Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27640306›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2016

Are Interactions between cis-Regulatory Variants Evidence for Biological Epistasis or Statistical Artifacts?

Alexandra E Fish, John A Capra, William S Bush

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A haptoglobin (HP) structural variant alters the effect of APOE alleles on Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Genetics ofeLife · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Alexandra E FishVanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA.
John A CapraVanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA; Departments of Biological Sciences, Biomedical Informatics, and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA.
William S BushInstitute for Computational Biology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. Electronic address: willbush@case.edu.

Funding

Training Program on Genetic Variation and Human PhenotypesT32GM080178 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI COX, NANCY J, SAMUELS, DAVID C · 2007 to 2021
$3.1M
GPU-Accelerated Parallel Computer for Drug Discovery ApplicationsS10OD020154 · OD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, JARROD ANSON · 2015 to 2015
$225k
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM080178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of epistasis-or statistical interactions between genetic variants-to the development of complex disease in humans has been controversial. Genome-wide association studies of statistical interactions influencing human traits have recently become computationally feasible and have identified many putative interactions. However, statistical models used to detect interactions can be confounded, which makes it difficult to be certain that observed statistical interactions are evidence for true molecular epistasis. In this study, we investigate whether there is evidence for epistatic interactions between genetic variants within the cis-regulatory region that influence gene expression after accounting for technical, statistical, and biological confounding factors. We identified 1,119 (FDR = 5%) interactions that appear to regulate gene expression in human lymphoblastoid cell lines, a tightly controlled, largely genetically determined phenotype. Many of these interactions replicated in an independent dataset (90 of 803 tested, Bonferroni threshold). We then performed an exhaustive analysis of both known and novel confounders, including ceiling/floor effects, missing genotype combinations, haplotype effects, single variants tagged through linkage disequilibrium, and population stratification. Every interaction could be explained by at least one of these confounders, and replication in independent datasets did not protect against some confounders. Assuming that the confounding factors provide a more parsimonious explanation for each interaction, we find it unlikely that cis-regulatory interactions contribute strongly to human gene expression, which calls into question the relevance of cis-regulatory interactions for other human phenotypes. We additionally propose several best practices for epistasis testing to protect future studies from confounding.

Indexed as

ArtifactsModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalBinding SitesDatasets as TopicEpistasis, GeneticEthnicityGene Expression RegulationGenetic VariationHaplotypesHumansLinkage DisequilibriumPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociRegulatory Sequences, Nucleic AcidRNA-Binding ProteinsCPEB4 protein, humanRNA-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID27640306
PMCPMC5065654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.