and GTEx v7 genotypes and phenotypes, for the tissues listed in Table 2. Coloc11 was run using GWAS and GTEx v7 summary statistics for the same tissues. eCAVIAR14 was run using GWAS and GTEx v7 summary statistics for these tissues, and a reference dataset of LD from UKBB299. MASH was run incorporating data from all non-brain tissues, and coloc was re-run using the adjusted values for the same tissues as before.

MASH

Multivariate adaptive shrinkage (MASH) was applied to all GTEx tissues using the mashr R-package32. We restricted this model to non-brain tissues—which include all of our trait-selected tissues—due to the known tendency of brain and non-brait tissues to cluster separately in expression analysis300–302.

Fusion (TWAS)

We used the FUSION implementation of TWAS, which accounts for the possibility of multiple cis-eQTLs linked to the trait-associated variant by jointly calling sets of genes predicted to include the causative gene, to interrogate our 220 loci35. FUSION included our putatively causative genes in the set identified as likely relevant to the GWAS peak in 66/220 loci (30%). However, interpretation of this TWAS result is difficult. For many complex traits, TWAS returns a large number of findings (e.g., over 150 for LDL cholesterol and over 4,800 for height). This is in part due to the multiple genes jointly returned at a locus, and can also be a result of the large number of tissues and cell types included in the implementation of FUSION. Most hits are found in tissues without any clear relevance to the trait, and absent in relevant tissues—LDL, for example, has more TWAS associations between expression and eQTL in prostate adenocarcinoma (24 genes associated), brain pre-frontal cortex (23 genes associated), and transformed fibroblasts (21 genes associated) than it does in adipose (16 genes associated), blood (11 genes associated), or liver (5 genes associated). Individual genes were often identified as hits in multiple tissues, but with an inconsistent direction of effect—that is, increased gene expression correlated with an increase in the quantitative trait or disease risk in some tissues, but a decrease in others, which suggests that the gene in question may not be the one whose expression contributes to the complex trait. Because of this possibility, and the known biological role of many of our genes, we restricted our results to tissues with established relevance to our traits.

Fine-mapping GWAS hits

We fine-mapped the GWAS variants located within +/-100 kb of our putatively causative genes by applying the SuSiE algorithm38 on the unconditional summary statistics from the GWAS of breast cancer, Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, type II diabetes, height, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. An LD reference panel from UKBB subjects of European ancestry was used for this analysis. Fine-mapped variants were annotated using snpEff (v4.3t). Only non-coding variants were kept for further analysis.

Functional genomic annotation of fine-mapped hits

We projected fine-mapped GWAS variants onto active regions of the genome, identified using three alternative approaches: (i) histone modification features, (ii) DNase I hypersensitive sites, and (iii) ChromHMM enhancers.

First, we looked at three histone modification marks, namely, acetylation of histone H3 lysine 27 residues (H3K27ac), mono-methylation of histone H3 lysine 4 residues (H3K4me1), and tri-methylation of lysine 4 residues (H3K4me3) from the Roadmap Epigenomics Project37 to identify functional enhancers which are key contributors of tissue-specific gene regulation. We downloaded imputed narrowPeak sets for H3K27ac, H3K4me1, and H3K4me3 from the Roadmap Epigenomics Project37 ftp site (https://egg2.wustl.edu/roadmap/data/byFileType/peaks/consolidatedImputed/narrowPeak/) for 14 different tissue types (Supp. Table 1). For each tissue type, we extracted the narrow peaks that are within +/-5 Mb of our putatively causative genes. Then following the approach described in Fulco et al.36, we extended the 150 bp narrow peaks by 175 bp on both sides to arrive at candidate features of 500 bp in length. All features mapping to blacklisted regions (https://sites.google.com/site/anshulkundaje/projects/blacklists) were removed. Remaining features were re-centered around the peak and overlapping features were merged to give the final set of features per histone modification track. Mean activity/strength of a feature (AF) was calculated by taking the geometric mean of the corresponding peak strengths from H3K27ac, H3K4me1, and H3K4me3 marks. We then combined these activity measurements with the linear distances between the features and the transcription start sites of causative genes to compute “activity-by-distance” scores (a simplified version of ABC scores36) for gene-feature pairs using the following formula. Embedded Image The ABD score can be thought of as a measure of the contribution of a feature, F to the combined regulatory signals acting on gene, G. A high ABD score may serve as a proxy for an increased specificity between a chromatin feature and the gene of interest. We projected the fine-mapped variants onto the chromatin features in different tissue types to assess whether there is an enrichment of likely causal GWAS hits in regulatory features near our putatively causative genes. Both proximity (genomic distance) and specificity (ABD scores) were considered to determine the regulatory contribution of the fine-mapped hits.

Next, we looked at the DNase I hypersensitive sites (DHSs) which are considered to be generic markers of the regulatory DNA and can contain genetic variations associated with traits and diseases39. We downloaded the index of human DHS along with biosample metadata from https://www.meuleman.org/research/dhsindex/. The index was in hg38 coordinates which were converted to hg19 coordinates using the online version of the hgLiftOver package (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgLiftOver). We created a DHS index for each tissue type relevant to the traits and diseases we analyzed by including all DHS that are present in at least one bio-sample from a certain tissue type (Supp. Table 2). We then selected DHS that lie within +/-100 kb of the TSS of our putatively causative genes. Since DHS are of variable widths, we recentered the summits in a 350 bp window and merged overlapping sites in the same way as we did for other chromatin marks. We calculated the mean activity (AF) by averaging the strengths of all the merged sites. Next, we calculated the activity by distance score for each DHS and gene pair using the same formula described above. Finally, for each fine-mapped SNP, we identified all DHS that fall within +/-100 kb of the SNP.

Finally, we used in-silico chromatin state predictions (chromHMM core 15-state model37) for relevant tissue types (Supp. Table 1) to identify active enhancer regions in the genome. Tissue-specific chromHMM annotations were downloaded from the Roadmap Epigenomics Project37 ftp site (https://egg2.wustl.edu/roadmap/data/byFileType/chromhmmSegmentations/ChmmModels/coreMarks/jointModel/final/). We considered a fine-mapped variant to fall in an enhancer region if it was housed within a chromHMM segment described as either enhancer, or bivalent enhancer, or genic enhancer. Since chromHMM annotations are not accompanied by activity measurements, the ABD approach could not be applied here.

Acknowledgements

We thank Alkes Price, Alex Bloemendal, Benjamin Neale, Bogdan Pasanuic, Sasha (Alexander) Gusev, and Matt Warman for their helpful discussions. This research was supported by NIH grants R35GM127131, R01HG010372, R01MH101244, and U01HG012009,. N.J.C was supported by NIH training grant T32GM74897. UK Biobank was accessed under projects 14048 and 10438. TOPMed data were used under dbGaP project 28674.

