ArticlePloS one2014
Purifying selection in deeply conserved human enhancers is more consistent than in coding sequences.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization and functional analysis of conserved non-coding sequences among poaceae: insights into gene regulation and phenotypic variation in maize.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Genetic Analysis Based on MitochondrialGenes · 2023Article
- Impact of Genetic Variation in Gene Regulatory Sequences: A Population Genomics Perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Allele-specific epigenome maps reveal sequence-dependent stochastic switching at regulatory loci.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- A site specific model and analysis of the neutral somatic mutation rate in whole-genome cancer data.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Conserved non-coding elements: developmental gene regulation meets genome organization.Nucleic acids research · 2017Review
- A Simple Predictive Enhancer Syntax for Hindbrain Patterning Is Conserved in Vertebrate Genomes.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Comparison of polymorphism at synonymous and non-synonymous sites in protein-coding DNA can provide evidence for selective constraint. Non-coding DNA that forms part of the regulatory landscape presents more of a challenge since there is not such a clear-cut distinction between sites under stronger and weaker selective constraint. Here, we consider putative regulatory elements termed Conserved Non-coding Elements (CNEs) defined by their high level of sequence identity across all vertebrates. Some mutations in these regions have been implicated in developmental disorders; we analyse CNE polymorphism data to investigate whether such deleterious effects are widespread in humans. Single nucleotide variants from the HapMap and 1000 Genomes Projects were mapped across nearly 2000 CNEs. In the 1000 Genomes data we find a significant excess of rare derived alleles in CNEs relative to coding sequences; this pattern is absent in HapMap data, apparently obscured by ascertainment bias. The distribution of polymorphism within CNEs is not uniform; we could identify two categories of sites by exploiting deep vertebrate alignments: stretches that are non-variant, and those that have at least one substitution. The conserved category has fewer polymorphic sites and a greater excess of rare derived alleles, which can be explained by a large proportion of sites under strong purifying selection within humans--higher than that for non-synonymous sites in most protein coding regions, and comparable to that at the strongly conserved trans-dev genes. Conversely, the more evolutionarily labile CNE sites have an allele frequency distribution not significantly different from non-synonymous sites. Future studies should exploit genome-wide re-sequencing to obtain better coverage in selected non-coding regions, given the likelihood that mutations in evolutionarily conserved enhancer sequences are deleterious. Discovery pipelines should validate non-coding variants to aid in identifying causal and risk-enhancing variants in complex disorders, in contrast to the current focus on exome sequencing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.