ArticleHuman genetics2020
A population-based approach for gene prioritization in understanding complex traits.
Article in Human genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability of transposable elements in six genetic isolates from North-Eastern Italy and their relationship with alcohol consumption, tobacco use and BMI.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Aberrantly Expressed Hsa_circ_0060762 and CSE1L as Potential Peripheral Blood Biomarkers for ALS.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Article
- The landscape of autosomal-recessive pathogenic variants in European populations reveals phenotype-specific effects.American journal of human genetics · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene prioritization is the process of determining which variants and genes identified in genetic analyses are likely to cause a disease or a variation in a phenotype. For many genes, neither in vitro nor in vivo testing is available, thus assessing their pathogenic role could be challenging, leading to false-positive or false-negative results. In this paper, we propose an innovative score of gene prioritization based on the population of interest. We introduce the concept of singleton-cohort variants (SC variant), a variant that has allele count equal to one in the cohort under study. The difference between the normalized count of SC variants in the coding region and the normalized count of SC variants in the non-coding region should give a hint regarding the level of constraints for that gene in a specific population. This scoring system is negative when there are constraints that allow the presence of SC variants only in the non-coding region; on the contrary, it is positive when there are no constraints. A complimentary score is the sum of SC variants normalized count in both coding and non-coding regions, which could be used as a proxy of positive or strong purifying selection in a specific population. Our methodology showed a high level of constraining for genes such as USP34 in all subpopulations tested (1000 G dataset). In contrast, some genes showed a high negative score only in specific populations, e.g., MYT1L in Europeans, UBR5 in East Asians, and FBXO11 in Africans.
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.