Footnotes

  • Many sections of the paper have been re-written for clarity. The set of genes tested has been increased, and new models have been included and referenced.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Manolio, T. A. et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461, 747–753 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Maurano, M. T. et al. Systematic Localization of Common Disease-Associated Variation in Regulatory DNA. Science 337, 1190–1195 (2012).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.
    Trynka, G. et al. Chromatin marks identify critical cell types for fine mapping complex trait variants. Nat. Genet. 45, 124–130 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Gusev, A. et al. Partitioning Heritability of Regulatory and Cell-Type-Specific Variants across 11 Common Diseases. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 95, 535–552 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Nicolae, D. L. et al. Trait-Associated SNPs Are More Likely to Be eQTLs: Annotation to Enhance Discovery from GWAS. PLOS Genet. 6, e1000888 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Consortium, T. Gte. The GTEx Consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues. Science 369, 1318–1330 (2020).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Stranger, B. E. et al. Population genomics of human gene expression. Nat. Genet. 39, 1217–1224 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Farh, K. K.-H. et al. Genetic and epigenetic fine mapping of causal autoimmune disease variants. Nature 518, 337–343 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Mostafavi, H., Spence, J. P., Naqvi, S. & Pritchard, J. K. Limited overlap of eQTLs and GWAS hits due to systematic differences in discovery. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.05.07.491045 (2022) doi:10.1101/2022.05.07.491045.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Yao, D. W., O’Connor, L. J., Price, A. L. & Gusev, A. Quantifying genetic effects on disease mediated by assayed gene expression levels. Nat. Genet. 52, 626–633 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Giambartolomei, C. et al. Bayesian Test for Colocalisation between Pairs of Genetic Association Studies Using Summary Statistics. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004383 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Chun, S. et al. Limited statistical evidence for shared genetic effects of eQTLs and autoimmune-disease-associated loci in three major immune-cell types. Nat. Genet. 49, 600–605 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    Giambartolomei, C. et al. A Bayesian framework for multiple trait colocalization from summary association statistics. Bioinformatics 34, 2538–2545 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Hormozdiari, F. et al. Colocalization of GWAS and eQTL Signals Detects Target Genes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 1245–1260 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Weiner, D. J., Gazal, S., Robinson, E. B. & O’Connor, L. J. Partitioning gene-mediated disease heritability without eQTLs. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 0, (2022).
  16. 16.↵
    Backman, J. D. et al. Exome sequencing and analysis of 454,787 UK Biobank participants. Nature 599, 628–634 (2021).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Schneider, W. J. et al. Familial dysbetalipoproteinemia. Abnormal binding of mutant apoprotein E to low density lipoprotein receptors of human fibroblasts and membranes from liver and adrenal of rats, rabbits, and cows. J. Clin. Invest. 68, 1075–1085 (1981).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Goldstein, J. L. & Brown, M. S. Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Identification of a Defect in the Regulation of 3-Hydroxy-3-Methylglutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase Activity Associated with Overproduction of Cholesterol. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 70, 2804–2808 (1973).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Cenarro, A. et al. The p.Leu167del Mutation in APOE Gene Causes Autosomal Dominant Hypercholesterolemia by Down-regulation of LDL Receptor Expression in Hepatocytes. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 101, 2113–2121 (2016).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Shimano, H. et al. Overexpression of apolipoprotein E in transgenic mice: marked reduction in plasma lipoproteins except high density lipoprotein and resistance against diet-induced hypercholesterolemia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89, 1750–1754 (1992).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.
    Shimano, H. et al. Plasma lipoprotein metabolism in transgenic mice overexpressing apolipoprotein E. Accelerated clearance of lipoproteins containing apolipoprotein B. J. Clin. Invest. 90, 2084–2091 (1992).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Kawashiri, M. et al. Effects of coexpression of the LDL receptor and apoE on cholesterol metabolism and atherosclerosis in LDL receptor-deficient mice. J. Lipid Res. 42, 943–950 (2001).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Mahajan, A. et al. Fine-mapping type 2 diabetes loci to single-variant resolution using high-density imputation and islet-specific epigenome maps. Nat. Genet. 50, 1505–1513 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Liu, J. Z. et al. Association analyses identify 38 susceptibility loci for inflammatory bowel disease and highlight shared genetic risk across populations. Nat. Genet. 47, 979–986 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Goyette, P. et al. High-density mapping of the MHC identifies a shared role for HLA-DRB1*01:03 in inflammatory bowel diseases and heterozygous advantage in ulcerative colitis. Nat. Genet. 47, 172–179 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Zhang, H. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 32 novel breast cancer susceptibility loci from overall and subtype-specific analyses. Nat. Genet. 52, 572–581 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Yang, J., Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E. & Visscher, P. M. GCTA: A Tool for Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88, 76–82 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Yang, J. et al. Conditional and joint multiple-SNP analysis of GWAS summary statistics identifies additional variants influencing complex traits. Nat. Genet. 44, 369–375 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Freund, M. K. et al. Phenotype-Specific Enrichment of Mendelian Disorder Genes near GWAS Regions across 62 Complex Traits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 535–552 (2018).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Nasser, J. et al. Genome-wide enhancer maps link risk variants to disease genes. Nature 593, 238–243 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Wen, X., Pique-Regi, R. & Luca, F. Integrating molecular QTL data into genome-wide genetic association analysis: Probabilistic assessment of enrichment and colocalization. PLOS Genet. 13, e1006646 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Urbut, S. M., Wang, G., Carbonetto, P. & Stephens, M. Flexible statistical methods for estimating and testing effects in genomic studies with multiple conditions. Nat. Genet. 51, 187–195 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Gamazon, E. R. et al. A gene-based association method for mapping traits using reference transcriptome data. Nat. Genet. 47, 1091–1098 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    Gusev, A. et al. Integrative approaches for large-scale transcriptome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 48, 245–252 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Mancuso, N. et al. Integrating Gene Expression with Summary Association Statistics to Identify Genes Associated with 30 Complex Traits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 100, 473–487 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Barbeira, A. N. et al. Exploring the phenotypic consequences of tissue specific gene expression variation inferred from GWAS summary statistics. Nat. Commun. 9, 1825 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Wainberg, M. et al. Opportunities and challenges for transcriptome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 51, 592–599 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Wang, G., Sarkar, A., Carbonetto, P. & Stephens, M. A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 82, 1273–1300 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Meuleman, W. et al. Index and biological spectrum of human DNase I hypersensitive sites. Nature 584, 244–251 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. Chromatin-state discovery and genome annotation with ChromHMM. Nat. Protoc. 12, 2478–2492 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Fulco, C. P. et al. Activity-by-contact model of enhancer–promoter regulation from thousands of CRISPR perturbations. Nat. Genet. 51, 1664–1669 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Baird, D. A. et al. Identifying drug targets for neurological and psychiatric disease via genetics and the brain transcriptome. PLOS Genet. 17, e1009224 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Umans, B. D., Battle, A. & Gilad, Y. Where Are the Disease-Associated eQTLs? Trends Genet. (2020) doi:10.1016/j.tig.2020.08.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    Soria, L. F. et al. Association between a specific apolipoprotein B mutation and familial defective apolipoprotein B-100. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 86, 587–591 (1989).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.
    Pullinger, C. R. et al. Familial ligand-defective apolipoprotein B. Identification of a new mutation that decreases LDL receptor binding affinity. J. Clin. Invest. 95, 1225–1234 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.
