Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26719772›Full record

ReviewEpigenetics & chromatin2015

Making sense of GWAS: using epigenomics and genome engineering to understand the functional relevance of SNPs in non-coding regions of the human genome.

Yu Gyoung Tak, Peggy J Farnham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epigenetics & chromatin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 207 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
207citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

207 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

147 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yu Gyoung TakDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA.
Peggy J FarnhamDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA.

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
Prostate Cancer Risk EnhancersR01CA136924 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI COETZEE, GERHARD A, FARNHAM, PEGGY J · 2010 to 2019
$5.4M
Development of a nuclease-mediated technology to validate chromatin hubsR21HG006761 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI FARNHAM, PEGGY J · 2012 to 2013
$476k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS R01 CA136924NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG006761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considerable progress towards an understanding of complex diseases has been made in recent years due to the development of high-throughput genotyping technologies. Using microarrays that contain millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), Genome Wide Association Studies (GWASs) have identified SNPs that are associated with many complex diseases or traits. For example, as of February 2015, 2111 association studies have identified 15,396 SNPs for various diseases and traits, with the number of identified SNP-disease/trait associations increasing rapidly in recent years. However, it has been difficult for researchers to understand disease risk from GWAS results. This is because most GWAS-identified SNPs are located in non-coding regions of the genome. It is important to consider that the GWAS-identified SNPs serve only as representatives for all SNPs in the same haplotype block, and it is equally likely that other SNPs in high linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the array-identified SNPs are causal for the disease. Because it was hoped that disease-associated coding variants would be identified if the true casual SNPs were known, investigators have expanded their analyses using LD calculation and fine-mapping. However, such analyses also identified risk-associated SNPs located in non-coding regions. Thus, the GWAS field has been left with the conundrum as to how a single-nucleotide change in a non-coding region could confer increased risk for a specific disease. One possible answer to this puzzle is that the variant SNPs cause changes in gene expression levels rather than causing changes in protein function. This review provides a description of (1) advances in genomic and epigenomic approaches that incorporate functional annotation of regulatory elements to prioritize the disease risk-associated SNPs that are located in non-coding regions of the genome for follow-up studies, (2) various computational tools that aid in identifying gene expression changes caused by the non-coding disease-associated SNPs, and (3) experimental approaches to identify target genes of, and study the biological phenotypes conferred by, non-coding disease-associated SNPs.

Indexed as

EnhancersGenome engineeringGWASNon-coding SNPs

Identifiers

PMID26719772
PMCPMC4696349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.