ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Spatially Contextualized Integrative Genomics Highlights Neuronal and Glial Regulatory Programs in Low Back Pain.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Low back pain (LBP) is a heterogeneous pain condition with a measurable genetic contribution, but the genes, brain cell types, and spatial tissue contexts through which inherited risk is expressed remain unclear. We aimed to define cell-type-specific and spatially contextualized genetic mechanisms underlying LBP. Methods: FinnGen R12 LBP GWAS summary statistics (42,521 cases and 353,224 controls) were integrated with brain single-nuclei eQTL data across eight major brain cell classes. We evaluated genome-wide polygenic signal using LDSC, prioritized genes using MAGMA and PoPS, and performed brain cell-type-specific eQTL-anchored Mendelian randomization, primarily based on single-instrument Wald ratio estimates, followed by Bayesian colocalization. Spatial genetic mapping was conducted using gsMap in an E16.5 murine embryonic atlas and two adult human lumbar spinal cord Visium sections. Selected candidates were assessed by RT-qPCR in neuronal-like and astroglial-like inflammatory cell models. Results: LDSC supported interpretable polygenic signal for LBP. MAGMA and PoPS showed partial gene-level convergence, with TCF4 and TMEFF2 supported by both approaches. Across 1641 tested gene-cell type exposures, significant eQTL-anchored MR associations were concentrated in excitatory neurons, oligodendrocytes, inhibitory neurons, and astrocytes. Integrated eQTL-anchored MR, colocalization, and gene-prioritization evidence highlighted CLEC18A, QPRT, and GMPPB as higher-priority non-MHC candidates with moderate, but not strong, colocalization support. gsMap localized LBP-associated enrichment to neuroaxis-related embryonic regions, including brain, spinal cord, sympathetic nerve, and dorsal root ganglion, and to neuronal-like niches in adult lumbar spinal cord. RT-qPCR showed model-dependent expression changes, with QPRT and LGI4 preferentially responsive in neuronal-like SH-SY5Y cells and GMPPB and DPYSL5 responsive in astroglial-like U251 cells. Conclusion: These findings support neuronal and glial regulatory programs as plausible contributors to LBP genetic susceptibility and highlight CLEC18A, QPRT, and GMPPB as higher-priority non-MHC candidates with moderate colocalization support. The results provide a spatially contextualized framework for candidate prioritization in LBP, while emphasizing the need for larger cell-type-specific eQTL resources and functional validation before therapeutic or mechanistic conclusions can be drawn.
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.