    Hegele, R. A. et al. An apolipoprotein CII mutation, CIILys19 Thr’ identified in patients with hyperlipidemia. Dis. Markers 9, 73–80 (1991).
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.
    de Knijff, P., van den Maagdenberg, A. M. J. M., Frants, R. R. & Havekes, L. M. Genetic heterogeneity of apolipoprotein E and its influence on plasma lipid and lipoprotein levels. Hum. Mutat. 4, 178–194 (1994).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.
    Brown, M. S. & Goldstein, J. L. Analysis of a mutant strain of human fibroblasts with a defect in the internalization of receptor-bound low density lipoprotein. Cell 9, 663–674 (1976).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.
    Heizmann, C. et al. DNA polymorphism haplotypes of the human lipoprotein lipase gene: possible association with high density lipoprotein levels. Hum. Genet. 86, 578–584 (1991).
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.
    Clee, S., Loubser, O., Collins, J., Kastelein, J. & Hayden, M. The LPL S447X cSNP is associated with decreased blood pressure and plasma triglycerides, and reduced risk of coronary artery disease. Clin. Genet. 60, 293–300 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.
    Abifadel, M. et al. Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Nat. Genet. 34, 154–156 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.
    Brooks-Wilson, A. et al. Mutations in ABC1 in Tangier disease and familial high-density lipoprotein deficiency. Nat. Genet. 22, 336–345 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.
    Bodzioch, M. et al. The gene encoding ATP-binding cassette transporter 1 is mutated in Tangier disease. Nat. Genet. 22, 347–351 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.
    Rust, S. et al. Tangier disease is caused by mutations in the gene encoding ATP-binding cassette transporter 1. Nat. Genet. 22, 352–355 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.
    Ordovas, J. M. et al. Apolipoprotein A-I Gene Polymorphism Associated with Premature Coronary Artery Disease and Familial Hypoalphalipoproteinemia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198603133141102 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM198603133141102 (1986) doi:10.1056/NEJM198603133141102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.
    Glueck, C. J., Fallat, R. W., Millett, F. & Steiner, P. M. Familial Hyperalphalipoproteinemia. Arch. Intern. Med. 135, 1025–1028 (1975).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Isaacs, A., Sayed-Tabatabaei, F. A., Njajou, O. T., Witteman, J. C. M. & van Duijn, C. M. The −514 C→T Hepatic Lipase Promoter Region Polymorphism and Plasma Lipids: A Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89, 3858–3863 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. 60.
    Grarup, N. et al. The −250G>A Promoter Variant in Hepatic Lipase Associates with Elevated Fasting Serum High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Modulated by Interaction with Physical Activity in a Study of 16,156 Danish Subjects. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 93, 2294–2299 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    Iijima, H. et al. Association of an intronic haplotype of the LIPC gene with hyperalphalipoproteinemia in two independent populations. J. Hum. Genet. 53, 193–200 (2008).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.
    Yamakawa-Kobayashi, K., Yanagi, H., Endo, K., Arinami, T. & Hamaguchi, H. Relationship between serum HDL-C levels and common genetic variants of the endothelial lipase gene in Japanese school-aged children. Hum. Genet. 113, 311–315 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    Jiang, X. et al. Targeted mutation of plasma phospholipid transfer protein gene markedly reduces high-density lipoprotein levels. J. Clin. Invest. 103, 907–914 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.
    Tai, E. et al. Polymorphisms at the SRBI locus are associated with lipoprotein levels in subjects with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Clin. Genet. 63, 53–58 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    McCarthy, J. J. et al. Association of genetic variants in the HDL receptor, SR-B1, with abnormal lipids in women with coronary artery disease. J. Med. Genet. 40, 453–458 (2003).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  66. 66.
    Stránecký, V. et al. Mutations in ANTXR1 Cause GAPO Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 92, 792–799 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    Bayram, Y. et al. Whole exome sequencing identifies three novel mutations in ANTXR1 in families with GAPO syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 164, 2328–2334 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.
    O’Driscoll, M., Ruiz-Perez, V. L., Woods, C. G., Jeggo, P. A. & Goodship, J. A. A splicing mutation affecting expression of ataxia–telangiectasia and Rad3–related protein (ATR) results in Seckel syndrome. Nat. Genet. 33, 497–501 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. 69.
    Ogi, T. et al. Identification of the First ATRIP–Deficient Patient and Novel Mutations in ATR Define a Clinical Spectrum for ATR–ATRIP Seckel Syndrome. PLOS Genet. 8, e1002945 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.
    Ellis, N. A. et al. The Bloom’s syndrome gene product is homologous to RecQ helicases. Cell 83, 655–666 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.
    Foucault, F. et al. Characterization of a New BLM Mutation Associated with a Topoisomerase Ilα Defect in a Patient with Bloom’s Syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 6, 1427–1434 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.
    Bicknell, L. S. et al. Mutations in the pre-replication complex cause Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Nat. Genet. 43, 356–359 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    Guernsey, D. L. et al. Mutations in origin recognition complex gene ORC4 cause Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Nat. Genet. 43, 360–364 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Al-Dosari, M. S., Shaheen, R., Colak, D. & Alkuraya, F. S. Novel CENPJ mutation causes Seckel syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 47, 411–414 (2010).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.
    Wallis, G. A., Starman, B. J., Zinn, A. B. & Byers, P. H. Variable expression of osteogenesis imperfecta in a nuclear family is explained by somatic mosaicism for a lethal point mutation in the alpha 1(I) gene (COL1A1) of type I collagen in a parent. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 46, 1034–1040 (1990).
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.
    Spotila, L. D., Sereda, L. & Prockop, D. J. Partial isodisomy for maternal chromosome 7 and short stature in an individual with a mutation at the COL1A2 locus. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51, 1396–1405 (1992).
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  77. 77.
    Paepe, A. D., Nuytinck, L., Raes, M. & Fryns, J.-P. Homozygosity by descent for a COL1A2 mutation in two sibs with severe osteogenesis imperfecta and mild clinical expression in the heterozygotes. Hum. Genet. 99, 478–483 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.
    Briggs, M. D. et al. Pseudoachondroplasia and multiple epiphyseal dysplasia due to mutations in the cartilage oligomeric matrix protein gene. Nat. Genet. 10, 330–336 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. 79.
    Mabuchi, A. et al. Novel types of COMP mutations and genotype-phenotype association in pseudoachondroplasia and multiple epiphyseal dysplasia. Hum. Genet. 112, 84–90 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    Menke, L. A. et al. CREBBP mutations in individuals without Rubinstein–Taybi syndrome phenotype. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 170, 2681–2693 (2016).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.
    Menke, L. A. et al. Further delineation of an entity caused by CREBBP and EP300 mutations but not resembling Rubinstein–Taybi syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 176, 862–876 (2018).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. 82.
    Angius, A. et al. Confirmation of a new phenotype in an individual with a variant in the last part of exon 30 of CREBBP. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 179, 634–638 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Shaheen, R. et al. Genomic analysis of primordial dwarfism reveals novel disease genes. Genome Res. 24, 291–299 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.
    Woods, S. A. et al. Exome sequencing identifies a novel EP300 frame shift mutation in a patient with features that overlap cornelia de lange syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 164, 251–258 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Tsai, A. C.-H. et al. Exon deletions of the EP300 and CREBBP genes in two children with Rubinstein–Taybi syndrome detected by aCGH. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 19, 43–49 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.
    Polymeropoulos, M. H. et al. The Gene for the Ellis–van Creveld Syndrome Is Located on Chromosome 4p16. Genomics 35, 1–5 (1996).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  87. 87.
    Ruiz-Perez, V. L. et al. Mutations in Two Nonhomologous Genes in a Head-to-Head Configuration Cause Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 728–732 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  88. 88.
    Galdzicka, M. et al. A new gene, EVC2, is mutated in Ellis–van Creveld syndrome. Mol. Genet. Metab. 77, 291–295 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. 89.
