ArticleBMC genomics2019
Genome-wide enhancer annotations differ significantly in genomic distribution, evolution, and function.
Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- UnlockingNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Genomic language model for predicting enhancers and their allele-specific activity in the human genome.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- An integrative single-nucleus multiomic atlas of the human left ventricle identifies gene regulatory network dynamics across cardiac development, aging, and disease.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Systematic enhancer mapping and functional analysis in zebrafish with optimized CRISPR interference.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Interpreting cis-regulatory interactions from large-scale deep neural networks.Nature genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Integration of chromosome locations and functional aspects of enhancers and topologically associating domains in knowledge graphs enables versatile queries about gene regulation.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Validated Negative Regions (VNRs) in the VISTA Database might be Truncated Forms of Bona Fide Enhancers.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- InterpretingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Cross-tissue patterns of DNA hypomethylation reveal genetically distinct histories of cell development.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Towards a comprehensive regulatory map of Mammalian Genomes.Research square · 2023Article
- Multiple Fra-1-bound enhancers showing different molecular and functional features can cooperate to repress gene transcription.Cell & bioscience · 2023Article
- Cis-regulatory Landscape Size, Constraint, and Tissue Specificity Associate with Gene Function and Expression.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Article
- Decoding enhancer complexity with machine learning and high-throughput discovery.Genome biology · 2023Review
- Review
- Reporter gene assays and chromatin-level assays define substantially non-overlapping sets of enhancer sequences.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Bioinformatic Evaluation of Features on Cis-regulatory Elements at 6q25.1.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2023Review
- DNA Methylation Analysis Reveals Distinct Patterns in Satellite Cell-Derived Myogenic Progenitor Cells of Subjects with Spastic Cerebral Palsy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Multiplexed functional genomic assays to decipher the noncoding genome.Human molecular genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-coding gene regulatory enhancers are essential to transcription in mammalian cells. As a result, a large variety of experimental and computational strategies have been developed to identify cis-regulatory enhancer sequences. Given the differences in the biological signals assayed, some variation in the enhancers identified by different methods is expected; however, the concordance of enhancers identified by different methods has not been comprehensively evaluated. This is critically needed, since in practice, most studies consider enhancers identified by only a single method. Here, we compare enhancer sets from eleven representative strategies in four biological contexts.
resultsAll sets we evaluated overlap significantly more than expected by chance; however, there is significant dissimilarity in their genomic, evolutionary, and functional characteristics, both at the element and base-pair level, within each context. The disagreement is sufficient to influence interpretation of candidate SNPs from GWAS studies, and to lead to disparate conclusions about enhancer and disease mechanisms. Most regions identified as enhancers are supported by only one method, and we find limited evidence that regions identified by multiple methods are better candidates than those identified by a single method. As a result, we cannot recommend the use of any single enhancer identification strategy in all settings.
conclusionsOur results highlight the inherent complexity of enhancer biology and identify an important challenge to mapping the genetic architecture of complex disease. Greater appreciation of how the diverse enhancer identification strategies in use today relate to the dynamic activity of gene regulatory regions is needed to enable robust and reproducible results.
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.