    Faivre, L. et al. In frame fibrillin-1 gene deletion in autosomal dominant Weill-Marchesani syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 40, 34–36 (2003).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.
    Le Goff, C. et al. Mutations in the TGFβ Binding-Protein-Like Domain 5 of FBN1 Are Responsible for Acromicric and Geleophysic Dysplasias. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 89, 7–14 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  91. 91.
    Horn, D. & Robinson, P. N. Progeroid facial features and lipodystrophy associated with a novel splice site mutation in the final intron of the FBN1 gene. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 155, 721–724 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. 92.
    Takenouchi, T. et al. Severe congenital lipodystrophy and a progeroid appearance: Mutation in the penultimate exon of FBN1 causing a recognizable phenotype. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 161, 3057–3062 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    Hyland, V. J. et al. Somatic and germline mosaicism for a R248C missense mutation in FGFR3, resulting in a skeletal dysplasia distinct from thanatophoric dysplasia. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 120A, 157–168 (2003).
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.
    Toydemir, R. M. et al. A Novel Mutation in FGFR3 Causes Camptodactyly, Tall Stature, and Hearing Loss (CATSHL) Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 79, 935–941 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  95. 95.
    Makrythanasis, P. et al. A Novel Homozygous Mutation in FGFR3 Causes Tall Stature, Severe Lateral Tibial Deviation, Scoliosis, Hearing Impairment, Camptodactyly, and Arachnodactyly. Hum. Mutat. 35, 959–963 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.
    Alanay, Y. et al. Mutations in the Gene Encoding the RER Protein FKBP65 Cause Autosomal-Recessive Osteogenesis Imperfecta. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 86, 551–559 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  97. 97.
    Kelley, B. P. et al. Mutations in FKBP10 cause recessive osteogenesis imperfecta and bruck syndrome. J. Bone Miner. Res. 26, 666–672 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.
    Barnes, A. M. et al. Kuskokwim Syndrome, a Recessive Congenital Contracture Disorder, Extends the Phenotype of FKBP10 Mutations. Hum. Mutat. 34, 1279–1288 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.
    Berg, M. A. et al. Diverse growth hormone receptor gene mutations in Laron syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52, 998–1005 (1993).
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  100. 100.
    Woods, K. A., Fraser, N. C., Postel-Vinay, M. C., Savage, M. O. & Clark, A. J. A homozygous splice site mutation affecting the intracellular domain of the growth hormone (GH) receptor resulting in Laron syndrome with elevated GH-binding protein. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 81, 1686–1690 (1996).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  101. 101.
    Goddard, A. D. et al. Mutations of the Growth Hormone Receptor in Children with Idiopathic Short Stature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199510263331701 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199510263331701 (1995) doi:10.1056/NEJM199510263331701.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  102. 102.
    Ayling, R. M. et al. A dominant-negative mutation of the growth hormone receptor causes familial short stature. Nat. Genet. 16, 13–14 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  103. 103.
    Aoki, Y. et al. Germline mutations in HRAS proto-oncogene cause Costello syndrome. Nat. Genet. 37, 1038–1040 (2005).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  104. 104.
    Schubbert, S. et al. Germline KRAS mutations cause Noonan syndrome. Nat. Genet. 38, 331–336 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  105. 105.
    Carta, C. et al. Germline Missense Mutations Affecting KRAS Isoform B Are Associated with a Severe Noonan Syndrome Phenotype. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 79, 129–135 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  106. 106.
    Varon, R. et al. Nibrin, a Novel DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Protein, Is Mutated in Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome. Cell 93, 467–476 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  107. 107.
    Tanzarella, C. et al. Chromosome instability and nibrin protein variants in NBS heterozygotes. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11, 297–303 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  108. 108.
    Tonkin, E. T., Wang, T.-J., Lisgo, S., Bamshad, M. J. & Strachan, T. NIPBL, encoding a homolog of fungal Scc2-type sister chromatid cohesion proteins and fly Nipped-B, is mutated in Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Nat. Genet. 36, 636–641 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  109. 109.
    Krantz, I. D. et al. Cornelia de Lange syndrome is caused by mutations in NIPBL, the human homolog of Drosophila melanogaster Nipped-B. Nat. Genet. 36, 631–635 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  110. 110.
    Bicknell, L. S. et al. Mutations in ORC1, encoding the largest subunit of the origin recognition complex, cause microcephalic primordial dwarfism resembling Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Nat. Genet. 43, 350–355 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.
    de Munnik, S. A. et al. Meier–Gorlin syndrome genotype–phenotype studies: 35 individuals with pre-replication complex gene mutations and 10 without molecular diagnosis. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 20, 598–606 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.
    Rauch, A. et al. Mutations in the Pericentrin (PCNT) Gene Cause Primordial Dwarfism. Science 319, 816–819 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. 113.
    Griffith, E. et al. Mutations in pericentrin cause Seckel syndrome with defective ATR-dependent DNA damage signaling. Nat. Genet. 40, 232–236 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.
    Piane, M. et al. Majewski osteodysplastic primordial dwarfism type II (MOPD II) syndrome previously diagnosed as Seckel syndrome: Report of a novel mutation of the PCNT gene. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 149A, 2452–2456 (2009).
    OpenUrl
  115. 115.
    van der Slot, A. J. et al. Identification of PLOD2 as Telopeptide Lysyl Hydroxylase, an Important Enzyme in Fibrosis*. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 40967–40972 (2003).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.
    Ha-Vinh, R. et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of Bruck syndrome (osteogenesis imperfecta with contractures of the large joints) caused by a recessive mutation in PLOD2. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 131A, 115–120 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.
    Puig-Hervás, M. T. et al. Mutations in PLOD2 cause autosomal-recessive connective tissue disorders within the Bruck syndrome—Osteogenesis imperfecta phenotypic spectrum. Hum. Mutat. 33, 1444–1449 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.
    Tartaglia, M. et al. Mutations in PTPN11, encoding the protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP-2, cause Noonan syndrome. Nat. Genet. 29, 465–468 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  119. 119.
    Maheshwari, M. et al. PTPN11 Mutations in Noonan syndrome type I: detection of recurrent mutations in exons 3 and 13. Hum. Mutat. 20, 298–304 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  120. 120.
    Kosaki, K. et al. PTPN11 (Protein-Tyrosine Phosphatase, Nonreceptor-Type 11) Mutations in Seven Japanese Patients with Noonan Syndrome. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 87, 3529–3533 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  121. 121.
    Deardorff, M. A. et al. RAD21 Mutations Cause a Human Cohesinopathy. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 90, 1014–1027 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.
    Kruszka, P. et al. Cohesin complex-associated holoprosencephaly. Brain 142, 2631–2643 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. 123.
    Goel, H. & Parasivam, G. Another case of holoprosencephaly associated with RAD21 loss-of-function variant. Brain 143, e64 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.
    Pandit, B. et al. Gain-of-function RAF1 mutations cause Noonan and LEOPARD syndromes with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Nat. Genet. 39, 1007–1012 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  125. 125.
    Razzaque, M. A. et al. Germline gain-of-function mutations in RAF1 cause Noonan syndrome. Nat. Genet. 39, 1013–1017 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  126. 126.
    Lindor, N. M. et al. Rothmund-Thomson syndrome due to RECQ4 helicase mutations: Report and clinical and molecular comparisons with Bloom syndrome and Werner syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. 90, 223–228 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  127. 127.
    Beghini, A., Castorina, P., Roversi, G., Modiano, P. & Larizza, L. RNA processing defects of the helicase gene RECQL4 in a compound heterozygous Rothmund–Thomson patient. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 120A, 395–399 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.
    Wang, L. L. et al. Association Between Osteosarcoma and Deleterious Mutations in the RECQL4 Gene in Rothmund–Thomson Syndrome. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 95, 669–674 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  129. 129.
    Aoki, Y. et al. Gain-of-Function Mutations in RIT1 Cause Noonan Syndrome, a RAS/MAPK Pathway Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93, 173–180 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. 130.
    Bertola, D. R. et al. Further evidence of the importance of RIT1 in Noonan syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 164, 2952–2957 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  131. 131.
    Gos, M. et al. Contribution of RIT1 mutations to the pathogenesis of Noonan syndrome: Four new cases and further evidence of heterogeneity. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 164, 2310–2316 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  132. 132.
    Afzal, A. R. et al. Recessive Robinow syndrome, allelic to dominant brachydactyly type B, is caused by mutation of ROR2. Nat. Genet. 25, 419–422 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  133. 133.
    van Bokhoven, H. et al. Mutation of the gene encoding the ROR2 tyrosine kinase causes autosomal recessive Robinow syndrome. Nat. Genet. 25, 423–426 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  134. 134.
    Tufan, F. et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of two adults with autosomal recessive Robinow syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 136A, 185–189 (2005).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.
    Hästbacka, J., Salonen, R., Laurila, P., Chapelle, A. de la & Kaitila, I. Prenatal diagnosis of diastrophic dysplasia with polymorphic DNA markers. J. Med. Genet. 30, 265–268 (1993).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. 136.
    Rossi, A. & Superti-Furga, A. Mutations in the diastrophic dysplasia sulfate transporter (DTDST) gene (SLC26A2): 22 novel mutations, mutation review, associated skeletal phenotypes, and diagnostic relevance. Hum. Mutat. 17, 159–171 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  137. 137.
    Barreda-Bonis, A. C. et al. Multiple SLC26A2 mutations occurring in a three-generational family. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 61, 24–28 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  138. 138.
    Le Goff, C. et al. Mutations at a single codon in Mad homology 2 domain of SMAD4 cause Myhre syndrome. Nat. Genet. 44, 85–88 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.
    Caputo, V. et al. A Restricted Spectrum of Mutations in the SMAD4 Tumor-Suppressor Gene Underlies Myhre Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 90, 161–169 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.
    Lindor, N. M., Gunawardena, S. R. & Thibodeau, S. N. Mutations of SMAD4 account for both LAPS and Myhre syndromes. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 158A, 1520–1521 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  141. 141.
    Hood, R. L. et al. Mutations in SRCAP, Encoding SNF2-Related CREBBP Activator Protein, Cause Floating-Harbor Syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 90, 308–313 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.
    Goff, C. L. et al. Not All Floating-Harbor Syndrome Cases are Due to Mutations in Exon 34 of SRCAP. Hum. Mutat. 34, 88–92 (2013).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  143. 143.
    Yu, C.-E. et al. Positional Cloning of the Werner’s Syndrome Gene. Science 272, 258–262 (1996).
    OpenUrlAbstract
  144. 144.
    Goto, M. et al. Analysis of helicase gene mutations in Japanese Werner’s syndrome patients. Hum. Genet. 99, 191–193 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  145. 145.
    Yu, C.-E. et al. Mutations in the Consensus Helicase Domains of the Werner Syndrome Gene. Am J Hum Genet 12 (1997).
  146. 146.
    Hampe, J. et al. A genome-wide association scan of nonsynonymous SNPs identifies a susceptibility variant for Crohn disease in ATG16L1. Nat. Genet. 39, 207–211 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  147. 147.
    Rivas, M. A. et al. Deep resequencing of GWAS loci identifies independent rare variants associated with inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Genet. 43, 1066–1073 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.
    Fowler, E. V. et al. TNFα and IL10 SNPs act together to predict disease behaviour in Crohn’s disease. J. Med. Genet. 42, 523–528 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. 149.
    Gasche, C. et al. Novel Variants of the IL-10 Receptor 1 Affect Inhibition of Monocyte TNF-α Production. J. Immunol. 170, 5578–5582 (2003).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  150. 150.
    Mao, H. et al. Exome sequencing identifies novel compound heterozygous mutations of IL-10 receptor 1 in neonatal-onset Crohn’s disease. Genes Immun. 13, 437–442 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  151. 151.
    Glocker, E.-O. et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Mutations Affecting the Interleukin-10 Receptor. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907206 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa0907206 (2009) doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  152. 152.
    Begue, B. et al. Defective IL10 Signaling Defining a Subgroup of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Off. J. Am. Coll. Gastroenterol. ACG 106, 1544–1555 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  153. 153.
    Duerr, R. H. et al. A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies IL23R as an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Gene. Science 314, 1461–1463 (2006).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.
    Libioulle, C. et al. Novel Crohn Disease Locus Identified by Genome-Wide Association Maps to a Gene Desert on 5p13.1 and Modulates Expression of PTGER4. PLOS Genet. 3, e58 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.
    Glas, J. et al. rs1004819 Is the Main Disease-Associated IL23R Variant in German Crohn’s Disease Patients: Combined Analysis of IL23R, CARD15, and OCTN1/2 Variants. PLOS ONE 2, e819 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.
    McCarroll, S. A. et al. Deletion polymorphism upstream of IRGM associated with altered IRGM expression and Crohn’s disease. Nat. Genet. 40, 1107–1112 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  157. 157.
    Craddock, N. et al. Genome-wide association study of CNVs in 16,000 cases of eight common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 464, 713–720 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  158. 158.
    Prescott, N. J. et al. Independent and population-specific association of risk variants at the IRGM locus with Crohn’s disease. Hum. Mol. Genet. 19, 1828–1839 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  159. 159.
    Ogura, Y. et al. A frameshift mutation in NOD2 associated with susceptibility to Crohn’s disease. Nature 411, 603–606 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  160. 160.
    Hugot, J.-P. et al. Association of NOD2 leucine-rich repeat variants with susceptibility to Crohn’s disease. Nature 411, 599–603 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  161. 161.
    Ellinghaus, D. et al. Association Between Variants of PRDM1 and NDP52 and Crohn’s Disease, Based on Exome Sequencing and Functional Studies. Gastroenterology 145, 339–347 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  162. 162.
    Diaz-Gallo, L.-M. et al. Differential association of two PTPN22 coding variants with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 17, 2287–2294 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. 163.
    Fowler, E. V. et al. ATG16L1 T300A Shows Strong Associations With Disease Subgroups in a Large Australian IBD Population: Further Support for Significant Disease Heterogeneity. Off. J. Am. Coll. Gastroenterol. ACG 103, 2519–2526 (2008).
    OpenUrl
  164. 164.
    Fisher, S. A. et al. Genetic determinants of ulcerative colitis include the ECM1 locus and five loci implicated in Crohn’s disease. Nat. Genet. 40, 710–712 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  165. 165.
    Beaudoin, M. et al. Deep Resequencing of GWAS Loci Identifies Rare Variants in CARD9, IL23R and RNF186 That Are Associated with Ulcerative Colitis. PLOS Genet. 9, e1003723 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. 166.
    Rivas, M. A. et al. A protein-truncating R179X variant in RNF186 confers protection against ulcerative colitis. Nat. Commun. 7, 12342 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.
    Reis, A. F. et al. Association of a variant in exon 31 of the sulfonylurea receptor 1 (SUR1) gene with type 2 diabetes mellitus in French Caucasians. Hum. Genet. 107, 138–144 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  168. 168.
    Borowiec, M. et al. Mutations at the BLK locus linked to maturity onset diabetes of the young and β-cell dysfunction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 14460–14465 (2009).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  169. 169.
    Bengtsson-Ellmark, S. H. et al. Association between a polymorphism in the carboxyl ester lipase gene and serum cholesterol profile. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12, 627–632 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.
    Ræder, H. et al. Mutations in the CEL VNTR cause a syndrome of diabetes and pancreatic exocrine dysfunction. Nat. Genet. 38, 54–62 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  171. 171.
    Harding, H. P. et al. Diabetes Mellitus and Exocrine Pancreatic Dysfunction in Perk−/− Mice Reveals a Role for Translational Control in Secretory Cell Survival. Mol. Cell 7, 1153–1163 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  172. 172.
    Brickwood, S. et al. Wolcott-Rallison syndrome: pathogenic insights into neonatal diabetes from new mutation and expression studies of EIF2AK3. J. Med. Genet. 40, 685–689 (2003).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  173. 173.
    Durocher, F. et al. A novel mutation in the EIF2AK3 gene with variable expressivity in two patients with Wolcott–Rallison syndrome. Clin. Genet. 70, 34–38 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.
    Shaw-Smith, C. et al. GATA4 Mutations Are a Cause of Neonatal and Childhood-Onset Diabetes. Diabetes 63, 2888–2894 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  175. 175.
    Yorifuji, T. et al. Dominantly inherited diabetes mellitus caused by GATA6 haploinsufficiency: variable intrafamilial presentation. J. Med. Genet. 49, 642–643 (2012).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  176. 176.
    Franco, E. D. et al. GATA6 Mutations Cause a Broad Phenotypic Spectrum of Diabetes From Pancreatic Agenesis to Adult-Onset Diabetes Without Exocrine Insufficiency. Diabetes 62, 993–997 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  177. 177.
    Froguel, P. et al. Familial Hyperglycemia Due to Mutations in Glucokinase -- Definition of a Subtype of Diabetes Mellitus. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199303113281005 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199303113281005 (1993) doi:10.1056/NEJM199303113281005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  178. 178.
    Senée, V. et al. Mutations in GLIS3 are responsible for a rare syndrome with neonatal diabetes mellitus and congenital hypothyroidism. Nat. Genet. 38, 682–687 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. 179.
    Yamagata, K. et al. Mutations in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1α gene in maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY3). Nature 384, 455–458 (1996).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  180. 180.
    Vaxillaire, M. et al. Identification of Nine Novel Mutations in the Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1 Alpha Gene Associated with Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY3). Hum. Mol. Genet. 6, 583–586 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  181. 181.
    Horikawa, Y. et al. Mutation in hepatocyte nuclear factor–1β gene (TCF2) associated with MODY. Nat. Genet. 17, 384–385 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  182. 182.
    Lindner, T. H. et al. A Novel Syndrome of Diabetes Mellitus, Renal Dysfunction and Genital Malformation Associated with a Partial Deletion of the Pseudo-POU Domain of Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor-1β. Hum. Mol. Genet. 8, 2001–2008 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  183. 183.
    Yamagata, K. et al. Mutations in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-4α gene in maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY1). Nature 384, 458–460 (1996).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  184. 184.
    Stoffel, M. & Duncan, S. A. The maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY1) transcription factor HNF4α regulates expression of genes required for glucose transport and metabolism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94, 13209–13214 (1997).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  185. 185.
    Poulton, C. J. et al. Microcephaly with Simplified Gyration, Epilepsy, and Infantile Diabetes Linked to Inappropriate Apoptosis of Neural Progenitors. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 89, 265–276 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. 186.
    Abdel-Salam, G. M. H. et al. A homozygous IER3IP1 mutation causes microcephaly with simplified gyral pattern, epilepsy, and permanent neonatal diabetes syndrome (MEDS). Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 158A, 2788–2796 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  187. 187.
    Shalev, S. A. et al. Microcephaly, epilepsy, and neonatal diabetes due to compound heterozygous mutations in IER3IP1: insights into the natural history of a rare disorder. Pediatr. Diabetes 15, 252–256 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. 188.
    Støy, J. et al. Insulin gene mutations as a cause of permanent neonatal diabetes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 15040–15044 (2007).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. 189.
    Hani, E. H. et al. Missense mutations in the pancreatic islet beta cell inwardly rectifying K+ channel gene (KIR6.2/BIR): a meta-analysis suggests a role in the polygenic basis of Type II diabetes mellitus in Caucasians. Diabetologia 41, 1511–1515 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  190. 190.
    Gloyn, A. L. et al. Activating Mutations in the Gene Encoding the ATP-Sensitive Potassium-Channel Subunit Kir6.2 and Permanent Neonatal Diabetes. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032922 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa032922 (2004) doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032922.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  191. 191.
    Neve, B. et al. Role of transcription factor KLF11 and its diabetes-associated gene variants in pancreatic beta cell function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 4807–4812 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  192. 192.
    Cao, H. & Hegele, R. A. Nuclear lamin A/C R482Q mutation in Canadian kindreds with Dunnigan-type familial partial lipodystrophy. Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 109–112 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  193. 193.
    Malecki, M. T. et al. Mutations in NEUROD1 are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat. Genet. 23, 323–328 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  194. 194.
    Gradwohl, G., Dierich, A., LeMeur, M. & Guillemot, F. neurogenin3 is required for the development of the four endocrine cell lineages of the pancreas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97, 1607–1611 (2000).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  195. 195.
    Rubio-Cabezas, O. et al. Permanent Neonatal Diabetes and Enteric Anendocrinosis Associated With Biallelic Mutations in NEUROG3. Diabetes 60, 1349–1353 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  196. 196.
    Pinney, S. E. et al. Neonatal Diabetes and Congenital Malabsorptive Diarrhea Attributable to a Novel Mutation in the Human Neurogenin-3 Gene Coding Sequence. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 96, 1960–1965 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  197. 197.
    Shimajiri, Y. et al. A Missense Mutation of Pax4 Gene (R121W) Is Associated With Type 2 Diabetes in Japanese. Diabetes 50, 2864–2869 (2001).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  198. 198.
    Mauvais-Jarvis, F. et al. PAX4 gene variations predispose to ketosis-prone diabetes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 13, 3151–3159 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  199. 199.
    Plengvidhya, N. et al. PAX4 Mutations in Thais with Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 92, 2821–2826 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  200. 200.
    Staffers, D. A., Ferrer, J., Clarke, W. L. & Habener, J. F. Early-onset type-ll diabetes mellitus (MODY4) linked to IPF1. Nat. Genet. 17, 138–139 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  201. 201.
    Macfarlane, W. M. et al. Missense mutations in the insulin promoter factor-1 gene predispose to type 2 diabetes. J. Clin. Invest. 104, R33–R39 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  202. 202.
    Hani, E. H. et al. Defective mutations in the insulin promoter factor-1 (IPF-1) gene in late-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus. J. Clin. Invest. 104, R41–R48 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  203. 203.
    Deeb, S. S. et al. A Pro12Ala substitution in PPARγ2 associated with decreased receptor activity, lower body mass index and improved insulin sensitivity. Nat. Genet. 20, 284–287 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  204. 204.
    Savage, D. B. et al. Digenic inheritance of severe insulin resistance in a human pedigree. Nat. Genet. 31, 379–384 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  205. 205.
    Sellick, G. S. et al. Mutations in PTF1A cause pancreatic and cerebellar agenesis. Nat. Genet. 36, 1301–1305 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  206. 206.
    Smith, S. B. et al. Rfx6 directs islet formation and insulin production in mice and humans. Nature 463, 775–780 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  207. 207.
    Sansbury, F. H. et al. Biallelic RFX6 mutations can cause childhood as well as neonatal onset diabetes mellitus. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23, 1744–1748 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  208. 208.
    Labay, V. et al. Mutations in SLC19A2 cause thiamine-responsive megaloblastic anaemia associated with diabetes mellitus and deafness. Nat. Genet. 22, 300–304 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  209. 209.
    Oishi, K. et al. Targeted disruption of Slc19a2, the gene encoding the high-affinity thiamin transporter Thtr-1, causes diabetes mellitus, sensorineural deafness and megaloblastosis in mice. Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2951–2960 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  210. 210.
    Shaw-Smith, C. et al. Recessive SLC19A2 mutations are a cause of neonatal diabetes mellitus in thiamine-responsive megaloblastic anaemia. Pediatr. Diabetes 13, 314–321 (2012).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  211. 211.
    Laukkanen, O. et al. Polymorphisms in the SLC2A2 (GLUT2) Gene Are Associated With the Conversion From Impaired Glucose Tolerance to Type 2 Diabetes : The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Diabetes 54, 2256–2260 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  212. 212.
    Sansbury, F. H. et al. SLC2A2 mutations can cause neonatal diabetes, suggesting GLUT2 may have a role in human insulin secretion. Diabetologia 55, 2381–2385 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. 213.
    Strom, T. M. et al. Diabetes Insipidus, Diabetes Mellitus, Optic Atrophy and Deafness (DIDMOAD) Caused by Mutations in a Novel Gene (Wolframin) Coding for a Predicted Transmembrane Protein. Hum. Mol. Genet. 7, 2021–2028 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  214. 214.
    Hardy, C. et al. Clinical and Molecular Genetic Analysis of 19 Wolfram Syndrome Kindreds Demonstrating a Wide Spectrum of Mutations in WFS1. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 65, 1279–1290 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  215. 215.
    Khanim, F., Kirk, J., Latif, F. & Barrett, T. G. WFS1/wolframin mutations, Wolfram syndrome, and associated diseases. Hum. Mutat. 17, 357–367 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  216. 216.
    Mackay, D. J. G. et al. Hypomethylation of multiple imprinted loci in individuals with transient neonatal diabetes is associated with mutations in ZFP57. Nat. Genet. 40, 949–951 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  217. 217.
    Boonen, S. E. et al. Transient Neonatal Diabetes, ZFP57, and Hypomethylation of Multiple Imprinted Loci: A detailed follow-up. Diabetes Care 36, 505–512 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  218. 218.↵
    Dietlein, F. et al. Identification of cancer driver genes based on nucleotide context. Nat. Genet. 52, 208–218 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  219. 219.
    Hukku, A. et al. Probabilistic colocalization of genetic variants from complex and molecular traits: promise and limitations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 108, 25–35 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  220. 220.
    Dobbyn, A. et al. Landscape of Conditional eQTL in Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Co-localization with Schizophrenia GWAS. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 102, 1169–1184 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  221. 221.
    Zhang, T. et al. Cell-type–specific eQTL of primary melanocytes facilitates identification of melanoma susceptibility genes. Genome Res. 28, 1621–1635 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  222. 222.
    Schmiedel, B. J. et al. Impact of Genetic Polymorphisms on Human Immune Cell Gene Expression. Cell 175, 1701-1715.e16 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  223. 223.
    Glastonbury, C. A., Alves, A. C., Moustafa, J. S. E.-S. & Small, K. S. Cell-Type Heterogeneity in Adipose Tissue Is Associated with Complex Traits and Reveals Disease-Relevant Cell-Specific eQTLs. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 1013–1024 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  224. 224.
    Rai, V. et al. Single-cell ATAC-Seq in human pancreatic islets and deep learning upscaling of rare cells reveals cell-specific type 2 diabetes regulatory signatures. Mol. Metab. 32, 109–121 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  225. 225.
    Findley, A. S. et al. Functional dynamic genetic effects on gene regulation are specific to particular cell types and environmental conditions. eLife 10, e67077 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  226. 226.
    Neavin, D. et al. Single cell eQTL analysis identifies cell type-specific genetic control of gene expression in fibroblasts and reprogrammed induced pluripotent stem cells. Genome Biol. 22, 76 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  227. 227.
    Ota, M. et al. Dynamic landscape of immune cell-specific gene regulation in immune-mediated diseases. Cell 184, 3006-3021.e17 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  228. 228.
    Patel, D. et al. Cell-type-specific expression quantitative trait loci associated with Alzheimer disease in blood and brain tissue. Transl. Psychiatry 11, 1–17 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  229. 229.
    Bryois, J. et al. Cell-type specific cis-eQTLs in eight brain cell-types identifies novel risk genes for human brain disorders. 2021.10.09.21264604 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.09.21264604 (2021).
  230. 230.
    Arvanitis, M., Tayeb, K., Strober, B. J. & Battle, A. Redefining tissue specificity of genetic regulation of gene expression in the presence of allelic heterogeneity. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 109, 223–239 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  231. 231.
    Oelen, R. et al. Single-cell RNA-sequencing of peripheral blood mononuclear cells reveals widespread, context-specific gene expression regulation upon pathogenic exposure. Nat. Commun. 13, 3267 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  232. 232.
    Perez, R. K. et al. Single-cell RNA-seq reveals cell type–specific molecular and genetic associations to lupus. Science 376, eabf1970 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  233. 233.
    Schmiedel, B. J. et al. Single-cell eQTL analysis of activated T cell subsets reveals activation and cell type–dependent effects of disease-risk variants. Sci. Immunol. 7, eabm2508 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  234. 234.
    Yazar, S. et al. Single-cell eQTL mapping identifies cell type–specific genetic control of autoimmune disease. Science 376, eabf3041 (2022).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  235. 235.
    Strober, B. J. et al. Dynamic genetic regulation of gene expression during cellular differentiation. Science 364, 1287–1290 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  236. 236.
    Cuomo, A. S. E. et al. Single-cell RNA-sequencing of differentiating iPS cells reveals dynamic genetic effects on gene expression. Nat. Commun. 11, 810 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  237. 237.
    Bonder, M. J. et al. Identification of rare and common regulatory variants in pluripotent cells using population-scale transcriptomics. Nat. Genet. 53, 313–321 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  238. 238.
    Jerber, J. et al. Population-scale single-cell RNA-seq profiling across dopaminergic neuron differentiation. Nat. Genet. 53, 304–312 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  239. 239.
    Aygün, N. et al. Inferring cell-type-specific causal gene regulatory networks during human neurogenesis. 2022.04.25.488920 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.25.488920 (2022).
  240. 240.
    Elorbany, R. et al. Single-cell sequencing reveals lineage-specific dynamic genetic regulation of gene expression during human cardiomyocyte differentiation. PLOS Genet. 18, e1009666 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  241. 241.
    Huh, D. & Paulsson, J. Non-genetic heterogeneity from stochastic partitioning at cell division. Nat. Genet. 43, 95–100 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  242. 242.
    Knowles, D. A. et al. Allele-specific expression reveals interactions between genetic variation and environment. Nat. Methods 14, 699–702 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  243. 243.
    Kim-Hellmuth, S. et al. Genetic regulatory effects modified by immune activation contribute to autoimmune disease associations. Nat. Commun. 8, 266 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  244. 244.
    Balliu, B. et al. An integrated approach to identify environmental modulators of genetic risk factors for complex traits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 108, 1866–1879 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  245. 245.
    Mu, Z. et al. The impact of cell type and context-dependent regulatory variants on human immune traits. Genome Biol. 22, 122 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  246. 246.
    Ward, M. C., Banovich, N. E., Sarkar, A., Stephens, M. & Gilad, Y. Dynamic effects of genetic variation on gene expression revealed following hypoxic stress in cardiomyocytes. eLife 10, e57345 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  247. 247.
    Nathan, A. et al. Single-cell eQTL models reveal dynamic T cell state dependence of disease loci. Nature 606, 120–128 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  248. 248.
    Baca, S. C. et al. Genetic determinants of chromatin reveal prostate cancer risk mediated by context-dependent gene regulation. Nat. Genet. 54, 1364–1375 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  249. 249.
    Fu, J. et al. System-wide molecular evidence for phenotypic buffering in Arabidopsis. Nat. Genet. 41, 166–167 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  250. 250.
    Dori-Bachash, M., Shema, E. & Tirosh, I. Coupled Evolution of Transcription and mRNA Degradation. PLOS Biol. 9, e1001106 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  251. 251.
    Ghazalpour, A. et al. Comparative Analysis of Proteome and Transcriptome Variation in Mouse. PLOS Genet. 7, e1001393 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  252. 252.
    Pai, A. A. et al. The Contribution of RNA Decay Quantitative Trait Loci to Inter-Individual Variation in Steady-State Gene Expression Levels. PLOS Genet. 8, e1003000 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  253. 253.
    Vogel, C. & Marcotte, E. M. Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and transcriptomic analyses. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 227–232 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  254. 254.
    Khan, Z. et al. Primate Transcript and Protein Expression Levels Evolve Under Compensatory Selection Pressures. Science 342, 1100–1104 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  255. 255.
    Wu, L. et al. Variation and genetic control of protein abundance in humans. Nature 499, 79–82 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  256. 256.
    McManus, C. J., May, G. E., Spealman, P. & Shteyman, A. Ribosome profiling reveals post-transcriptional buffering of divergent gene expression in yeast. Genome Res. 24, 422–430 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  257. 257.
    Albert, F. W. & Kruglyak, L. The role of regulatory variation in complex traits and disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 197–212 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  258. 258.
    Bader, D. M. et al. Negative feedback buffers effects of regulatory variants. Mol. Syst. Biol. 11, 785 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  259. 259.
    Battle, A. et al. Impact of regulatory variation from RNA to protein. Science 347, 664–667 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  260. 260.
    Cenik, C. et al. Integrative analysis of RNA, translation, and protein levels reveals distinct regulatory variation across humans. Genome Res. 25, 1610–1621 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  261. 261.
    McManus, J., Cheng, Z. & Vogel, C. Next-generation analysis of gene expression regulation – comparing the roles of synthesis and degradation. Mol. Biosyst. 11, 2680–2689 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  262. 262.
    Pai, A. A., Pritchard, J. K. & Gilad, Y. The Genetic and Mechanistic Basis for Variation in Gene Regulation. PLOS Genet. 11, e1004857 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  263. 263.
    Schafer, S. et al. Translational regulation shapes the molecular landscape of complex disease phenotypes. Nat. Commun. 6, 7200 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  264. 264.
    Chick, J. M. et al. Defining the consequences of genetic variation on a proteome-wide scale. Nature 534, 500–505 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  265. 265.
    Liu, Y., Beyer, A. & Aebersold, R. On the Dependency of Cellular Protein Levels on mRNA Abundance. Cell 165, 535–550 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  266. 266.
    Schaefke, B., Sun, W., Li, Y.-S., Fang, L. & Chen, W. The evolution of posttranscriptional regulation. WIREs RNA 9, e1485 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  267. 267.
    Buccitelli, C. & Selbach, M. mRNAs, proteins and the emerging principles of gene expression control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 630–644 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  268. 268.
    Wang, Z.-Y. et al. Transcriptome and translatome co-evolution in mammals. Nature 1–6 (2020) doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2899-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  269. 269.
    Kusnadi, E. P., Timpone, C., Topisirovic, I., Larsson, O. & Furic, L. Regulation of gene expression via translational buffering. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA - Mol. Cell Res. 1869, 119140 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  270. 270.
    Pedraza, J. M. & Paulsson, J. Effects of Molecular Memory and Bursting on Fluctuations in Gene Expression. Science 319, 339–343 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  271. 271.
    Raj, A. & Oudenaarden, A. van. Nature, Nurture, or Chance: Stochastic Gene Expression and Its Consequences. Cell 135, 216–226 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  272. 272.
    Shahrezaei, V. & Swain, P. S. Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 17256–17261 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  273. 273.
    Larson, D. R., Singer, R. H. & Zenklusen, D. A single molecule view of gene expression. Trends Cell Biol. 19, 630–637 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  274. 274.
    Raj, A. & van Oudenaarden, A. Single-Molecule Approaches to Stochastic Gene Expression. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 38, 255–270 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  275. 275.
    Suter, D. M. et al. Mammalian Genes Are Transcribed with Widely Different Bursting Kinetics. Science 332, 472–474 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  276. 276.
    Dar, R. D. et al. Transcriptional burst frequency and burst size are equally modulated across the human genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 17454–17459 (2012).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  277. 277.
    Viñuelas, J. et al. Quantifying the contribution of chromatin dynamics to stochastic gene expression reveals long, locus-dependent periods between transcriptional bursts. BMC Biol. 11, 15 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  278. 278.
    Kumar, N., Singh, A. & Kulkarni, R. V. Transcriptional Bursting in Gene Expression: Analytical Results for General Stochastic Models. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004292 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  279. 279.
    Nicolas, D., Phillips, N. E. & Naef, F. What shapes eukaryotic transcriptional bursting? Mol. Biosyst. 13, 1280–1290 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  280. 280.
    Qiu, H., Zhang, B. & Zhou, T. Analytical results for a generalized model of bursty gene expression with molecular memory. Phys. Rev. E 100, 012128 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  281. 281.
    Wang, Z., Zhang, Z. & Zhou, T. Exact distributions for stochastic models of gene expression with arbitrary regulation. Sci. China Math. 63, 485–500 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  282. 282.↵
    Blair, D. R. et al. A Nondegenerate Code of Deleterious Variants in Mendelian Loci Contributes to Complex Disease Risk. Cell 155, 70–80 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  283. 283.↵
    Voight, B. F. et al. Twelve type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci identified through large-scale association analysis. Nat. Genet. 42, 579–589 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  284. 284.↵
    Chan, Y. et al. Genome-wide Analysis of Body Proportion Classifies Height-Associated Variants by Mechanism of Action and Implicates Genes Important for Skeletal Development. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 96, 695–708 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  285. 285.↵
    Kathiresan, S. & Srivastava, D. Genetics of Human Cardiovascular Disease. Cell 148, 1242–1257 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  286. 286.↵
    Zhu, X., Need, A. C., Petrovski, S. & Goldstein, D. B. One gene, many neuropsychiatric disorders: lessons from Mendelian diseases. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 773–781 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  287. 287.↵
    Vuckovic, D. et al. The Polygenic and Monogenic Basis of Blood Traits and Diseases. Cell 182, 1214-1231.e11 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  288. 288.↵
    Mountjoy, E. et al. An open approach to systematically prioritize causal variants and genes at all published human GWAS trait-associated loci. Nat. Genet. 53, 1527–1533 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  289. 289.↵
    McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD). Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM®. (2021).
  290. 290.↵
    Deardorff, M. A. et al. Mutations in Cohesin Complex Members SMC3 and SMC1A Cause a Mild Variant of Cornelia de Lange Syndrome with Predominant Mental Retardation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 80, 485–494 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  291. 291.↵
    Cummings, B. B. et al. Transcript expression-aware annotation improves rare variant interpretation. Nature 581, 452–458 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  292. 292.↵
    Bycroft, C. et al. Genome-wide genetic data on ∼500,000 UK Biobank participants. 166298 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/166298v1 (2017) doi:10.1101/166298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  293. 293.↵
    Chang, C. C. et al. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience 4, (2015).
  294. 294.↵
    Taliun, D. et al. Sequencing of 53,831 diverse genomes from the NHLBI TOPMed Program. Nature 590, 290–299 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  295. 295.↵
    Galinsky, K. J. et al. Fast Principal-Component Analysis Reveals Convergent Evolution of ADH1B in Europe and East Asia. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 456–472 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  296. 296.↵
    Galinsky, K. J., Loh, P.-R., Mallick, S., Patterson, N. J. & Price, A. L. Population Structure of UK Biobank and Ancient Eurasians Reveals Adaptation at Genes Influencing Blood Pressure. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 1130–1139 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  297. 297.↵
    Danecek, P. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience 10, (2021).
  298. 298.↵
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  299. 299.↵
    Weissbrod, O. et al. Functionally informed fine-mapping and polygenic localization of complex trait heritability. Nat. Genet. 52, 1355–1363 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  300. 300.↵
    Aguet, F. et al. Genetic effects on gene expression across human tissues. Nature 550, 204–213 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  301. 301.
    Park, Y., Sarkar, A., Bhutani, K. & Kellis, M. Multi-tissue polygenic models for transcriptome-wide association studies. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/107623 (2017) doi:10.1101/107623.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  302. 302.↵
    Gamazon, E. R., Zwinderman, A. H., Cox, N. J., Denys, D. & Derks, E. M. Multi-tissue transcriptome analyses identify genetic mechanisms underlying neuropsychiatric traits. Nat. Genet. 51, 933–940 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted October 13, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
The missing link between genetic association and regulatory function
Noah Connally, Sumaiya Nazeen, Daniel Lee, Huwenbo Shi, John Stamatoyannopoulos, Sung Chun, Chris Cotsapas, Christopher A. Cassa, Shamil Sunyaev
medRxiv 2021.06.08.21258515; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.08.21258515
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area